Unconstitutional Acts - Defined

The federal government CANNOT pass any legislation abridging our Second Amendment, or we can rightfully and legally consider such an unconstitutional act to be NULL & VOID, and we are not obligated to obey it. To NOT comply with an unconstitutional act is our civic duty.


These cases exemplify the resulting action in law with unconstitutional acts and acts of usurpation:

An unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Therefore an unconstitutional act purporting to create an office gives no validity to the acts of a person acting under color of its authority. -Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121

An "unconstitutional act" constitutes a protection to no one who has acted under it, and no one can be punished for having refused obedience to it before the decision was made. A legislative act in conflict with the Constitution is not only illegal or voidable, but absolutely void. It is as if never enacted, and no subsequent change of the Constitution removing the restriction could validate it or breathe into it the breath of life. -In re Rahrer, 43 F. 556, 558, 10 L.R.A.444 (View as PDF)

Outside links:

Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121

In re Rahrer, Federal Reporter Volume 43, 556 & 558

 

See also: 

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”        

More Court Cases:       

 

{CASE} 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 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 it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."

{CASE} 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it."

{CASE} Amos vs. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619: "If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right."

{CASE} Bowers vs. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, at 618 (7th Cir. 1982): "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

{CASE} Chisholm vs. State of Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp. 471-472: "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

{CASE} City of Bisbee vs. Cochise County, 78 P.2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1: ""Government" is not "sovereignty." "Government" is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."

{CASE} Filbin Corporation vs. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914: "The "sovereignty" of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament."

{CASE} Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 279: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public as long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

{CASE} Kingsley vs. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044: "A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision."

{CASE} Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (@ Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803): "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

{CASE} Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

{CASE} Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442: "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."

{CASE} Riley vs. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018: "Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee."

{CASE} Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772): "All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void ... We are in conscience bound to disobey."

{CASE} Scott vs. Sandford, Mo., 60 US 393, 404, 19 How. 393, 404, 15 L.Ed. 691: "The words "sovereign people" are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty."

{CASE} Slote vs. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660: "Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."

{CASE} State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459: "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." (See 16 Am. Jur. 2d 177, 178)

{CASE} Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, Sheriff, 118 U.S. 356.: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." - "For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."

Do you like this post?

Be the first to comment


Heidi Thiess - City Council Member, League City, Texas