Welcome to the Legal Forums! Please Register For Free Now!

At the Legal Forums members stay up to date on what is legal, new laws and state laws. Legal Forum members can read about legal definitions, weird laws, legal rights, legal services and law answers.

The Legal Forums have over 42,000+ Legal Forum members and 45,000+ Legal Forum posts! Please register on the Legal Forums for free today! Registration will give you full access to the Legal Forums and takes just a moment to complete. We welcome you to our Legal Forum community! Please Join Us Right Now!
View RSS Feed

thorax232

Notes On 16 American Jurisprudence 2d

Rate this Entry
[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:[/B]

“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to person and property.” Bary v. United States - 273 US 128

“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary”

(You are the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98:[/B]

“While an emergency can not create power and no emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly inconsistent with the constitution.”

(No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:[/B]

“As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “ The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a since of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.”

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:[/B]

“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often resorted to, by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:[/B]

“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United

States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 177:[/B]

“Declaratory judgments actions have often been utilized to test the constitutionality of a statute in government practices. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act makes pacific provisions of the determination of construction or validity of statutes and municipal ordinance by declaratory judgment and is considered to furnish a particularly appropriate method for the determination of controversies relative to the construction and validity of the statute and of ordinances. The Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, although it does not mention declarations as to the construction or validity of the statutes, has been invoked frequently as a means of a saying of the constitutionality of Congressional Legislation. A plaintiff can have a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of either the Federal or State statute by a single Federal Judge so long as he does not ask to have the operation of the statute enjoined. A court may grant declaratory relief, unless there is a case of controversy before the court.”

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law”

(Demand a Declaratory Judgment)

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 255:[/B]

“In all instances, where the court exercise it’s power to invalidate legislation on constitutional grounds, the conflict of the statute, with the constitution must be irreconcilable. Thus a statute is not to be declared unconstitutional unless so inconsistent with the constitution that it cannot be enforced without a violation thereof. A clear incompatibility between law and the constitution must exist before the judiciary is justified holding the law unconstitutional. This principle is of course in line with the rule that doubts as the constitutionality should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality and the beneficiary.”

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:[/B]

“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it.

An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted.

No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 257:[/B]

“The actual existence of a statute prior to determination, that it is unconstitutional is an operative fact and may have consequences which can not justify being ignored, when a statute which has been in effect for some time is declared unconstitutional, questions of rights claimed to have become vested of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality an acted upon accordingly and of public policy in the light of the nature, both of the statute and of it’s previous application demand examination. It has been said that in all inclusive statement of the principle of absolute retroactive inviolability cannot be justified.

An unconstitutional statute is not necessarily a nullity it may have indeterminate consequences binding on the people.”

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 258:[/B]

“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”

[B]16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 260:[/B]

“Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality.”
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. FannyLo's Avatar
    Hello, i would like to share a link about home office desk furniture with all of you.
    It will help you to replenish your spacious room more adorable.
    come and visit us at :
    [url=]Home Office Desk Furniture[/url]