Post removed

[unblock]

41. there's no temporal incongruity.

this happens in law all the time. courts do not generally rule on matters in advance, and people do not generally get permission first.

people do things. then, perhaps, there is a court case and the courts, after the fact, sometimes well after the fact, determine if the actions were legal at the time.

the courts are not making new law when they do so, they are determining what was already was legal, based on the constitution and/or previous laws.

the right to an abortion didn't suddenly materialize in 1973 when roe v. wade was decided. that decision clarified that the right already existed.

it's really not much different than the way science works. newton didn't invent gravity, he simply clarified our thinking about it. gravity existed long before he described it in detail. no temporal incongruity, no time travel machine. just clarification of what already was.


as for supreme court decisions "proving" something is constitutional, well, they can get it wrong and do in fact revise decisions, albeit pretty rarely. usually they just provide further clarifications.

in any event, it is not a "proof", but a decision, albeit the final decision. at least, until overturned by further legislation, or perhaps a constitutional amendment, or maybe even a future supreme court decision.