Is Unconstitutional Law Unenforceable?

Unconstitutional law is an injunction or declaratory judgment that conflicts with a federal statute or treaty, confers no rights, and is therefore not a precedent. In other words, an unconstitutional law is unenforceable. These laws have no legal force, and may be challenged only in a court of law.상간녀위자료소송

Unconstitutional law is a declaratory or injunctive lawsuit

A declaratory judgment lawsuit is a way to fight government actions that you feel violate your constitutional rights. Such a lawsuit can be filed in state or federal courts. However, the federal courts are generally more likely to rule in favor of plaintiffs. Moreover, federal judges are more likely to construe a statute as unconstitutional if it is unconstitutional under the Constitution.

A “nationwide” injunction can also be issued to prevent government action. It stops the government from enforcing the challenged law. This type of injunction is often used to protect rights of people all over the country. However, the validity of such an injunction is a matter of debate.

It conflicts with a federal statute or treaty

A federal statute or treaty may conflict with the Constitution if it exceeds the scope of the federal government’s enumerated powers. Similarly, treaties must not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Tenth Amendment. However, treaties are not always unconstitutional.

Federal law often conflicts with state law, and judges must choose which one to apply. This principle is called Supremacy Clause and applies to state and federal statutes and treaties. Although state laws are arguably more binding, the Supremacy Clause does not always apply.

It confers no rights

According to the US Constitution, an unconstitutional law has no legal value. It does not confer rights, impose duties, provide protection, or create an office. Moreover, it is ineffective because it never passed. Generally, an unconstitutional act is void, but that does not mean it is unenforceable.

It is not binding precedent

Those who argue that unconstitutional law is not binding precedent argue that the Constitution does not bind the Court to uphold the ruling in cases involving similar issues. They also claim that excessive deference to previous decisions is inappropriate. In other words, they say that the Court should not be bound by a decision that has been made in the past that is not necessarily consistent with the values and principles of today’s society.

However, even conservative justices acknowledge that precedent is not always binding, and that often, 5-4 rulings have resulted in conservative majority overruling precedents. This has led to sharp criticism from liberal dissenters. In addition, conservatives have criticized the doctrine of stare decisis (stand by what has been decided).