But here you miss the point that in the real world what the courts say on matters of law, including the Constitution, trumps your opinion. Why? Because the Founding Fathers said so (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
No, don't miss that point at all. Just because I am required to abide by an unjust legal decision does not mean I need agree that it was a correct resolution, or that it was indeed decided correctly for society at large.
Judges/courts are often forced by these dances in conflicting precedent into technically correct although obviously unjust decisions. Though they seldom care to correct their contortions in a clear manner, hope springs eternal. If it never happened I might still be tied to a wagon scrapping sugar cane on some hellhole plantation, being flogged for my insolence.
No point going further with it then, eh? O'course, if such argument really favored the people-control grabberz position, it might be worth considering a rebuttal.