ALL laws, on ALL subjects, in ALL jurisdictions remain on the books and are apparently valid, until the authority which passed them, repeals them -- or until a court of competent jurisdiction declares them unconstitutional (under US or state constitutions).
Are you aware that Marshall refuted that authoritarian type argument back in 1803, Marbury v Madison?
No one in the USA is bound to obey 'laws' repugnant to the Constitution. In fact officers of the court, like you, are bound by oath to fight such repugnant laws.
You read as poorly as you reason. I said, "or until a court of competent jurisdiction declares them unconstitutional (under US or state constitutions)."
The last time I checked, the Marshall Court which decided Marbury v. Madison was a "court of competent jurisdiction." So, Marbury demonstrates exactly what I said.
No, Marshall does not say that we are bound to obey laws that are " -- apparently valid, until the authority which passed them, repeals them -- or until a court of competent jurisdiction declares them unconstitutional --". -- Not in Marbury. He closes his argument there by saying:
" Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. "
Like you I've sworn an oath to defend our constitution. I'm defending it with these words, which refute yours. Feel free to reply. -- Or not. -- No one forced you to make your last reply, which would have ended our present exchange.
What a maroon. Learn to read with care. Then try to reason logically from what you read. It will do marvels for your posts on FR.
Your own pejorative words show an inablity to argue using logic. Thanks again.
1. I said a court of competent jurisdiction can strike down a law. 2. The Marbury Court was such a court and struck down a law. 3. So the Court did exactly what I said courts can do.
You claim that a court doing exactly what I said courts can do, somehow contradicts what I said. Tell me you're just funning me, and you do understand this obvious point. If you're serious, you're not worth another two minutes of my time.