Understanding Unconstitutional Law

When a government law or statute violates the Constitution, it is considered unconstitutional. It may be declared void in whole or in part by a court.


The most common form of constitutional law is judicial review. This allows the Supreme Court to determine if a government action is illegal.

Constitutional Law

Whether you are a government employee, a business owner or an individual, you should know how to interpret laws and practices that may be unconstitutional. Constitutional law consists of the principles and rights of individuals outlined in both the United States and state constitutions.

Constitutional law involves a complex set of rules that establish basic governmental powers, civil rights and civil liberties. It also provides a framework for how courts decide legal disputes.

The Constitution defines three primary branches of government — the executive, legislative and judiciary — each with distinct powers and responsibilities. These divisions ensure that each branch is accountable to the other and that no one power or function overpowers another.

When Congress passes new legislation, it should always check the laws against the Constitution and consider any unconstitutional provisions before approving them. This is referred to as the separation of powers.

Many government agencies and organizations employ constitutional law professionals, especially when they are dealing with issues that are directly related to the Constitution. These professionals use critical thinking and analytical abilities to interpret and evaluate the law and how it applies to real-world situations.

They also often consult with clients outside of their field of expertise to help them understand and solve legal problems. This requires active listening skills, emotional intelligence and a strong understanding of their client’s needs and thoughts.

If you’re interested in a career as a constitutional lawyer, you can pursue a bachelor’s degree in law or a similar field and then take the bar exams. After you get a license, you can practice at private firms, public policy institutes and federal agencies.

You can also work as a consultant for government agencies and organizations to assist them in implementing legal policies that adhere to the Constitution. You can also teach or conduct research in this field.

The First Amendment protects people’s right to freedom of speech and religion. However, when a government employee or contractor agrees to forego the exercise of these rights in order to receive employment or a grant, that contract may be considered unconstitutional. This happens when a government employee or contractor signs an employment or grant contract that includes a term that prohibits the individual from speaking on political topics or other issues that are not relevant to the effective performance of the job or contract.

Due Process

Due process is a term used in legal circles to describe a series of rules and principles that have been established by courts to protect individuals’ rights. These rules are based on a commitment to the rule of law and have been developed over many centuries.

The term “due process” appears twice in the Constitution: once in the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits deprivation of life without due process of law, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no state may violate an individual’s right to life, liberty or property. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also incorporate a broad array of judicial safeguards against arbitrary government action, including a requirement that the Constitution be read in accordance with a common law doctrine of justice that incorporates the Bill of Rights.

Generally, due process involves two parts: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process concerns the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of their life, liberty or property.

These procedures include notice, an opportunity to be heard and a decision supported by substantial evidence. They are necessary for a fair trial and a fair trial is an essential part of due process, as it allows people to make informed decisions about their rights.

However, due process is difficult to define, and there is no set list of procedures that constitutes “due process” in all cases. This is because the degree of protection required to uphold an individual’s right depends on how important that right is.

An example of a violation of due process is when a person is charged with a crime and does not have fair notice that the government intends to use evidence against them. This is called a “facially unreasonable delay” and it is illegal under the Due Process Clause.

Another violation of due process is when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere in a criminal case and he or she does not know and voluntarily agree to the charge. This is a breach of due process because it means that the government has not been able to show that the accused was informed and voluntarily agreeing to the charges.

Takings Clause

The Takings Clause, found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” This means that the government cannot seize or use private property for public use, without compensation.

In recent years, the courts have interpreted the takings clause to include a variety of legal actions, including challenging governmental regulations that prohibit private owners from using their land as they see fit. These cases have centered on whether such regulations constitute just compensation for property owners, and on how far government must go in order to be entitled to take private property.

Another type of taking involves challenges to conditions imposed by governments in exchange for the issuance of development permits. In these cases, the courts have ruled that exaction conditions must substantially advance a public purpose related to the underlying permit in order to be acceptable.

These requirements, which have been called the “essential nexus” test, must be reasonable and closely relate to the public purpose. Otherwise, they’re just a scheme to extort money from private property owners.

There are three main types of regulatory takings: those that impose economic burdens on property owners, those that reduce the value of their property and those that prevent a property owner from making a profit. In addition to these categories, the takings clause also covers land use controls and exaction conditions, which can be imposed on a property owner’s development permit as a condition for approval.

As with all constitutional claims, a takings action has several criteria that must be met in order to succeed. The first is ripeness, which means that the plaintiff must have had the property at issue for a sufficient period of time to be sure the claim is valid.

The second criteria is the Penn Central balancing test, which evaluates the economic impact of the regulation on the affected property owners, the degree to which it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations and the character of the government action. These are vague factors and have been explained only rarely by the Supreme Court, so there is still a lot of debate as to how they should be assessed.

Limits on Government Powers

One of the central tenets of constitutionalism is that government must be limited in its powers. This idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, raises a host of important questions about legal and philosophical foundations of the state.

In a free, self-governing society, citizens and their representatives are empowered to limit the power of the government by holding their representatives accountable through periodic elections that are conducted freely, fairly, and competitively. They can also use their rights of free speech, press, assembly, and association to rally public opinion against elected or appointed officials who abuse their powers.

A second way in which the power of the government is limited is through a system of checks and balances. This system divides the powers of the three branches of government, with the executive branch entrusted with making laws, the legislative branch with executing those laws, and the independent judicial branch with resolving disputes in accordance with those laws.

The judicial branch is particularly strong in preventing the illegal or excessive use of power by the government through its authority to declare null and void the actions of the government it deems contrary to the Constitution. Similarly, the legislative branch is powerful in preventing the improper exercise of its own powers through its powers of investigation and oversight.

Lastly, the power of the people is likewise limited through the principles of popular self-governance and constitutional limits on government. This is a system of government that, as Thomas Paine noted in Common Sense, “is the law,” and it is based on the belief that the people’s representatives are empowered to limit the power of the state by establishing a written constitution that must be adopted by the consent of the governed.

The Framers of the Constitution crafted the structure of the federal government to ensure that the power of the government would be divided among the different branches in a manner that allowed for the efficient accomplishment of policy goals and a check on the excessive and unconstitutional exercise of power by any one of the three branches. The framers based their system on the ideas of Baron de Montesquieu and John Locke, who believed in a government with a separation of powers to prevent one branch from exercising too much power over another.