If a law was thought to be unconstitutional what actions would be taken?
124552
Ultimately, the Supreme Court, if it wants to take the case.\n\nA law thought unconstitutional is challenged in a suit in a lower court; after a decision is made there, the loser appeals to an Appellate Court, and then to the Supreme Court.
523760
Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review; essentially, the judicial branch was to serve as a check on the constitutionality of any acts passed by congress.  The Supreme Court could deem an act unconstitutional, and therefore, void.  \nMcCulloch v. Maryland ruled that Congress had implied powers that were not enumerated by the constitution and that states could not impede the exercise of those powers.  \nThe role of the executive branch did not really play a huge role in these cases - it's more about judiciary v. legislative and states v. fed gov't.  Wiki has a good explanation of the cases if you want the background facts and the reasoning of the decisions.
343403
It would state the effective date in the question.  \n\nIt would take effect on that date, unless there is a court challenge to the constitutionality of the question.\n\nSee this wikipedia site for details.
147265
In the U.S. the supreme court is tasked with interpreting the constitution.  The supreme court has the power to find laws written the legislature unconstitutional.
389332
It is not in the constitution,  actually no law is in the constitution.\n\nThe laws, and state codes are listed in the state codes.\nThis will be a many thousand page book, and made up of several books to include consumer, traffic, criminal and dozens of other areas.
674039
Here you go:\n\n"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. \n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. \n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. \n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. \n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "\n\n"The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, Ju
85419
We should probably make sure we know the answer to the question of whether it "was illegal" or not. The jury still seems to be out on that one. One camp (the executive branch)holds that Congress's authorization of "any and all necessary force" gave Bush the authority, and another doesn't (the Legislative). Sounds like it's time for the good old Judicial branch to step in and resolve the dispute. Then we can talk about whether or not a censure (different from censor) is appropriate.
523125
Lobby to make it  against the law with very harsh penalties.  That would make them stop.
501198
One thing the Supreme Court cannot do is render it's decisions in a proactive way. They have to react to cases. For example, they could not have ordered Florida's election officials and judges to stop re-counting the ballots in 2000 unless someone, like George Bush, had asked them to render that decision. The Court only acts based on disputes that are brought to them -- a dispute meaning two parties who fervently disagree with one another about some point of law.
508424
The law has yet to be enacted which would contain answers to all of your questions such as fines and consequences if one refused to register or answer the call. Let's hope the call for a draft gets defeated soundly!!\n\nChow!!
142757
It looks like you may need to stage a demonstration about the widespread lack of knowledge of laws governing Public Demos in Florida.\n\nIs that a sentence? It's not an answer!
232050
some argue it is unconstitutional to implement mandatory sentencing because it does not allow for alternative sentencing to compliment the different situations. plus, it limits the judges (who are experienced and well-trained) the discretion to form judgment on the most suited punsihment.
138798
Just because a law doesn't make sense is no reason to knowingly break it. \n\nShould it be illegal? In my personal opinion, probably not. Is it illegal? Apparently yes. Did you know it was illegal at the time you broke it? Sounds like it.\n\nIf you don't like the law, change the law. Remember, just about every civil rights leader in the 1960s who stood up in defiance of bad laws were also prosecuted (successfully) under them. It's not about whether the laws are good or not. It's about whether, as a country, we are going to respect the rule of law.
445870
The Supreme Court held that "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ****except**** where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is ***likely*** to incite or produce such action. "\n\nThat means that the law is only operative where the criminal conduct is likely to succeed.  This stands in stark contrast to crimes of Attempt, which can be prosecuted even when the act attempted is impossible; for example, attempted Murder against a dead body that the Defendant does not know is dead. \n\nThis requirement that the violence be likely may well nullify the entire statute under the Void for Vagueness doctrine.  How are police supposed to know when it is likely to succeed?
619873
I would do something so radical it may shock those who read it - I would actually follow the U.S. Constitution! I would veto all bills that came to my desk that would be unconstitutional if made law. I would veto all budgets that funded even ONE program not permitted by it.
125094
run for office. get people together and sign a petiton to have the law changed.
162053
You have to look at the Amendments to the Constitution.