I think it will be instructive to share an email 'conversation' with an attorney who opposes the Arizona Immigration Bill (SB1070) on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. (I have taken some editorial license here by adding a few sentences for clarification. Those additions are bolded.)

Yesterday, I sent this message to an attorney, Mr. A.K. -

(From JS):  "The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, opposes AZ's new  immigration laws. Reportedly (NOT verified), Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer,released the  following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

“What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn’t be ejected. Furthermore, what if Suns’ ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?””

AK to JS: The question of whether  the AZ law is constitutional does not depend on such frivolity. I expect that the Federal District judge in Phoenix will issue a TRO (temporary restraining order) this week barring the law from going into effect until she can determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

JS To AK:  Re: AZ Gov. vs. Suns Owner

It is too bad that the risk of death by Arizonans hinges on the arbitrariness of the interpretation of Constitutionality.

It should be clear to anyone that while the Governor's comments (again, not verified) were made tongue in cheek, on the small scale used to exemplify the larger problem she is absolutely accurate.

Your comment about frivolity seems demeaning.

You are 100 per cent correct. The Az. issue is VERY serious. That is why the question of Constitutionality (which has no bearing when Congress is in session) is a meaningless issue if one is serious.

I understand you hold the LAW near and dear to your heart, and have incorporated it, integrating it into your persona. I know it smarts and causes cognitive dissonance to think about how political ideology thwarts 'blind justice' on a frequent basis.

Perish the thought that there should ever be unanimity of opinion among attorneys and judges - especially in the Supreme Court, where Politics NEVER holds sway. I find it abhorrent to know that in a clear cut Medicolegal case that would be open and shut if a scientific jury of peers (meaning honest physicians) 'held court,' the verdict could well be a toss up if a medical prostitute is a witness for the plaintiff (no, I have never been a defendant in a Medicolegal case - knock on wood). A non-medical jury has a very difficult time dealing with medical matters. In my view, non-medical folks should not be jurors in medicolegal cases.

If only LAW were as consistent as Science usually is.

In the blissful ignorance and idealism of my youth, two concepts which attracted me to Medicine were, 1.  I believed it was free of Politics, and 2.  I also thought it was free of the influence, vagaries and idiosyncrasies of 'Law.'   Medicine seemed a 'pure' pursuit, where science and one's head and heart could be let loose, freely, to provide a meaningful reason for one's day to day work. That ideal has been bastardized by 'Law' and Politics.