Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….
Laws which are blatantly unconstitutional in the first place.
One of the jobs of the SCOTUS is to verify the constitutionality of a law. If this law was "blatantly" unconstitutional, it would have gotten shot down.
Keep in mind that this is the same composition of the Court that shot down handgun restrictions in DC in the
Heller case.
Why is it OK for government to “bypass” the highest law of the land, in order to enact and enforce laws which violate this highest law, but not OK for us, the rightful masters of this nation, to “bypass” these illegal and unconstitutional laws that the government has no authority to enact or enforce against us?
To start with, rights are not absolute.
The 1st Amendment does not grant you the right to defame someone, or to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, to directly threaten someone. The police can enter your home without a warrant if there are expedient circumstances, e.g. in hot pursuit of a criminal who is fleeing a scene.
The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It can be interpreted as "you have the right to own a gun." It doesn't say that "you can transfer a gun to whomever you want, for any reason at any time." It doesn't allow you to own mortars, or a machine gun, or a tank. It doesn't grant you the right to bring a gun into a federal courthouse.
So yes, the Federal Government
can decide that some people should not be allowed to own guns, and it can enact laws that regulate the transfer of guns.
The law needs to be changed to harshly punish public servants who refuse to obey the Constitution.
Uh huh. According to whose interpretation?
Like it or not, the Constitution is not so crystal-clear that every single person in the US agrees about what it says, let alone what it says about laws passed hundreds of years after the Constitution was ratified. In fact, and again: It's the job of the SCOTUS to determine what the Constitution says, and you really aren't going to get a significantly better or different mechanism for this task.
I might add that if sentence "repeat offenders" to death, we'd have to execute a bunch of the Founding Fathers. Even
they didn't agree on what the Constitution meant, e.g. Hamilton supported the idea of a central bank, and many opposed it; Jefferson believed his own purchase of the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional; many Founding Fathers voted for the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were criticized at the time for violating the 1st Amendment, and would surely be seen that way today as well.