Unconstitutional

Unconstitutional

Ordinances, enactments, laws, and orders do not have the authority to violate a constitutionally protected right.

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County :: 118 U.S. 425 (1886).

The Supreme Court can declare a law 'ultra vires' or null and void if it is against the letter and spirit of the Constitution or contravenes any provision of the Constitution.

“A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Marbury v. Madison (1803) - National Archives. With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the the chief executive.

This power is referred to as the power of "judicial review", or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, was an established doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison since 1803.

"This means that the law is treated as void from its inception (void ab initio)—as if it was never enacted. This, in turn, means nullifying all the legal arrangements, rights, interest, obligations, offices and acts established under it's authority." (Norton vs Shelby County 118 US 425, 442, (1886).) The Effects of Judicial Decisions in Time (Cambridge, Intersentia, P. Popelier, S. Verstraelen, D. Vanheule and B. Vanlerberghe eds., 2013)

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

State or local

State or local laws held to be UnConstitution are preempted by federal law are void not because they contravene any provision of the Constitution, but rather because they conflict with a federal statute or treaty, and through operation of the Supremacy Clause.

If a statute is facially unconstitutional, the courts have stated that it cannot be enforced.

A facial challenge contends that a government law, rule, regulation, or policy is unconstitutional as written — that is, on its face.

The legislature may choose to repeal an unconstitutional statute to avoid confusion or to replace that statute with a new version that seeks to reach similar policy goals.

---

James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. State Supreme Court of Georgia Jul 14, 1989

• "While we have declared statutes to be void from their inception when they were contrary to the Constitution at the time of enactment, ..."

• "Instead our constitution and case law require us to declare unconstitutional acts entirely void from their inception."

• Paragraph V of the 1983 Georgia Constitution entitled "What acts void" states: "Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States are void, and the judiciary shall so declare them."

• "The Constitution is irrepealable, and any law in violation of it is void — is null; rights cannot grow up under such a law." Battle v. Shivers, 39 Ga. 405, 417 (1869).

• Mapp v. First Ga. Bank, 156 Ga. App. 380, 382 ( 274 S.E.2d 765) (1980).

"The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling because an unconstitutional statute is a void statute from its inception and no rights accrue thereunder." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 431 (1819).

• If this Court does not treat the unconstitutional statute as void from its inception, then nothing will deter the state from enacting other unconstitutional statutes and reaping the benefits therefrom. The constitutional mandate to declare the statute void, Ga. Constitution, 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. V, is the taxpayer's protection from the power of the sovereign "to destroy."

"If a statute is facially unconstitutional, the courts have stated that it cannot be enforced and the legislature may choose to repeal an unconstitutional statute to avoid confusion or to replace that statute with a new version that seeks to reach similar policy goals." Unconstitutional: The Effects of Court Rulings and Options for ... www.house.leg.state.mn.us › unconstitutional.

When the Marshall decision in Marbury v. Madison completed the system of checks and balances, the United States had a government in which laws could be enacted, interpreted and executed to meet challenging circumstances.