Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShootistPRS
When congress passes a law that contradicts the constitution isn't that an unlawful act?
|
I knew that's where you were going with this.
You're making a sort of error very common with laypersons when looking at the law. You're trying to build the entire legal universe from one definition.
So you know the definition of "unlawful act." So what? That doesn't tell you anything about why or how a particular act might be unlawful. Nor does it tell you anything about what elements or attributes of an act might make a difference as to whether or not the act is lawful (e. g., intent, knowledge, etc.). Nor does it tell you anything about the consequences of an act being unlawful.
For example, not every act which might not be in conformity with an applicable legal principle imposes a penalty on whomever committed it. Some legal consequences might not include legal liability.
Also, the subject raises issues of legislative immunity, discussed in
this thread, and judicial immunity, discussed in
this thread.