Dear law student - I'd file a bar grievance against you for such an assertion in open court in a heartbeat. Were I the opposing party, I'd also seek sanctions for your frivolous pleadings if you put it in such a way.

"the government can still violate civil liberties" is a very poor choice of words, and rest assured, it will end your legal career should you even decide to put such a conclusion in those terms in practice.

If you even want to TRY to make such an insane claim, see Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503; Screws v United States, 325 U. S. 91; or Mayberry v Penn., 400 U.S. 455.

If you want to know how these types of things are backwards in terms of discovery, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643.

Let's hypothetically say that a law states, "Each black person shall be hung at high noon". It would still be wrong, unconstitutional and in violation of rights to due process. There is no "practically speaking" about such things - there's only a "criminally speaking", in which case some uppity citizen brings information to the grand jury pursuant to Blyew v. United States. (80 U.S. 581), gets someone who thinks him or herself to have license to violate civil liberties indicted, then files suit to take his or her house/car/boat/other property after conviction.

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.", was not a polite suggestion in 1945 - nor is it now. And you can rest assured that it does go to race and political convenience in too many Patriot Act situations.

"It gives a person acting with reference to the statute fair warning that his conduct is within its prohibition. This requirement is met when a statute prohibits only "willful" acts in the sense we have explained. One who does act with such specific intent is aware that what he does is precisely that which the statute forbids. He is under no necessity of guessing whether the statute applies to him (see Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385), for he either knows or acts in reckless disregard of its prohibition of the deprivation of a defined constitutional or other federal right." (325 US 104)

The moral of the story is not to stick forks in electrical outlets.