The General misconceptions 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 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 act
performed under it.
A void act cannot be legally consistence with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed,
insofar as a statute run counter to the fundamental law of the land it
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, Section 256
FIGHTING FOR FAITH, FREEDOM AND THE CONSTITUTION !
The whole problem is that you and I are not able to determine what constitutes an Unconstitutional law. That is up to the courts. And if they refuse to deem a law Unconstitutional, then it remains law.