“All statutes are presumed constitutional and the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of clearly establishing that it violates the constitution.”

That's how it works.

That gets a little hard to do under the assertion that the Constitution is a "living" document that the political class and activist judges can reinterpret apart form original historical intent, it is a way to get around the limited powers and jurisdictions of the enumerated powers of article 1 section 8 of the Construction.

anonymous is right, that is how it works (now). The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land has replaced what was to be a common law system of natural law (the jurors determining fact and law; the individuals were the sovereigns with servants representing their rights) with an ever elusive god syndrome. Mike from Pleasant Hill describes the original intent. Originally, the Constitution had to authorize a specific activity (scope of legislation - limited to life, liberty and property) If the Constitution did not specifically name the activity, it was unconstitutional. Insurance is not specifically mentioned, neither is compelled compliance or victimless crimes. The list of unconstitutional legislation goes on ad infinitum.

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. ⋯ Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it. (16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:)

Keep back thy ( servant ) also from ( presumptuous ) sins; let them not have dominion over me: Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Psalm 19:13.
Zade, arrogant, to deal so proudly. This is no way to judge uprightly.

Ron, Exactly ! , Thank you

Even nullification by jury does not repeal an unconstitutional law. Congress and state legislatures pass thousands of statutes per year -- many clearly violate federal and state constitutions, but only a damaged party may bring a case to court to overturn a statute based on its lack of constitutionality.

This is a gaping hole in the American legislative process -- there is no check on constitutionality in the legislature. Bills to require citing the constitutional authority of each page of legislation have not made it to the floor for a vote -- probably because it would hamper the passage of most bills. Congress today rarely even reads the bills they pass, much less cite their constitutional authority -- bills are lumped together resulting in thousands of pages, I think only one congressman has claimed to have read Obamacare in its entirety. This is an absolute corruption of the legislative process. So, unfortunately, statutes are considered constitutional until proven otherwise. However, technically, an unconstitutional 'law' is unconstitutional from the moment of its creation, not just from the date from which it was struck down. So, unconstitutional 'laws' must be disobeyed, and only those that disobey may make the case risking 'blood and treasure' to preserve the rights of all.

It should be noted, that most of these 'statutes' are passed under the color of law as they are commercial in nature (i.e, the Uniform Commercial Code). The common law already provides for addressing actual violations of individual rights -- no new laws need be invented.

Who will take the case, is the question ?!!!! If the case if just and upright. How many lawyers are needed. Please !!!. Meet the court with all gravity, that is the highest court in our land, meet your enemy or friend, let the chips fall where they may.