Primarily, a grave offense against the morality of oneself and a lack of conformity to ideals of right human conduct. Out of that, crime will and does hurt others. It is lawless.
2007-07-02 13:39:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Light Fly 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Any action that goes against an existing law (even if that was not the person's intent).
2007-07-02 13:32:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by ItsJustMe 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends .The original definition is (to commit an immoral act against ons fellow man) .According to the U.S, constitution most of the laws our govt. make are illeagal and are designed to victimize our citizens for govt,. profit .
Fundamental juridical rights, such as the Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury, help prevent the oppression of individual citizens by limiting the capacity of government officials to persecute persons based on trumped-up charges or non-existent offenses
It is (the jury’s )right ,and primary and paramount duty to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are in (its)opinion, unjust or oppressive and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws- Lysander Spooner(1852)
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24
"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:327
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain ,but to preserve and enlarge freedom > John Locke
“
A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall,
(The order bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898. )
]Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776 Papers 1:546
"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion without imputing to them criminality." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:52
When government transgresses powers delegated by the constitution they become nullities and altogether void of all force .
"[An] act of the Congress of the United States... which assumes powers... not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:383
Article 6 - This Constitution…. shall be the Supreme Law of the Land… Judges in every state shall be bound thereby , any laws…to the Contrary notwithstanding …judicial officers … shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
The United States Supreme Court has stated that "No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his Undertaking to support it".
Cooper Vs. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). If a judge does not fully Comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, in re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is Without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts TREASON
2007-07-02 17:19:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by dollars2burn4u 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
with knowledge or ignorance, something done against laws made.
2007-07-02 13:39:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by anon 2
·
0⤊
0⤋