lawyer whose argument is contray to constitution

What is the broad topic of constitutional law?

Jan 27, 2020 · Alan Dershowitz, the famed defense attorney whose clients included financier Jeffrey Epstein, kicked off his presentation by noting that he would be making the same constitutional argument against ...

Is a law repugnant to the constitution void?

Dec 01, 2016 · Glessner, an attorney and longtime leader in the pro-life movement, argues that the foundation for the U.S. Constitution is the Declaration of …

Can a state pass a law that interferes with the Constitution?

Mar 27, 2018 · “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.”

Who is bound to obey an unconstitutional law?

James Madison's defense of the Constitution's treatment of slaves as part human and part property-less than a man by two-fifths-may surprise many readers. This is not The Federalist we're used to seeing. Madison was responding to robust attacks on …

What is it called when a law goes against the Constitution?

When laws, procedures, or acts directly violate the constitution, they are unconstitutional.

Can a law that contradicts the Constitution be valid?

Judicial review is the power of an independent judiciary, or courts of law, to determine whether the acts of other components of the government are in accordance with the constitution. Any action that conflicts with the constitution is declared unconstitutional and therefore nullified.

What will happen to law if it contradicts the Constitution?

If it decides that the legislation does conflict with the Constitution, it may annul or cancel the law or the part of it that is unconstitutional. The High Court's decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.Jun 2, 2015

Who can overturn unconstitutional laws?

Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.

Can a federal judge overrule a governor?

No. It is a common misconception among pro se litigants that federal courts can revisit and perhaps overturn a decision of the state courts. Only if a federal issue was part of a state court decision can the federal court review a decision by the state court.

Can you sue the government for violating the Constitution?

There is a fundamental inequity in the ability of Americans to enforce their rights under the United States Constitution. If a person's constitutional rights are violated by local or state government actors, the person can sue the government actors for damages to compensate for the harm suffered.Oct 10, 2021

Can a state pass a law that violates the Constitution?

State or local laws held to be preempted by federal law are void not because they contravene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause.

Can judges violate constitutional rights?

Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution.

How do you know if a statute is unconstitutional?

A challenge to a law can argue that a statute is unconstitutional “facially” or “as applied.” A statute is facially unconstitutional when there are “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v.

How do you argue an unconstitutional law?

New Rule 5.1 requires a party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing in question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute to file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the United States Attorney General or state attorney general.

Can anyone overrule the Supreme Court?

Historically, the US Supreme Court rarely overturns decisions. In fact, in its 232-year history, it has done so only 233 times. That might sound high, but consider this: Between 1946 and 2020, there were 9,095 decisions made by the high court.Dec 4, 2021

How many times has the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional?

As of 2014, the United States Supreme Court has held 176 Acts of the U.S. Congress unconstitutional. In the period 1960–2019, the Supreme Court has held 483 laws unconstitutional in whole or in part.

Why was the Bill of Rights adopted?

Hence, our Constitution and, specifically our Bill of Rights, were adopted to provide legal protection for the exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

What is the American Republic?

LSN: You write, "The American Republic was founded upon the idea that all human beings are, first and foremost, created by an intelligent Creator, and thus, are afforded natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.".

Who is Thomas Glessner?

Thomas Glessner, president of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, painstakingly details how the Founding Fathers of America based both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on principles and understandings that explicitly upheld the right to life of preborn babies. Glessner, an attorney and longtime leader in ...

Is liberty a license?

Liberty is not a license, and the pursuit of happiness is not the right to do whatever one wishes. Rather, such unalienable rights, when exercised, acknowledge the rights of our fellow human beings and are not valid if used to injure and destroy others. ...

What is Darwinism's philosophy?

Rather, through the Darwinist philosophy of the survival of the fittest, some human beings will certainly evolve higher than others in intelligence, wealth, talents, etc., and thus achieve superior status.

Who was the author of the Declaration of Independence?

Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, studied Blackstone for his legal education and training and thus understood that the unalienable right to life belongs to the unborn as well as the born. LSN: How did you come up with the thesis of "Created Equal: Reflections on the Unalienable Right to Life?".

What is the right to life of the unborn?

Today that evidence exists from the moment of conception. Hence, the legal right to life of the unborn must be from the moment of conception.

Is the Constitution the supreme law?

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, 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, ...

Why was the Supreme Court created?

The U.S. Supreme Court was put in place only to arbitrate disagreements between states and to serve as the ultimate appeals court. Decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court have applicability and effect ONLY upon the two litigants in a case – the plaintiff and the defendant – NOT the whole stinkin’ country!

What is Norton v Shelby County?

Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”. – Miranda v.

What is constitutional law?

The broad topic of constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society. This includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) of the federal government, and the rights of the individual in relation to both federal and state government. The area of judicial review is an important subject within Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. Consequently, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings.

What is the role of the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. Consequently, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings. While the topic also covers the interpretation and implementation of state constitutions, without qualification it is usually understood as referring to the Federal Constitution.

What is the Senate Judiciary Committee?

International Association of Constitutional Law . USConstitution.net. Senate Judiciary Committee (includes information from Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights) House Judiciary Committee (includes information from Subcommittee on the Constitution) Slate, "The Constitution: The Juicy Bits".

What is the purpose of the Commerce Clause?

art. I., § 8. Congress has specifically used its power to regulate commerce (the commerce clause) with foreign nations and among the states to enact broad and powerful legislation throughout the nation.

Which article of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress?

Article I establishes the House of Representatives and the Senate. See U.S. Const. art. I. Section 8 enumerates the powers of Congress. See U.S. Const. art. I., § 8.

