This is one of my favorite reads:
"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 statue, 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 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." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals 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 void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. 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 Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
As you well know, the first volume of the statutes of a States' Law, whether it be Illinois, California, Colorado, Kansas, New York, and so on, on page one, they contain the Supreme Law for the united States... The Charters of Freedom as the National Archives calls them; the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of rights, and then the later amendments preceding the Enabling Clause for that States' Constitution.
This is not by accident, this is to remind legislators that nothing that follows these Laws, can contradict or stand against them and still be considered viable Law.
The Particular section of the 16th A.J.P. you have reproduced here is based largely on two of my favorite Supreme Court decisions, namely, Marbury vs. Madison, (1803) and Norton vs. Shelby County, (1886). They illustrate responsibility of each individual legislator to uphold the Constitution in any and all legislation they propose or vote upon... It also places responsibility on any office holder in state government, to refuse any order to enforce any law they see as repugnant or in opposition to the foundation law. The founders intent as projected in these cases implores each and every individual in the States to be vigilant against any "color of law" unconstitutional moves by government at any level and rout it out and expose it.
As you know, we will find much that must be changed, and some things needing to be reinstated, even within the later amendments to the Republics' Constitution as well. 9th and 10th Amendment medicine will be needed in heavy measure to get the Republic back in trim and on its' destined course... Here are a couple of quotes from the court cases mentioned."Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate
them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and
consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act
of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is
consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental
principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the
further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it,
notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it
effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule
as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what
was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity
too gross to be insisted on." ~Justice John Marshall
Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S 137, 1803"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed."
~U.S. Supreme Court,
Norton V. Shelby County
118 U.S. 425, 442
Oldyoti"The tax power has been used by the national
government as a weapon to take over, one by
one, subjects traditionally within the orbit of
state police power." ~Chief Justice Taft