law question. what i was trying to say, if your charged with whatever can you in court say that that law was?

Question

not suppose to exist, or did you have to bring it up with congress the law makers.
Here is really the example i was leading to, this isn't about me by the way, i just kinda heard, and was thinking about this in general.

In some places they say no u-torn for example or no smpoking for example at a train station, and a person didn't even relize the sign, but the sign wasn't suppose to be there for example there is absolutely no reason why the no u-torn sign should be there, are you alowed to bring that up in court or does the court just interpret the law and say no you broke it did the u-torn blah blah, blah, your guilty fine, points sumtimes even like 10 days in jail (which i think is insane, for what smoking 10 days in jail [pursonally not a smoker)
Can you state that the law was unconstituational, or did you have to ask congress to change that law or remove that sign blah blah. because you did brake the law but the law can be wrong such as in the case above.Please clearify answer

Answer 1

I didn't read your first question. I assume from the question above that there was a previous one. I offer input on what I read in your example scenario.

I'm not quite sure if you're referring to 'two' possible scenarios or just one, but I'm misunderstanding the first one. It sounds like you are first wondering whether the law would hold your accountable for a (for example) U-Turn violation if there was a u-turn sign posted in a wrong place (maybe because someone came along as a joke and took it from one street and put it at another location) and the sign is not in the place that the traffic engineers meant for it to be. In that case you can defend yourself easily by providing proof to the court that no one meant for the sign to be there, it doesn't apply to that intersection, and it was moved from somewhere else.

Your other scenario seems to be that the no u-turn sign is at the intersection and you get a ticket for disobeying the sign, and that the traffic engineering department in your city meant to put it there and the police want it there, but you want to prove to the court that a no u-turn sign at that location is unnecessary or it violates a constitutional provision or some other existing law that it conflicts with. If you're arrested or ticketed, you may contest the violation on any of those grounds. As to constitionality, let's say you lose. You're next step would be a lengthy one through the appeal process (cant be done for traffic laws, but theoretically for a higher crime) and you try for a pecedent setting, law changing decision that affects that particular law or a part of it. And if you just from the beginning want to attack the whole idea of the sign being there, you'd start with getting help from your local state congressional representative to change the law itself. But realize that that person is an elected official, and if you're asking him/her to change something that most of his supporting voters favor (and most favor strong traffic laws), he's not likely to risk his popularity and office, but going to bat for you...unless your quest for that change is one that is supported by the majority of voters in his district.

Answer 2

It's a subtle distinction.

If the law is truly invalid, either because it was not enacted properly, or because it is preempted, or because it is unconstitutional, that can be raised as a defense. Sometimes the law can be challenged "on its face", meaning that the law is obviously invalid as written or was never enacted properly. Other times, the law can be challenged "as applied", meaning that while it may be valid in some situations, it isn't valid in the current case.

Either way, the law would be challenged as part of the procedural side of the case, as opposed to arguing the factual side. Generally, there is no requirement that you first attempt to get the law changed legislatively, though as with everything there are exceptions.

If the law is valid, but you didn't understand it or didn't know about, that generally doesn't count as a valid defense. There is a rare exception for incredibly complex regulatory schemes, where a good faith misunderstanding might be a defense. But that argument doesn't work for most laws.

In the examples you gave, if the city had the legal authority to declare some intersection a No-U-Turn location, then whether they had a valid reason to or not doesn't matter. If they had the legal authority to post the sign, then it would be a valid restriction.

Answer 3

If you broke a law, you broke a law. The law is just the law. There is no requirement it make sense. What keeps society stable is that we all implicitly agree to go along with whatever laws there are, and we all implicitly accept we will be punished if we ignore or disobey the law.

If you feel strongly enough against a particular law, lobby to get it changed. But you might want to buy a dictionary and work on your English first!

Answer 4

In an regulatory court (like traffic court), your options are limited. In a jury trial, you have the right to argue that a particular law, or a particular application of a law is unjust. Juries refusing to convict defendants in the face of directions to convict from the 'court' have helped establish many of the rights we enjoy today such as freedom of religion (in the case of William Penn) and freedom of the press (John Peter Zenger). So-called 'jury nullification' helped overturn such travesties as the Fugitive Slave Acts and Prohibition. Unfortunately, the 'judge' will do everything he or she can to obstruct your exercise of this right.

For more information, see http://www.fija.org

Answer 5

The last time that I checked, "Whatever" was not a crime.

You could challenge the constitutionality of a law, but don't waste your time fighting a "no U-turn" citation if it was posted. You're going to lose, plain and simple.

If an action was illegal, why would it be illegal to post a sign to that effect? That's just plain dumb!

Can't really clarify my answer until you clarify your question.

Answer 6

it is as a lot because the prosecutor no matter if to cost your cousin. The defendant can ***** yet won't be able to convey expenditures on his personal. The defendant can record a civil lawsuit adversarial on your cousin for damages. Your cousin could also convey one adversarial to the defendant.

Answer 7

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse".