SmarterthanYou
rebel
any lawyers care to chime in? If a state or federal law is blatantly unconstitutional, are we required to follow that law until it is deemed unconstitutional by the courts?
Do we have to follow and obey an obviously unconstitutional law?
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Im not a lawyer, but i believe we are required to follow laws. That's the nature of the beast.
I believe our opinions of their unconstitutionality are just considered ignorant or wrong until they are, indeed, overturned by a court.
I believe our opinions of their unconstitutionality are just considered ignorant or wrong until they are, indeed, overturned by a court.
Ohcapzag
Banned
Anyone can claim to be a lawyer on a chat board, so you never know if they're qualified.
Why not ask a lawyer by phone? I'm sure there are some near you who'd be willing to answer that question.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
so when did that get overturned?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Why are you asking then? I still think you might have tough time making it stick.
I would like to see individuals deciding laws are unconstitutional and not following them, and then succeeding based on this precedent.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
IF any lawyers respond here, please note if you would advise clients to disobey laws based on this marbury v. madison precedent.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the law is valid until such time it is ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Of course, if you are prosecuted for violating the law you can raise unconstitutionality as a defense and, if you are right, you cannot be punished. But, it seems like a risky and expensive proposition.
Shorter version: convince one of your militia buddies to be the test case.
Shorter version: convince one of your militia buddies to be the test case.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
in other words, we've given government way too much power because they can make any laws they wish to, but it will cost us life and limb to prove unconstitutionality. that about right?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Ask Wesley Snipes.
He thinks our tax laws are unconstitutional so he decided he didn't need to pay.
He even had a couple lawyer friends tell him he was in the right...
Unfortunately it didn't work out too well for him...and he was arrested for tax fraud.
Bottom line...roll the dice...take a chance.
If you say so, cochese. I was just trying to answer your question. I didn't realize you were only looking for a jumping off point for one of your diatribes.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you gave me your opinion, not an answer, which is fine and all, but if you can't show me a citation or case law that says such, it doesn't help me.
and you got my 'diatribe' for your snarkiness at the end.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Im not sure there is a law that we have to follow the law. It's just implied by... tradition i guess. LOL.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1962)
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346 (1973)
If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 (1962)
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346 (1973)
If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Kamala Trump
Verified User
That's all well and good, but due to the inherent elitism of the legal structure, regular citizens cannot LEGALLY declare a law unconstitutional. They can have an opinion, defy a law and then pray that a judge agrees with them, but it's still a risk. There's lots of people who say income tax is unconstitutional. A lot of them end up going to jail.
Last edited:
Socrtease
Verified User
THIS!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
probably because you're a cynical, self righteous bastard? k, i'm kidding.
it actually is a serious question though, because as I read case law and the opinions that I posted, I've concluded exactly what I stated my premise was, but in an earlier discussion I had elsewhere, someone said exactly what my question was.....that one has to follow any law, constitutional or not, until the courts decide that it isn't. that seems so wrong to me.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
It's called the totalitarianism of our nation. We have tons of unconstitutional laws, but it takes a judge to officially rule something is unconstitutional. And you don't get to be judge by reading things honestly and making real consitutional decisions. You get to be judge by going along with totalitarian bullshit. It's pretty much all fucked up. The best we can hope for is protectionism so we can keep a couple jobs around and not die.