[Consort]

"An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment." (100 U.S. 371 (1879) Ex parte Siebold)

That's pretty much what I thought you meant all along and I still stand by what I said. I believe that all laws that are put on the books by proper authority and are being enforced by proper authority are assumed to be constitutional and legal until repealed or invalidated. Your statement above must be imposed on an existing law or statute for it to have any practical meaning — it has to have something to repeal or invalidate. Convictions are made and sentences are imposed under laws that are assumed to be constitutional by federal, state, local, military or other courts.

[sparkydragon]

The problem is that the President, being sworn to uphold the Constitution, has an obligation to not enforce unConstitutional laws. Only if he believes a law it unConstitutional and the Supreme Court disagrees with him then is he required to enforce it. And even the its iffy. He has an obligation by virtue of his oath of office to avoid unConstitutional proceedings whenever possible. Otherwise his oath is even more meaningless than Clinton made it appear.