| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
U.S. Constitution De Facto Law Of The Land
Below is an excerpt from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256, which affirms that the U.S. Constitution, unless and until LAWFULLY amended as contained within it's express provisions, is a contract between the federal and state government and it's people, and the defacto Law of the Land.
As a contract itself and in spite of U.S. history almost from the moment it was ratified by the 13 original colonies, any and all interpretations or applications of the provisions contained within it under the "common law" upon which contract law is based according to the Magna Carta (used by the founders in their deliberations) by any and all judicial authorities at both the state and federal level is to be done using the "common useage" English definitions in such interpretations or applications pursuant to "contract law doctrine."
The footnote citations relate to U.S. case law which enforces this restatement and can be researched after pulling up the Am.Jur citing for a listing of footnoted case laws at any local law library:
Section 256. Generally. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void, [32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34] an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. [37]
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers no rights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power or authority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] and justifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law [45] and no courts are bound to enforce it. [46] Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. [47]
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one. [48] And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. [49] Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. [50] Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one, [51] if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect. [52] And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. [53]
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States. [54] Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. [55]
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. [56]
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. You can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
Juries in the United States have the right and power to judge the law as well as the facts. This means that a jury can acquit a defendant for any reason or none and need not give any reason for it's decision. Therefor bad statutes that are unconstitutional or immoral can be set aside, or good laws that are misapplied can be ignored. This is called "jury nullification."
- Betsy Ross's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Me thinks you are reading too much...
...into the statutes you quote.
I believe a jury can acquit because they are the triers of the facts of the case, not because they are the triers of the law, which is the judge's role in a court proceeding.
For over two-hundred years now we, the people, have agreed to abide by a very specific written Constitution, and amendments, and personally sworn to be upheld by you in your jury oath, if I am not mistaken. To now base your decision to acquit as the trier of the law, instead of the trier of the facts, would not only be a breach of your jury oath, but unconstitutional and grounds for an appeal.
ex animo
davidfarrar
No, You Are Incorrect
No, you are incorrect. The jury was meant to be the final "check" in the checks and balances, and the oath should not have any inclusion in it with respect to an oath to the Constitution at all, it is the government that is to abide by the Constitution and that is what the Constitution really is for - to restrain government.
So I don't know where you got your ideas, but the jury is the trier of fact AND law and its application depending on the facts and circumstances surrounding the case at bar, and not at all held to the state or federal statutes if they are not in accordance with the Constitution.
In criminal and civil matters, the judge was included simply in order to rule over admissions of evidence, and courtroom decorum. That is all.
You might try reading some of the founders thoughts on the power of the jury, and just why the jury was included as that last check.
Methinks You Might Be A Member Of The Bar
And methinks you might be a member of the Bar - which is a British holdover, and does like to remain in power and control as much as possible in order to insure their livelihoods, and those promotions to the bench.
A juror's oath to uphold the tenets of the Constitution...
...upon which the government is bound, i.e., the courts, forms the basis of equity in law. Without it, chaos would result, or worse. The same problem persists in judicial activism. Both are antithetical to the pursuit of equal justice for all.
ex animo
davidfarrar
That Is What I Said Actually
That is what I said, actually. And since most of the bills now are not even being read by the legislators at either the state or federal level, it is inherent upon them to also be reading and evaluating the law upon which the case is brought for Constitutionality.
And the jury was clearly given the power to do that, and was intended to. So as a member of the Bar, apparently, you wish to promote the Bar's agenda, but not the Constitution at all in your position - since it is clearly in error. The jury as "the people" the government is "beneath" as it were, has the ultimate power. Not the judge, in any manner whatsoever. Nor the attorneys. The jury.
And all Americans are entitled to a jury trial for ANY matter whatsoever in both civil and criminal matters (civil if over $20), and that cannot be abridged by the Supreme Court by fiat. Not unless the Constitution is LAWFULLY amended. Period.
Dear Madam...
...if, indeed, you are a Madam, again, you read too much into my post. I am neither a member of the Bar, nor am I particularly interested in the Bar's agenda, whatever that my be. But I do know what taking the law into your own hands means...it means you have become a lynch mob.
Moreover, I am quite sure you would shock the conscience of any court in the land were you to espouse such silliness during jury voir dire -- which leads me to postulate that you have never done so. But perhaps I too am reading too much into your posts.
ex animo
davidfarrar