What is the power of the commander in chief?

See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. Section 2 establishes him as the " commander in chief " and grants him power to give pardons, except in cases of impeachment, for offenses against the United States. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. Section 3 provides the power to make treaties (with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate) ...

Which article of the Constitution establishes the executive branch?

Article II of the Constitution establishes the presidency and the executive branch of government. The powers of the President are not as clearly enumerated as those of the Congress. He is vested with the "executive" power by section 1. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1.

What is the power of impeachment?

Consider first the text of the Constitution. Article I confers on Congress the power of impeachment and delimits the penalties available upon conviction. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 grants “the House of Representatives … the sole Power of Impeachment,” while Clause 6 grants the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Clause 7 states: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.”

What is the meaning of Article II?

Article II of the Constitution, which governs the executive branch, says, in Section 4, that “ [t]he President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”. The text does not directly address the question ...

What is the purpose of Article I of the Constitution?

It declares that impeachment is the business of Congress—to initiate, to try and to punish—but restricts the universe of possible penalties to two: removal and disqualification.

What does Bobbitt say about disqualification?

He says that, if disqualification is an alternative penalty that may be imposed even on someone no longer subject to removal, that must mean that the House could commence an impeachment after an official had left office. He then, as Oedipus says of the Oracle at Delphi, “holds up before [our] eyes a future great with pain, terror, disaster.” Congress, he worries, will impeach and convict former officers to prevent those officers from “running against them.” Or worse, the House will impeach current officials and then “hold back the referrals to the Senate, perhaps for years, until springing them to prevent the former officials from seeking office.”

What are Bobbitt's two impeachments?

Like all of us who have discussed this subject, he mentions two prior American impeachments: first, the case of Sen. William Blount, who in 1797-1798 was impeached by the House, expelled from the Senate, and then tried by the Senate, in that order , and, second, the case Secretary of War William Belknap, who in 1876 was both impeached and tried after he left office . But those cases hardly buttress Bobbitt’s position.

What does Bobbitt say about the Constitution?

Bobbitt concludes by insisting that his view amounts to “such a plain constitutional rule” that proceeding to trial against Trump would amount to “running roughshod over the Constitution.” And he even ends with the well-known quotation from A Man for All Seasons cautioning against cutting down all the laws to get at the Devil.

What is the second semester of law school?

During the second semester of law school, many legal writing courses focus on transitioning from teaching law students objective legal analysis to teaching persuasive advocacy. Learning to craft arguments as an advocate involves learning to support a position (before a court or administrative agency or other decision-maker, to a client or opponent, etc.). Learning to support a position in turn involves learning to craft arguments in support of that position that are likely to convince the decision-maker. These arguments may emerge from a variety of sources and a welter of conflicting values.

What is textual argument?

Textual arguments are arguments that center around using methodologies for interpreting the language of these texts. There are three main methods of textual interpretation: plain meaning; canons of construction; and intra-textual arguments. The plain meaning rule relies on the definitions of particular words and phrases in the text to interpret ...

What is plain meaning rule?

The plain meaning rule relies on the definitions of particular words and phrases in the text to interpret the text. Canons of construction are rules of interpretation that draw inferences about the meaning of a rule from its textual or legal context.

Why is Article 14 unconstitutional?

Simply put, the opponents’ argument based on Article 14 would render useless and unconstitutional the concepts of foreigners and illegal migrants because, according to them, “all persons” must be treated equally before the law and must receive equal protection of Indian laws.

What is Article 14?

Article 14: A Flawed Argument. For close to a month now, ever since the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was cleared by the Union Cabinet for introduction in the Parliament, the passionate yet constitutionally and logically untenable opposition to the then CAB and now the CAA has primarily been mounted on grounds of alleged violation ...

What is the CAA?

Given this ad hoc state of affairs, the CAA must be seen as a limited amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 to grant expedited citizenship to those refugees who belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Which article of the Constitution deals with fundamental rights?

Let’s start with Article 19, which is in the same part of the Constitution as Article 14, namely Part III which deals with Fundamental Rights. It is critical to note that Article 19 expressly limits the scope of rights enumerated under it only to “citizens”, and does not extend it to “non-citizens” or “persons”.

What is the purpose of the Citizenship Act?

The Citizenship Act was enacted pursuant to the express power vested in the Parliament by Article 11 which allows it to “make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship” without being fetter ed by Articles 5-10.

What is the effect of article 6?

The effect of article 6 is this, that Parliament may not only take away citizenship from those who are declared to be citizens on the date of the commencement of this Constitution by the provisions of article 5 and those that follow, but Parliament may make altogether a new law embodying new principles.

Who is Bob Greenslade?

Bob Greenslade [ send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

What was the Supreme Court ruling in 1937?

Immediately after the Social Security Act was passed, various provisions of the Act were challenged as unconstitutional and reached the Supreme Court in 1937. In the case of Helvering v. Davis, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, sustained the constitutionality of the Act as an excise or income tax under the general welfare provision cited above.

When was the Social Security Act signed?

EDITOR’S NOTE: On August 14, 1935, the Social Security Act was signed by FDR. The following article, originally published in 2005, examines the Act and the entire system of Social Security, from a Constitutional perspective. After President Bush put forth his proposal to “partially privatize” Social Security, newspapers across ...

What is special income tax?

They would be paying a “special income tax” which would be deducted from their wages and paid to the federal government by the employer. This excise tax is imposed on the employee for the so-called “privilege” of being employed by an employer.