Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rodman652
Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void.
|
Sort of. Actually it's usual that only the particular part of the law that is incompatible with the Constitution that is null. Those parts of the law that can still operate without conflict with the Constitution are allowed to survive.
More to the point, individuals don't get to decide for themselves which laws they interpret as unconstitutional. If they want or need to, they can challenge the law but if that law is upheld in court, they face all the usual penalties associated with wllful violation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rodman652
There must be a valid injured party either criminally or civilly that has sworn under oath in a court of law to that injury.
|
Actually this is a maxim of pick-up basketball games; no harm no foul. It's not a principle of law.
It is sufficient in criminal (and some civil) cases that a law has been violated even if no identifiable person has yet been injured. And I must admit that I have not yet seen a murder prosecution in which the injured party swore to much of anything in court.