Anonymous ID: d0955a Nov. 12, 2020, 10:39 p.m. No.11622288   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2452

>>11622267

 

Is it?

 

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators

bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute,

to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which

violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as

follows:

 

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and

void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

 

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there

can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

 

"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." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

 

"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.

 

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts

are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 la