Not only do anti-rights cultists (gun control advocates) have a problem with logic & math; at least one of them also didn’t pay attention to his Civic teacher.
Jason Kilgore, aka Baldr Odinson, writing about the Sheriffs who informed President Obama and Vice-President Biden they would not enforce unconstitutional laws says:
You see, it isn’t the duty of a sheriff to interpret law. They don’t wear robes when they’re on duty and aren’t in the Judicial branch. And they don’t get to make the laws like those in the Legislative branch. Their job is to enforce the laws. They don’t get to determine what is and what isn’t constitutional.And they report to the President of the United States.
Second, yes they have a duty to determine if the law should be enforced because they have a duty not to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
So “Baldr” while you are right there is a process to address it, you are wrong w when you claim they have to enforce to enforce the law.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” -Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” -Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
1. The President’s office and authority are created and bounded by the Constitution; he is required to act within its terms. Put somewhat differently, in serving as the executive created by the Constitution, the President is required to act in accordance with the laws — including the Constitution, which takes precedence over other forms of law. This obligation is reflected in the Take Care Clause and in the President’s oath of office.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.