Y-E-S spells yes
Of if you researched instead of shooting from the hip as the guy before me did, you would find that the real answer is, it depends (the typical law answer). Is the portion severable from the rest of the statute? In other words, will the statute still make sense and operate without the portion that is unconstitutional? If the answer is yes, then the statute is only unconstitutional in part. If the answer is no, then the whole statute is unconstitutional.
Chat with our AI personalities
It was only unconstitutional if you accepted Roger Taney's interpretation of the Constitution in his judgment of the Dred Scott case in 1857. He said the Constitution protected slavery - so therefore no state could declare itself to be free soil.
No it does not allow the courts to overrule the will of the people because they only label it constitutional or unconstitutional and other branches have a little help in it. If it is unconstitutional the court wont bother with it. :)
Australia is the only country which is also an entire continent.
No. Only the President of the United States can do this. However, when a law is enacted, and then challenged in the court system, it may be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court where it may then be ruled unconstitutional.
The second national bank was unconstitutional because Andrew Jackson believed that the bank mainly looked out for the rich and powerful and the common man. You have to remember, that during Jackson's presidency it was also the time for the common age (where the president suppots the common people)