If Congress passes a law that conflicts with the Constitution, which one are we required to follow?

Question

If Congress passes a law that conflicts with the Constitution, which one are we required to follow: the new law or the U.S. Constitution?

Answer 1

The point of having the Judicial branch is so that they can determine if something is constitutional or not. If Congress did pass something that went against the Constitution, and the President did not veto it, the Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional.

Answer 2

The Constitution.

Answer 3

In theory congress can't/won't pass a law that conflicts with the constitution. If they pass a law that does not adhere to it, they make an amendment.

Answer 4

that is why we have checks and balances.

but you don't get to decide that, the 3 branches together do.

so unless you are willing to accept the risks of breaking the law, I'd follow the law and wait for a decision on the rest, which could be decades or more in coming sometimes.

Answer 5

it would go to the courts and they would decide the law. so you would be subjegated to the law, then file a law suite and let the courts decide. that's why congress spends a lot of time figuring out how ther justice department will view legislation.

Answer 6

The new law until the Supreme court says otherwise.

Answer 7

We would be required to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court.

Answer 8

You have a choice. You can obey the law, or you can break it. If you break the law and are prosecuted for so doing, THEN you can raise the issue of the constitutionality of the law as a defense.

This is how most of the big Constitutional questions get answered - someone breaks a law that they consider unconstitutional, and then argues that defense all the way to the Supreme Court.

Under "some" circumstances you can go to court ahead of being prosecuted, and ask a court to enjoin the government from enforcing the law because it's unconstitutional.

That is what is currently happening in "Parker vs District of Columbia". Parker wanted to have a gun at home for self defense, but was denied one by DC's strict gun control law.

He could have bought one anyway, been prosecuted and convicted, and then appealed on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. Instead he went to court first, and asked the court to order DC not to enforce the law, which they did. DC appealed, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal.

Richard

Answer 9

Um, frankly you can be held by an officer of the law until a judge sorts it out or you go to trial. This could take years. Look at the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Any reasonable person can say they should tried or released - what is the delay.

The issue, laws past after Sept 11 that seem to be legal because the "enemy combatants" were not caught on US territory and are not member of national military.

Problem, at its core habeaus corpus and the US constituion do not say people have to be citizens, where they must have been arrested, where they are being held, and or how they were breaking US Law (Code).

Frankly, I think the President, Justice Department and in effect Congress by doing nothing, have overstepped their bounds. They need to start trials with these combatants right away. If they are guilty of crimes and have been held for over four years, they should be tried and punished, or released.

Answer 10

You have to follow the law unless and until a US federal court determines that the law is unconstitutional.