Quote:
|
Originally Posted by edgeprod
This is my understanding also. I've read the caselaw (although not recently) from some of those cases, and from all reports, the judges pretty much laughed in their faces. The trials, for the most part, were full of stunts like reciting the Pledge instead of entering a plea, representing themselves, etc.
Why does "Fight the Power" all too often have to mean "We're a Bunch of Idiots"??
|
It dosent matter if 1 court, 2 courts, 10 courts, 100 courts, 1000 courts or all courts have ruled it frivilious or not. Facts are facts. The law says what the law says. There is NO debate on this.
16 American jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2d, Section 256
?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 t enforce it.?
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 45
?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.?
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137
?All laws which are [repugnant] to the Constitution are null and void.
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436
?Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would [abrogate] them.?