[AK103K]

And who decides that, pray tell? You?

All of us, or at least thats how its supposed to work.

Here, maybe this will help.....

"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 Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.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."

Can we all arbitrarily decide for ourselves what's valid and what's not?

As a citizen, yes, its our duty to.

And if you really believe a law is "unconstitutional", do you have the stones necessary to violate it openly and welcome arrest so that you can challenge and defeat that law in court the way that real activists like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King did? You'd have to, wouldn't you?

Sometimes thats what it takes, and to bad, more dont do it, but then again, most dont have a clue as to how our government is supposed to work, or what their responsibilities are as a citizen. Most dont even vote, or even know who their representatives are, (but I'll bet they can name the top ten sprots figures) and if you dont, you deserve what you get.

Even if a law is on the books, and no one seems to care to do anything about it,(or even knows that it exists these days) we as citizens on a jury can find it invalid and refuse to hold the person guilty, even if all the evidence proves otherwise, beyond any doubt.

The majority of people dont have a clue as to what jury nullification is, and how we, the people of the jury, are the most powerful force in the courtroom, not the judge, although dont tell them that. If you even bring it up in court, you'll either be dismissed, or held in contempt.

If you break the law and run away from the consequences, you're admitting that you're wrong and therefore the law was valid, aren't you?

Not at all. In the case of the red light, its simple common sense, and something that seems to be greatly lacking these days. Then again, your more than welcome to sit there with the rest of those who are afraid to go through it in case you might get in trouble. It will turn green eventually, I'm sure. Then again, you might get a cop who is a Bircher who gives you a ticket for being a retard and blocking traffic.

Following blindly is a very dangerous thing. Works well for those who crave power and poorly for those who follow. Lead, follow, or go back to the game. Whos got the beer?