This is not entirely a constitutional question. There may be many reasons for apparent conflict in legislation. Sometimes one supersedes the other, sometimes both can be valid law. By constitution, specific legislative powers are granted to federal or provincial/state governments. If a state government passes a law in an area that is exclusively federal jurisdiction, the state law will not be valid. Likewise if the federal government passes a law in an area that is in exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Further, constitutionally appointed authority can be delegated. Even though the federal government has the authority, it can let the state decide, the state can let the county decide, the county can let each municipality decide... and so on. This can result in the law in your community being different from the law in the ward across the street. Laws change. If the new law you speak of amends or replaces of the old law then the new law is... well... the new law, and it is valid. Another possible answer to your question is founded in interpretation of law. It may be that one law appears to conflict with or contradict another when in reality they are meant to apply in different circumstances. Breaking into a house is a crime, doing so when you have a warrant is not. This is not entirely a constitutional question. There may be many reasons for apparent conflict in legislation. Sometimes one supersedes the other, sometimes both can be valid law. By constitution, specific legislative powers are granted to federal or provincial/state governments. If a state government passes a law in an area that is exclusively federal jurisdiction, the state law will not be valid. Likewise if the federal government passes a law in an area that is in exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Further, constitutionally appointed authority can be delegated. Even though the federal government has the authority, it can let the state decide, the state can let the county decide, the county can let each municipality decide... and so on. This can result in the law in your community being different from the law in the ward across the street. Laws change. If the new law you speak of amends or replaces of the old law then the new law is... well... the new law, and it is valid. Another possible answer to your question is founded in interpretation of law. It may be that one law appears to conflict with or contradict another when in reality they are meant to apply in different circumstances. Breaking into a house is a crime, doing so when you have a warrant is not.
The Supreme Court determines what contradicts the Constitution. So it supposedly isn't possible for them to rule against it. If people don't like the decision of the Supreme Court, they can pass laws and/or amend the Constitution to change it. Congress would be who would overrule it, particularly members who were there when they passed whatever law. The Court is not allowed to put words in the mouth of Congress.
No, Pakistan follows its own constitution passed in 1973. There has been previous contitutions as well in 1952 and 1962 but they were made by military ruler.
Can someone translate this? Can someone translate this?
This is 2 separate issues. The national debt has just gone up because of the new tax laws that were recently passed. The constitution is a working document and is the framework for government and is used everyday.
This is 2 separate issues. The national debt has just gone up because of the new tax laws that were recently passed. The constitution is a working document and is the framework for government and is used everyday.
A law's validity is determined by whether it complies with the constitution, is enacted through the proper legislative process, and serves a legitimate government interest. If a law violates any of these principles, it may be deemed invalid and unenforceable.
17something
The First US Constitution Was Passed in 1823. This is not the one one we follow though.
17something
MEN
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (also known as the Supremacy Clause) explicitly states the Constitution, federal statutes, and US treaties as the "supreme law of the land." Under this clause, a law in effect under the national government takes precedence over any law passed by a State legislature. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for Texas to pass a law that is in contradiction to the US Constitution.
No, the Polish government was not Fascist. However, in 1939 it had recently passed changes to the constitution, giving their President a tremendous amount of power. The country was virtually a dictatorship by 1939- but, it was not Fascist in nature.