what if law violates fundamental rights whether it should be recognize as a law ? ?

Answer 1

Unthinking respect for a law is a great mistake. it has to be worth our respect. And if it isn't we should campaign to have it scrapped. Like the Poll Tax in the UK.

The obvious example is the Sharia a religious law that allows minor clerics to order the amputation of a hand or a foot for petty theft, This violates the Declaration of Human Rights that no-one shall be subjected to cruel or barbarous treatment.

Answer 2

This is a question that jurists and legal ethicists have been asking for years... its a good question, but to answer it, you need to define it first...

what's a "fundamental right"? What we in the west consider the fundamental rights (like those embodied in many UN conventions) were developed by western thinkers so arent always applicable everywhere in the world. So no right is "fundamental" in the sense that it applies to all people.

In the legal sense, nothing is a "right" unless the law says so. So rights dont mean anything unless they're written in the constitution or another law: see Coragryph.

To answer the question: ethically, a law violating a right should not be valid: the point of rights is to protect people from oppressive laws. But no right is absolute: they give way in certain situations. eg: right to free speech doesnt apply to people who defame or vilify others, or those that incite violence.

You must assess the individual law, what right it breaches, how severly it breaches it, and what benefits flow from the law in question. Only then can you say whether it can be called "a law".

Answer 3

If a law violates fundamental rights, it is generally invalid.

In the US, the law can only be found valid if it serves a compelling govt interest/goal, is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal (not too broad or over-inclusive), and is the least restrictive means available.

Answer 4

The entire Constitution of the Unites States of America sets forth the most important and fundamental of our rights.

But, if I am pressed, I would further suggest that all of the others flow from the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. These amendments guarantee our freedom of speech, our freedom to assemble, our freedom to practice our various religions without interference from the government, our freedom to petition for redress of grievances, and our freedom to be secure in our persons and our property against unreasonable searches and seizures. When the Federal or State governments of our country ignore these fundamental rights, we are violated, and they must be held accountable. Excuse the lengthy explanation but your question is loaded.

That is the way it is supposed to work, and that is the way it usually does work. But there are times when the government violates these rights in one way or another. For example, the 1st amendment guarantees us the right to peaceably assemble, yet the government routinely restricts that right. It says we cannot assemble within so many feet of a polling place; it says that we need to purchase a permit to assemble in certain public places, and it reserves to itself the right to deny issuance of such permits when it feels a need to do so. The practice of some religious beliefs is denyed when the government feels it is contrary to the good of society in general. The 2nd amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear firearms, but some jurisdictions have passed laws that make ownership of firearms illegal, and most have enacted laws denying or restricting our right to carry firearms. Some of these restrictions we are comfortable with; some we are not so comfortable with.

But are there times when the government can circumvent or deny us the rights protected by the law. I think the answer is yes. And the examples sited support this. The fourth amendment specifically says that we are protected against “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Through the years, the courts have extended this to include the entire set of laws by which we are governed, which clearly indicates that when it is reasonable to do so, the government does have the right to restrict our rights for a period of time. The question then is when is it reasonable to restrict the rights enumerated in the Constitution?

The most basic responsibility of a Government is to protect its citizens from those who would rob them of their way of life. That is the reason for its very existence. In the past, that has meant fighting of wars on our own soil as well as on foreign soil. To do that, the government drafted young men and took them away from their families, their schools, and their jobs, trained them to kill other human beings, and then put them in harms way, frequently against their will. Those were the days when enemies were easily identifiable. And domestically, there was frequently time to gather evidence to show probable cause and secure a court ordered warrant if applicable.

Today, technology has made identification in time to prevent attack much more difficult. Instead of weeks and months, we have only minutes and seconds to identify a potential threat and those responsible for it. The internet adds speed and makes people anonymous. In fact they can change their fictitious identities several times an hour if they like. Mobility is also greatly enhanced by cell phone technology and laptop computers capable of wireless internet connectivity. I can literally update a website authorizing a terrorist operation to commense while riding at 50 miles an hour on a cross-country tour bus.

Yet the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens remains unchanged. In order to do that in today’s world, a government must be able to respond as fast as the threat can develop. That sometimes means a temporarily infringement on the general rights of a population for the greater good of the whole. Federal Law permits both you and me to receive any radio traffic that travels as a transmission through the air. Mobile phones are radio transmitters. If the government collects those transmissions, it is doing nothing that you and I cannot legally do. But more to the point is the question: is electronic data collection unreasonable? My answer is no it is not - not if we want the government to do the most important job it exists for. I

In our modern world, particularly where there is war, it is difficult to determine where the line is or should drawn. There will be individual violations of basic human rights, but we need to guard them and take action to punish perpetrators who threaten the bases of our government, which is Freedom.

Answer 5

Hitler came to power using legal democratic means. Hitler made laws of that type. Many of those who carried out Hitler's orders were prosecuted and executed or jailed in the Nuremborg trials after WW2.

Answer 6

No.