if law is violate of fundamental rights of individual then why it should be consider as a law ?

Question

whats ur opinion abt .it ?

Answer 1

In theory, no.

But with that said, there are plenty of laws on the books that violate the fundamental right of equality between all citizens.

IE, my sister divorced her husband. She had purchased a house with her own funds while they were married with my mother. My mother later decided to buy her out and wanted the deed put into her name.

My sister was told that in my state, NC, the ex-wife is required to have the ex-husbands signature of approval before she could sell the house to my mother. My sister inquired about this to an attorney and sure enough, there was nothing she could do. It was a law on the books and still used.

Btw, it does not work in reverse... meaning had she been the male and him the female, she would not have required his signature.

He made her pay him 5k for that just to be a total jerk.

My opinion is that any law that violates our fundamental rights should not be removed from law or rewritten/adjusted.

Answer 2

There has been a huge up-surge in laws which violate individual rights over the past 20 years in the USA. The generations who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions have allowed 'the government' to make all sorts of decisions for them. Thus, children of minority age now have more rights than their predecessors. In many states, it is merely the word of the child, not the proof of fact, that can determine guilt if an adult is accused of abuse, child rape, or many others. This lack of taking charge for their own behavior has undermined the strength of America, and filled our legal system with foolishness.
Additionally, laws which are proposed as "for your own safety" such as the seatbelt and helmet laws, child-seat laws, even d.u.i. formulation are truly rooted only in financial soils. The federal government withholds funds from those states who don't participate. This is a scare tactic from the high-handed feds, and the states are rolling over and playing dead for all of those dollars!
You would like an opinion? It's time for the States to take back control of their individual populations. And it's time for the people to stand up and say "If I have caused no harm, then I will not accept being treated as a criminal!"

Answer 3

Strictly speaking, I would think that if a law was in violation of individual fundamental rights, then it wouldn't be able to be a law. That being said, there are no doubt many things that one would like to do and/or that one might think one should be able to do that a law says you can't. There are many actions which one might find personally desireable that by virtue of choosing to live in society (as opposed to a desert island) one accepts as illegal, forbidden, etc. for the sake of the greater good. A country's constitution and/or bill of rights may be full of many noble and lofty sentiments, but their nobleness and loftiness notwithstanding, they are not to be considered absolutely inviolate in their particular application. More specifically, the statements cannot be construed in a fashion that would result in the destruction of the constitution through the statements' application. e.g. the American Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech, but that does not grant, bestow or otherwise give one the right to unwarrantedly shout fire in a crowded darkened movie theatre.

Answer 4

Generally, a law that violates fundamental rights is not valid, because it is preempted by the Constitution.

There are very few circumstances where a fundamental right may be infringed, and the test is called Strict Scrutiny. For the restriction to be valid, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling (essential) government interest/goal, and it must be the absolute minimum restriction possible to achieve that goal. Few laws meet this standard.

For the record, the term 'fundamental right' includes those rights listed in the Constitution, as well as a handful of others that are deemed "essential to an ordered liberty" (right to bodily integrity, right to interstate travel) and those "rooted in our history and tradition (right to work, right to live with family, right to raise children). The oft-mentioned "right to privacy" is generally not fundamental, except as it pertains to 4th Amendment protections.

{EDIT to kaylora} Nicely said.

Answer 5

if a law is violative of FRs then it is not a law. read Art. 13 of the constitution. but if so then the law will be declared void.
but even FRs are not absolute and they can b suspended under certain conditions.
i m also studyin in the same course as that of u . so i think v both can help each other.

Answer 6

what law is it that you speak of, and who gets to decide if it is a fundamental right?

The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few!

Answer 7

What law are you talking about? Give an example.