What if a law is made unconstitutionally?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
Evil SCOTUS must step in and make a ruling. :devil:
jzeidler
New member
But if it's not made correctly is it really technology a law?
Thomas Jefferson was very much against judiciary tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson explained it in 1798, "Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. ... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
He wanted things done according to the constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
PureX
Well-known member
There are no "correct" or "incorrect" laws. A law is a law until it is set aside by the courts. That's what the judiciary branch of government is for: interpreting and applying the laws.
I'm pretty sure he was also against executive tyranny, and legislative tyranny, and religious tyranny, and economic tyranny, and tyranny of the minority by the majority.
The problem is that the men who wrote our constitution had no models to guide them, and no way of imagining the size and complexity that the nation they were starting, would achieve. So the constitution they wrote was inadequate to the task it had been set, to a significant degree. Yet we can't correct it's deficiencies because the moment we open the door to changing it, every scoundrel, criminal, and would be dictator will immediately seek to rewrite it to their own advantage, by any means necessary and available. So we're stuck with a woefully inadequate constitution that we dare not attempt to correct.
I applaud the founders like Jefferson for their efforts, but sadly, today's United States needs much more explicit guidance than they could have ever provided, and we don't appear capable of producing these extended guidelines for ourselves.
All constitutional governments do. But that requires a lot from a document, and in our case, the document just doesn't measure up.
Actually, the essential idea of creating the three branches of government was to make sure no one branch could overpower the others. So even though the courts do get to determine the constitutionality of our laws, they DON'T GET TO MAKE ANY. And even though the legislative branch does get to make the laws, the executive branch can veto them (to a point) and the judicial branch can declare them unconstitutional. And even though the executive branch can advance or veto the laws that are written and passed by the legislature, it can't make any laws, itself, and it can't determine the constitutionality of the laws proposed or passed.
So there is a balance of power being established by the equal but different responsibilities of each branch of government. The problem is that all three are susceptible to corruption by a very wealthy elite, which is why it's crucial that we don't allow a very wealthy elite to manifest in this country. And unfortunately, we have allowed it, and now they are using their wealth to corrupt the mechanisms of government at every level, and in all branches.
This is what you should be concerned about.
shagster01
New member
Why are you telling us what Jefferson desired? Was he God?
elohiym
Well-known member
"...[A]n act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." See Marbury vs. Madison.
elohiym
Well-known member
What law are thinking of?
jzeidler
New member
Jose Fly
New member
If a law is made unconstitutionally, or has unconstitutional effects, then someone needs to take it to the court system and demonstrate that to be so. Then once the courts agree, the law will be null and void and unenforceable.
Alternatively, someone could convince the legislative body that crafted the law to revoke it.
Alternatively, someone could convince the legislative body that crafted the law to revoke it.
elohiym
Well-known member
Do you have a particular law in mind?
elohiym
Well-known member
A law contrary to the constitution is never valid.
"...[A]n act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." See Marbury vs. Madison.
PureX
Well-known member
It's only "repugnant to the constitution" when the courts say it is. We can refuse to obey it before then, but we will be treated as criminals until the courts strike down the law that we refused to obey.
However, as with all things, there is always going to be "slack" in the system. If a law were written that the vast majority of citizens believed was unconstitutional, or simply unjust, it's unlikely that the law would be enforced with any diligence. In the end, the people have the real power (IF they are unified), regardless of the laws their governments write and attempt to impose.
yep. you must obey -
PureX
Well-known member
I guess my answer would be that we are not obligated to obey it, but we will be held accountable for our not obeying it until the courts deem the law unconstitutional. It's a bit of a catch-22, but that's what often happens when idealism meets reality.
That is certainly how your president sees it, lawlessness is the hallmark of his administration, he enforces & obeys only that which he agrees with, you can't fault anyone for not following that kind of leadership.
, but we will be held accountable for our not obeying it until the courts deem the law unconstitutional. It's a bit of a catch-22, but that's what often happens when idealism meets reality.
Really.... so Obama will magically obey the law because of the courts? Hmmm...don't think so, he hasn't so far and the lawlessness continues.
elohiym
Well-known member
I guess my answer would be that we are not obligated to obey it, but we will be held accountable for our not obeying it until the courts deem the law unconstitutional. It's a bit of a catch-22, but that's what often happens when idealism meets reality.
It could be argued that we are obligated to disobey unconstitutional laws. What do you think of that idea, sans an argument?
PureX
Well-known member
That places us as the arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional, which few of us are actually qualified to be. And we all know what will happen; we will simply interpret the text to mean whatever we want it to mean.
So I think the more reasonable path is to follow the law until those who know better than we do determine it's constitutionality. Keep in mind that we are not the individual rulers of the country. This is a collective, and what other people think, matters.