Reminder: Reasonable people often disagree. The Consumer Electronics Association has found an expert who thinks that SOPA is unconstitutional; I'm sure the MPAA can find an equally reputable expert who thinks that SOPA is not unconstitutional.
Unless you interview a random sample of experts ("80% of constitutional law professors say...") or find some privileged experts ("the Supreme Court says...") relying on expert opinions really doesn't get you anywhere useful.
Laurence Tribe isn’t just some “reasonable guy” or even “reputable expert”. He’s one of the most famous and respected constitutional scholars and professors in the nation: he taught constitutional law to two sitting Supreme Court Justices and the current President.
That doesn't really show any laws being unconstitutional. Yes, there are lots of things we have that aren't in the Constitution, but not even the most adherent textualist thinks you can find everything you need to structure a government within the four corners of a 10-page document. It incorporates by reference hundreds of years of English law and history. The site you linked to mostly just notes examples of that.
Not saying that there aren't unconstitutional laws on the books, but going to one of the top links in your search isn't very illustrative of the point: http://www.krusch.com/real/unconstitutional.html
E.g. 18 U.S.C. §1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters.
He says: "Consequently, Congress explicitly indicated its intent to leave in force all the pre-existing provisions of 18 U.S.C. §1462.
In other words, giving out abortion information over the Internet, as of 1996, is illegal. Wow!"
Except when the Communications Decency Act was challenged in 1996, the government didn't even attempt to defend the enforceability of 1462(c), which prohibited the exchange of "obscene" materials over the internet. While not deleted from the code, it effectively can't be enforced because the government acquiesced on its obvious unconstitutionality. And the other parts of the CDA that they did try to defend were struck down by the Supreme Court.
You have to remember that "the law" in the U.S. isn't just what's in the statutes, it's what's in the statues + court decisions. There's a lot of garbage in the U.S. Code that can't be enforced because of court decisions like that.
There are parts of the constitution open to interpretation, such as the 2nd amendment, which is just poor sentence structure. The 1st is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means. This is a good thing, since our citizens need to be able to understand and participate in this basic framework. There are many things we have done in the U.S. which have and continue to violate this 1st amendment. Just because we've encroached on it in the past should not make this SOPA threat any more palatable. Besides, SOPA appears to be more than just a 1st amendment violation. Ripping by due process is a huge problem.
The 1st [amendment] is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means.
What's clear to you isn't necessarily clear to the supreme court. A literal reading of the 1st amendment tells me that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected, as is libel and distributing child pornography; fortunately courts have a habit of reading common sense into these things.
There's no justification for a law prohibiting shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and such a law is unconstitutional. What is justified is holding people liable for the consequences of their actions, so if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and a panic occurs and people are injured, you should be punished.
You don't need laws prohibiting arbitrary behaviors that might or might not cause any actual harm, if you just enforce strict liability. And the deterrent effect is still there, since anybody reasonable (read: the same people who would obey "the law" in the first place) would know better than to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, due to the consequences. And in the freak occurrence where somebody does shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and nothing happens, they aren't punished for a non-event.
Law isn't really big enough where there are a room full of people equally as reputable as Lawrence Tribe that you can poll. This is really more like "Paul Dirac says X about physics."
Sure, but even given that the headline is reasonable. It is quite rational to judge the credibility of a prediction on the basis of the credibility of the person making the prediction. Paul Dirac might've been wrong numerous times in his career, but you can bet if another physicist got a letter from Dirac disagreeing with their results, they'd check their math a couple of more times!
Unless you interview a random sample of experts ("80% of constitutional law professors say...") or find some privileged experts ("the Supreme Court says...") relying on expert opinions really doesn't get you anywhere useful.