"There are no good laws but such as repeal other laws."
President Andrew Johnson
| The goals of the House of Repeals are to put the civility back
into civilization, to return our country to the rule of law and to enforce
the rights of the sovereign people of the United States; through the
most stringent enforcement possible of the Bill of Rights.
To accomplish this our primary method will be bills or constitutional amendments of repeal, presented to the voters of the several states, starting with California, that will do four things:
Section 256. Generally.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal  or state,  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 its 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.  No repeal of such an enactment is necessary. 
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 contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. 
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law  and no courts are bound to enforce it.  Persons convicted and fined under a statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. 
A void act cannot be legally inconsistent with a valid one.  And an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.  Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.  Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal or in any way affect an existing one,  if a repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect.  And where a clause repealing a prior law is inserted in an act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision for the repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior law. 
The general principles stated above apply to the constitutions as well as to the laws of the several states insofar as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States.  Moreover, a construction of a statute which brings it in conflict with a constitution will nullify it as effectually as if it had, in express terms, been enacted in conflict therewith. 
An unconstitutional portion of a statute may be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the scope and effect of the valid portions. 
The numbers in [brackets] are footnotes that refer to court decisions. When time permits we will post this excerpt on a separate page with footnotes hyper-linked. Until then you can look them up in the American Jurisprudence at any law library.
The following box contains a "fossil" ad for the Badnarik 2004 Libertarian presidential campaign. Because of Mr. Badnarik's unsurprising loss of that election the United States has continued its slide into fascist dictatorship. The ad remains here as a reminder that the voters of the United States could have made a good choice to restore the Bill of Rights.
This polemic will continue in the near future with my recommendation for a "final solution" to the government problem.
I ask you to join me.
We can change the laws at the state level, but there is nothing the people can do about the Federal government; except to elect a strong constitutionalist as President, who will obey the law and uphold the Bill of Rights in spite of the Congress and judiciary; or to fight another bloody civil war -- and eliminate the government for good and all.
I therefor urge you to campaign with me and vote for Michael Badnarik for President in the 2004 election.
to the House of Repeals,
A Huge part of the
Copyright © 1998, 2002, Michael T. Bradshaw
E-Kits N' Stuff 4.1 PDF
California Proposed Amendment | Outside Links