[SIZE=+2]Unconstitutional Official Acts[SIZE=+1]16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE] 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 Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.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.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
Obviously the politicians in Arkansas are unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, Article One in particular - which has been the death of more than a few examples of this kind on arbitrary nonsense before.
...
Obviously the politicians in Arkansas are unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, Article One in particular
You miss the point, Article if the First, is not Amendment one. Actually Article 3 is Amendment one as I remember.
Really you are both wrong, and yet we all knew what was meant. Why do people on the web fight grammar wars? 😉
Actually Article 3 is Amendment one as I remember.
I worked down in Little Rock and El Dorado for a few months in the early 90's. We were moving the headquarters of a company up to the Chicago area. The main building was locked down at night. Locked down so tight that if you didn't have your electronic badge you could not get out. No emergency exits, building lost power and there was a fire, you were cooked.
I asked management why and they responded why not require it.
Driving between Little Rock and El Dorado it was shack, shack, shack, shack, Mansion, shack, shack, shack, shack, shack, MANSION, shack, shack......
Then the year after Katrina hit the family spent Christmas vacation helping to rebuild houses and on the way back north we passed the Hope Airport. It was shut down but full, fence to fence to fence, as far as the eye could see with trailers. Folks were still killing themselves because they had no place to live and the airport was full of new, unused trailers.
Nothing they do surprises me.
B2 (;->
You can shoot someone "if you feel threatened" but you can't take his picture because *he* may feel threatened.
God bless America.
.... I feel everywhere, where I live included is that photography in public not touristic spaces is getting more and more difficult,....