Ok, I have been looking for a way to prevent a lot of the feigning of the Constitution in this country and it got me wondering. If someone passes a a law, in direct contradiction to the Constitution, is it legal? In that, if we made it a Federal Crime to attempt to pass a law contradictory to the US Constitution, could this all be avoided in the future? Assuming the corruption gets cleaned up.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
There actually is a supreme court case that established that any law made contradicting the constitution was null and void.
Exactly
Sure, but OP is asking, what if we can add a prison term for whoever writes (or votes for) a bad law? S as bd if it’s treason to write a bad law, we could execute those people.
Yes, this needs to be done. These traitors cheat to get elected then pass laws to further the NWO agenda. The represent the NWO, not us.
I'm preaching to the choir...
Marbury vs Madison
Would be nice if that was enforced.
Unfortunately, the constitution is a wreck. If a law is contradictory to the constitution, that is subject to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution, which could be based on precedent, bias, activism, or even a whim. Technically, we're not even supposed to have a standing army for more than 2 years; but here we are because of interpretation.
Unfortunately our system seems like a good one, it's good against outside threats and even against some degree of inside negligence, but the problem is that it isn't at all good against wide-scale, intentional subversion from the inside.
So yeah, ideally it would be illegal to pass such laws (and it is probably technically illegal in a sense), but the problem is you're playing inside of a totally captured and controlled system. It doesn't matter what's illegal right now. It matters what those interested parties can get away with.
Its no law at all or un-lawful! Good luck standing up
Title might need changing. We don't have constitutional rights. We have constitutional protections. Our rights are natural rights.
Our system depends on moral people writing the laws and moral judges ruling on the Constitutionality of those laws. Your proposed law would be virtually unenforceable because the corruption that exists would always side in favor of the corruption. To put it another way - criminals do not care about existing laws so why would they care about any NEW law? Any new law would only be adhered to by moral people that where already not inclined to violate the Constitution. Case in point - it's already illegal to walk into an elementary school and shoot kids - Congress passes new law that makes it harder for law abiding citizens to legally obtain firearms and none of those new hurdles would have prevented the school shooting that was used as the excuse to pass the new law.
Marbury vs Madison. It is one of the first cases you learn in law school.
There should be a change so the burden is on them to show that the new law is Constitutional. Instead, they shift the burden to us and put us in jeopardy.
Reversing this would be a good start. I assume this would have to go to SCOTUS?
They do what they want, when they want. Constitution means nothing to them. Money and power.
repugnant is the term
New law after the dust settles: any law found unconstitutional by the SC, every rep and senator that voted for it is immediately disqualified from elected office.
Repeating what others have said.
"Any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void." -- Marbury vs. Madison
I'm no Constitutionologist, but I'm fairly certain any law passed contradictory to the Constitution is null and void.
Even if you pass a law making this unlawful, you still have due process to halt such activity which is what many depend on. By the time they get it reversed or deemed un-Constitutional, it's already had the desired effect.
as always it is enforcement that is missing, there are laws already in place against all of the criminality we are seeing and experiencing, but no enforcement of them.