"I never said they wouldn't arrest me
I didn't even say the crooked courts would not convict me
I said I know the difference" Like the "Section 98" ruling you "knew" was indicative of US law that was Unconstitutional and it doesn't even exist?
I am saying you need to use real laws to prove Unconstitutionality, you can not just say it and "know it" and it is applicable. An example would be your argument about driver's licenses where your source left out the paragraph legalizing State administration over them in detail.
Or the fabricated Section 98, or the fabricated George Washington gun rights quote, or the fabricated quarantine restrictions. None of them true but you "knew" they were Unconstitutional. For instance you knew Sandy Hook was faked at one time.
I will go with law that
exists to prove Unconstitutional behavior over people that just "know" what it is and toss me lies to support it.
"
You know military men are not to follow illegal orders."
True, yet this is an affirmative defense.
They must prove - using actual laws, not Facebook lies, that the orders were illegal. A court decides.
"Knowing" a law is Unconstitutional while rotting in prison complaining about a crooked court is less appealing to me than using actual law to stay out of prison. I accept I do not "know" if a law is Unconstitutional but instead must prove it using case law to get a judgement in my favor. Marshall had a few things to say about that if we actually read what he wrote and don't let people cherry-pick out of context quotes for us.
Below are the 968 case studies I have used to address this in the past. It is separated by 3 sections.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html They can be cross-referenced here under official record:
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/