"an unjust law is no law at all"...this is an old saying....if this is true i think we have the discretion to disobey unjust laws.it is the duty of every citizen to follow laws... as unjust laws are not laws we have the right to disobey such laws. Is this correct?
please try to explain your answer
2007-10-20 12:15:17 · 7 answers · asked by Ranjeeth 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
We don't have discretion -- because an unjust law that is valid is still enforceable -- the old saying came from a time when an unjust law was not enforceable, because the courts had enough power to decide whether to enforce laws or not.
We don't have the right to ignore the laws -- but we do have the right (and some would say the obligation) to challenge the laws, and see that they are removed.
2007-10-20 12:38:58 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume that you live in a Democracy, since only in a Democracy can we all avail the privilage of critisising a Law.
If this is the case, you must realise that if you feel that a particular law is unjust, there are other people living in the same Democracy who feel that it is just and fair enough. So if you feel very strongly that a Law is unjust, instead of trying to disobey it, which I may add, might result in Penal action against you, you should either garner support for your opinion and get the unjust law repealed by the competent legislature, or else, you may approach the Court of Law and file a petition and challange the Constitutional Vires of that Law and thereby get the Law anulled, if the Court too reaches the opinion that the Law is unjust and thereby violates the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.
2007-10-21 04:08:42 · answer #2 · answered by romantic_homme 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't interpret it to mean "A law that is unjust is therefore not a law," but rather "A law that is unjust does not serve the purpose of law."
The purpose of law is to ensure justice (as far as can be possible) in society. Government is the mechanism by which laws are made and followed. What is just, however, can be quite subjective. Our system of government is based on Democracy, where the intention is to make laws that are fair to the largest number of people; or to put it the other way, to be unjust to as few people as possible.
I read the Declaration of Independence as saying that citizens not only have the right but the duty to preserve justice. We have tried to make a system that facilitates making and changing laws in order to continue to serve the cause of justice.
But when that system fails, or if society as a whole has failed its commitment to justice, then yes, every citizen has the right to disobey an unjust law. But they have the responsibility to first try to effect change through the accepted system. Only when that fails -- when the government fails in its purpose, and when the majority is clearly wrong -- is a citizen justified in breaking the law.
2007-10-20 12:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by ELuhnAbroad 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes you have the discretion to disobey unjust laws. In certain situations you might even have the DUTY to do so. You only have to look at the history of the last century or so to see numerous examples of unjust laws that no moral person could possibly obey. The Nazi persecution of the Jews was legal. Jim Crow was legal. Anti-sodomy laws were legal. If no one stands against oppression, how will it ever end?
2007-10-20 13:30:56 · answer #4 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What makes a law unjust?
Is it that it does not promote "a more perfect Union,"?
Or could it be that that law was enacted in an unjust manner?
i.e. a law that is made which is not in pursuance of the Constitution, that is to say that the consent was not present for the enactment of such law.
This is the basis for nullification.
2014-12-19 03:03:31 · answer #5 · answered by Chuck 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The quote is from Martin Luther King, Jr, and I believe it is correct. Your explanation that you have a "right" to disobey that law is incorrect. Martin Luther King, Jr did not complain when he was arrested and jailed for violations of such unjust laws. The imprisonment was part and parcel of his protest. He did not feel he had a "right" to disobey, he felt he had a "duty" to disobey them and acept the punishment so as to highlight the injustice of the law and publicize the injustice so that the people would rise up and change the unjust law..
2007-10-20 12:26:46 · answer #6 · answered by legaleagle_45 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes that is an old saying. Is this the days back then? No, its not and what you might find "unjust" may be perfectly "justified" in someone else's opinion. So, my question to you is how would someone find out if a law is unjust? And who would that be??
2007-10-20 12:25:33 · answer #7 · answered by J. 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This statement was said by Martin Luther King Jr.
I think it is correct....
No one is guilty either of violating an unjust law or of violating any law applied unjustly.
Have a nice day :-)
2007-10-20 20:18:01 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but you can get organised and protest against any unjust laws and try to change them legally first.
That is what styagrah is all about.
2007-10-20 12:30:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whatever be the old saying,let the saying remain as sayings. The sayings never become a law. in India, we have codified law that means our law is in writing form, not oral. in this situation whatever be the codified law, we have no other option but to obey the same, whether just or unjust ,it is immaterial and makes no difference.
2007-10-26 05:18:39 · answer #10 · answered by manish.paul27 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