Something For You To Think About

Archive for the month “May, 2012”

Are All Laws Constitutional?

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
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 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 it’s 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 principles 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 Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it


Gay marriage: is it that easy?

It’s time for me to weigh in on the gay marriage issue. All opinions are important. We all have our thoughts about the many issues we face each day. My opinion is important, and so is yours. The union between a man and woman, we call marriage has been the standard basic family unit for centuries. It is helped create stable societies, provided a safe and a secure place to produce the children which propagates those societies. The unity between a man and woman in a committed relationship, in which both are working toward common goals, is unique. It is different from all other relationships between two people. Century’s of history has shown that it provides the basic unit in society above all others. As Bruce lee once said, “The only thing that doesn’t change is change.” If you’re going to change something as basic as the institution of marriage between a man and woman, you don’t do so for light and transient causes. In my opinion, you must weigh carefully the consequences of that change. Is the change are about to make, going to produce greater value than that which you are changing from? Is the institution of marriage between a man and woman perfect? No, and in some cases it fails miserably. It is however, based on centuries of history, the best chance society has of maintaining stability, especially in times of turmoil. If you’re going to change it, what criteria do you use?

Post Navigation