Do officers have a duty to not enforce unconstitutional laws?

teratos said:

So people should enforce and submit to Unconstitutional laws until the courts hear them? No.

Again:
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

Click to expand...

teratos said:

You are good people, sir.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

So people should enforce and submit to Unconstitutional laws until the courts hear them? No.

Again:
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

Click to expand...

RoadDawg said:

Well Doc... We can read and repeat the COTUS, and the legal references to it, all we wish. And fingers can be pointed in all directions to cause others to be harangued and accused as if they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the predicament in which we ALL are found. What does that accomplish?

I have a question for you...

What things are you required to accept in your line of work which you believe are not exactly constitutonally right... but have no support to allow you to refuse?

Such as... If you KNOW that a person who is fighting violently with others... has HIV... and they are spreading blood and bodily fluids everywhere... endangering the other people... YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED to warn anyone of the other people. Are those other people not deserving of their COTUS right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? So WHY can't you tell them that they are in danger of being exposed to what is a potentially lethal disease?

Can you say F it and warn them anyway? Or are you legally required to keep that information confidential... EVEN to their detriment?

This arguing the matter HERE... amongst ourselves... is doing no one any good. WE do not have the clout necessary to change laws simply by refusing to comply with them singularly.

It takes FAR more than derision and division between us... to change what needs to be changed. But, that derision and division sure as hell pleases the left who are doing their damndest to divide, conquer, and control us all.

Click to expand...

RoadDawg said:

Don't question my honor... And Don't compare me or those I have worked with to NAZIs. I don't do that to you and those you care about... I won't accept you doing that to me or those who I care about. It is rude and it is wrong.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

I have been in the position TWICE where a man tested positive for HIV, and his wife was my patient as well. In both situations I had the men come in. In both cases I told them they needed to tell their wives. In both cases they said they would not. What did I do?


In both cases I told them that legally I could not disclose that they had HIV. I urged them to tell their wives. I was fully prepared to tell their wives. In both cases I gave them 24 hours to tell their wives or I would. Both did. Both wives tested negative. Bottom line....in life I will always do the right thing. Always.

My principles should never be questioned.

Click to expand...

44man said:

I will clarify my opinion a bit

The cop in the OP has decided to follow the constitution as other cops have. They have made a decision to follow their oaths to the constitution. So they won’t ever have to say they just followed orders and took someone’s second amendment rights away.

And everyone’s honor is in question their entire lives and there’s nothing anyone can do about that. I have seen men of honor their entire lives decide to do something dishonorable when they get older and others who had no honor who made a decision at the end to become honorable men.

I don’t know what else to say other than everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks their opinion is correct and no ones opinion is more important than anyone else’s.

Click to expand...

RoadDawg said:

Fear not Doc... I meant no disrespect and certainly no question of your principles. I was asking the question as a matter of comparison.

Now...

If you HAD told either of those wives... How would that choice have impacted your ability to remain in your position and feed your family?

What can WE do together to change that law so that INNOCENT people are NOT needlessly and foolishly deprived of their rights?

Short of MASSIVE protests and outright refusal to comply? What recourse does the individual have against the masses of the ignorant who have wrested control. And... How are we to stand together when there are those in our community who are more interested in dividing us into smaller groups for their biases... than working with others to affect change?

Click to expand...

RoadDawg said:

Thank you for the clarification... Still... Don't compare any American LEO to any murdering NAZI... when that American LEO has not "followed orders to murder someone".

Click to expand...

teratos said:

Not an easy question, you know. I could have lost my job. I can’t sentence a woman or any person to a death sentence because of the letter of the law. That’s morally wrong. I am a moral man. I swore an oath to do no harm.

Click to expand...

AlBeight said:

This is a post questioning the wording mainly, not as much the intent - so hold your fire please! (For the record - I think & believe all gun laws are infringements to the 2A and should be deemed unconstitutional)

Who gets to decide the law is “unconstitutional”? Is it actually unconstitutional or is it in your beliefs and ethics unconstitutional? I may be down a semantic rabbit hole here, but I think people get revved up a little too hard when you phrase it as a point of fact that the law is “unconstitutional”. In my meager brain if it is in fact actually proven to be “unconstitutional” then I’m relatively certain it couldn’t have become a law, or it would’ve been struck down after the fact upon challenge. Those of us in the 2A community follow closely all the arguments in the courts and the constitutional scholars on the many decisions and ongoing arguments about the 2A, yet all the infringing laws that WE say are unconstitutional still haven’t been struck down as such. I’m not sure the query posted should be inferred as constitutional or unconstitutional laws to follow, but at the most a “perceived” un-constitutional law. The answer to that for every American should be no - don’t enforce an actual unconstitutional law, and most I don’t think would enforce a perceived unconstitutional law. I’d also applaud an agency for not enforcing a questionable law on the books while it was currently going thru the appeals court process. I’m just not sure calling it “unconstitutional” as an absolute in the title and the body of the post is an accurate portrayal. Objectionable, yes. Against your personal beliefs, yes. Or am I reading this whole thing wrong?

I agree with their decisions either way and support their decisions to stand down on the law(s) and stand up for their beliefs. It’s the (possibly) presumptuous wording I’m concerned with, and to a lesser extent the intent. Factually the law isn’t unconstitutional until it is deemed so by a court of law, perception or not. When this question is asked of people, I think it needs to be as accurately stated as possible. Again, whether you and I think something is unconstitutional or not doesn’t matter in actuality. Stating it even slightly inaccurately will only get people revved up more so than necessary, and there’s already enough “revving” going on these days.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

LEO have no duty to enforce an Unconstitutional Law.

Click to expand...

RoadDawg said:

Comparing the Police in the USA to the murderers of the NAZI Party is a most offensive comparison. And highly unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Zorros said:

I prefer to not have police officers make determinations of what is and what is not constitutional. Uphold the law and let the courts eventually decide if the law is valid or not. Still, every day discretion 8n what to pursue is exercised. Ever get passed by a policeman in 55 zone while you are doing 65? My favorite quote from a BCPD officer is “ the constituion has nothing to do with the law”. Said while ordering a street artist to leave mckeldin square following a favorable determination in a us district ct of the same artisits expressive 1A rights in OC. It cuts both ways.

Click to expand...

44man said:

Everyone has choices to make in life

Click to expand...

fred2207 said:

Yep, making up shit as they go along... Better served sorting what type donut is best at Dunkin Donuts...

Click to expand...

spoon059 said:

Quick question, while you're up there on your high horse... Do you concealed carry in Maryland? After all, you think its unconstitutional to limit the 2A, which means you think your right to carry is unconstitutional. You are talking big about equating law enforcement officers to Nazi's for following "unconstitutional" laws... but do you follow "unconstitutional" laws too?

Click to expand...