I'll be sure to visit.

Assuming they don't find a way to revive Edmunds-Tucker, and jail me for being a member of a religion that once advocated polygamy.

Ironically he was just re-elected even though he has admitted cheating on his wife...I think this means he should prosecute his lying hypocritical self

Strict constructionism does not say that all laws are good or logical, just that they should be enforced.

Thankfully, the Constitution says that the judicial branch is in charge of whether such laws can be enforced in the first place.

Constitution > dogmatic strict constructionist judicial theory.

Strict constructionism does not say that all laws are good or logical, just that they should be enforced. To the extent they are not good or logical, their enforcement is one of the best ways to point this out. The solution is not for judges to judges to decide which laws they like or dislike (that has its own set of problems) or to decide the case outside of the law, but to change the law. If the legislature won't act, then the voters can act on the legislature.

Another example of this is the Chicago goose liver law. To make the choice not to enforce the law is exactly the wrong way to go about it. Enforce the law with full vigor to bring it to the attention of the voters so that the law can be repealed.

The state is perfectly happy to have every aspect of your life criminalized, and your staying out of prison made entirely dependent upon the discretion - and mercy - of the state.

That's about right, really.

This demonstrates the absurdity of "strict constructionism" taken as dogma. It is merely a tool available to judges, and though some (Scalia) would have us believe that legislative intent (demonstrated through debate histories, context, and other evidence) is never to be considered, the natural result of ignoring it is to countenance an untold abundance of absurdities. Thankfully, we do have a federal constitution to knock out the most egregious of the violations created thusly, but that won't stop the majority, particularly with justices thereupon who insist that proportionalism has no place in determining whether a punishment fits the crime (again, unsurprisingly, Scalia).