Who's Responsible for Unconstitutional Use of a Law?

Question

If the federal government writes a law which is unconstitutional, and someone does something unconstitutional which follows that law, is it their responsibility or strictly that of the government? Do people have to follow an unconstitutional law?

If a law gives the people a certain power (specifically power to patent an idea) but fails to make a provision preventing people from using this power in an unconstitutional manner, would people be responsible for this abuse of power, or is the law itself unconstitutional? Whose is the fault, the law which fails to uphold constitutional law, or the person/business which takes advantage of it? Or both?

The specific example is oil companies holding copyrights to alternative energy technology, but keeping it on the shelf and not allowing their use or development, even though the Constitution specifically allows the Congress to make laws providing patents/copyrights to promote the progress of useful arts and sciences.

But any other example is welcome.

(for coragryph) wouldn't it be unconstitutional, if the Constitution states a purpose (to promote the progress etc.) and laws are being used for a different purpose (specifically to impede the progress of useful arts and sciences)?

Answer 1

"If the federal government writes a law which is unconstitutional"

Unless a court declares the law unconstitutional, a law is constitutional.

Your initial premise is wrong. If you believe a law is unconstitutional you would need to file a lawsuit to have the law declared unconstitutional. Until then, the law is valid.

Answer 2

If the law is unconstitutional on its face (as written), the it was the legislature that got it wrong.

If the law is unconstitutional as applied (in a particular situation), then it was either the legislature failing to anticipate that situation, or the law enforcement for improperly applying the law.

In the example, first the issue is patent not copyright. Second, as you noted the constitution specifically grants authority to Congress to make laws for both patents and copyrights (Article I Section 8). So, as long as the laws relate to that goal, they are constitutional.

If the laws are poorly written and cause side-effects, that is not automatically a constitutional issue. The problem with the patent laws is that they are being used (and abused) as written. That doesn't make the patent laws unconstitutional, nor does it even mean what's being done is illegal.

The issue is up to Congress, to make or fix the laws. If you think the laws are written badly, then work to get them changed. But it's not a constitutional issue, unless the laws violate the constitution, which these don't.

{EDIT}

"To promote the progress" is a general policy statement. But what promotes the progress and what hinders it? That's for the legislators (Congress) to decide.

Answer 3

Yours sir is NO Example, but one stupid rant! Where were you Sir when Clinton gave missile technology to China ,or nuclear reactors and fissionable materials to North Korea?
Under his desk with Monica I assume!
Ultimately the sad part is that your rant is perfectly logical to you!
Seek professional help!

Answer 4

That have to follow it until it is challenged.

Answer 5

Oh, those Evil Oil Companies - what WILL we do?!?