since9
Campaign Veteran
The entire post is a quote:
In light of the above, I feel it would be both prudent and responsible to reexamine this clause in Rule 15: "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts," for one simple and very good reason: According to the Supreme Court of the United States, any such "law" is not a law at all. It's merely un-Constitutional legislation, null and void at that, and carrying no legal authority. It's neither breaking it nor is it a law.
However, what does break the law is any enforcement of such illegitimate legislation, for in so doing, those enforcing it must break higher law, that is, our Constitution, along with their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution.
As Rule 15's second clause quoted above closely resembles the latter, and stands contrary to Supreme Court ruling as reported by Sixteenth American Jursiprudence, 2nd Ed., S. 177, I hereby move it be stricken from the rules.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
In light of the above, I feel it would be both prudent and responsible to reexamine this clause in Rule 15: "Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts," for one simple and very good reason: According to the Supreme Court of the United States, any such "law" is not a law at all. It's merely un-Constitutional legislation, null and void at that, and carrying no legal authority. It's neither breaking it nor is it a law.
However, what does break the law is any enforcement of such illegitimate legislation, for in so doing, those enforcing it must break higher law, that is, our Constitution, along with their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution.
As Rule 15's second clause quoted above closely resembles the latter, and stands contrary to Supreme Court ruling as reported by Sixteenth American Jursiprudence, 2nd Ed., S. 177, I hereby move it be stricken from the rules.
Last edited:
