> ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the

> ever think about how long it took before we reached the modern consensus that non-property owners or women could vote, that slavery should not be allowed, the government should not be allowed to prevent inconvenient news from being published, etc? Have you? Because it didn't happen by magic. They didn't blithely upend things; they argued from first principles and when the founding, axiomatic document listing those principles lacked the needed bases, they changed it through processes that were listed in that document. If it's such a "clear violation", then you can dig through the case law that explores the many edge cases we've already encountered and cite them as part of a robust, not-easily-dismissed argument that this is a violation. Baldly asserting that it's a "clear violation" says nothing except that you consider your own, personal authority to be a sufficient claim. Ortiz, and prosecutors like her, may be doing some really shitty things, but they do have this: when they walk into a courtroom, they actually deliver an argument that seems to leave a solid trail between the Constitution and the conviction of guilt. (And it's the defense's job to deliver an argument that the trail is not sufficiently solid.) Yes. Overturn it. And do it in such a way that it stays overturned.