Is a law (any law) passed under corrpt curcumstances valid?

[fireye]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

If a law is passed under easily provable corrupt circumstances is it still valid?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

If a law is passed under easily provable corrupt circumstances is it still valid?

It is, until the Oregon Supreme Court decides it is not.

 

[tranquility]

If Mr. Burns went on TV and offered a million dollars to each Springfield council member to pass and the mayor to sign a law saying everyone must bow to him as he walks by, and they do so, Homer better bow or would be subject to arrest by Wiggum. Even if Mr. Burns acually does pay the bribe to each member. The courts would not find the law in error. (Or, should not.)

Later, when all the members, Mayor and Mr. Burns were put in jail for their acts, the law would still be valid and enforceable. The law was properly passed. The law must be changed by valid process to be removed.

I don't follow Oregon news so don't know if there are specific examples of what you mean beyond the general and don't know the arguments trying to be made there.

 

[racer72]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

If a law is passed under easily provable corrupt circumstances is it still valid?

Yep. Someone will have to sue in court to determine the legal and constitutionality of the law.

 

[tranquility]

A law is not unconstitutional because it was passed through corruption.

 

[xylene]

Easy answer -

Slavery.

 

[fireye]

So it appears my assumptions were correct then...

So it appears that my assumption that the law operates without logic and or reason is correct. Meaning that if a law is passed no matter how ridiculous or corrupt it is it will become law regardless of how irrational and illogical or cruel it is. Like a giant machine with no humanity what so ever involved in its operations. Sounds like tyranny by rule of law to me.

So many lives would be destroyed until it got before a Supreme Court somewhere and declared null and void I would think then.

They have removed the option of common sense decisions of what might be really right and fair and replaced it with laws and rules that dictate outcomes regardless of rationality.

 

[Zigner]

So it appears that my assumption that the law operates without logic and or reason is correct. Meaning that if a law is passed no matter how ridiculous or corrupt it is it will become law regardless of how irrational and illogical or cruel it is. Like a giant machine with no humanity what so ever involved in its operations. Sounds like tyranny by rule of law to me.

So many lives would be destroyed until it got before a Supreme Court somewhere and declared null and void I would think then.

They have removed the option of common sense decisions of what might be really right and fair and replaced it with laws and rules that dictate outcomes regardless of rationality.

What can I say?

 

[tranquility]

So it appears that my assumption that the law operates without logic and or reason is correct.

Even in your example, there is both logic and reason.

Meaning that if a law is passed no matter how ridiculous or corrupt it is it will become law regardless of how irrational and illogical or cruel it is.

Ridiculous, corrupt, irrational, illogical or cruel to who? You're speaking like the law just came into existence. It didn't. The legislative branch of government went through its process to present a law to the executive branch. Each of those branches were elected or appointed by a process.

Like a giant machine with no humanity what so ever involved in its operations. Sounds like tyranny by rule of law to me.

Tons of humans were involved with the machine. Voters, representatives (councilmemembers, legislators, whatever) and executives (governor, mayor, again-whatever) played some part in the process. It's noy tyranny, but republic or representative democracy. Only when the law is so wrong so as to violate the organizing documet (usually aka the Constitution or, maybe, city/county charter or, again, whatever) or other overriding authority do or should the courts step in and call a law illegal. The courts look at the law and not the process of making the law. Look to your high school civics book for more. Or,
YouTube - Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law

So many lives would be destroyed until it got before a Supreme Court somewhere and declared null and void I would think then.

That's why we should pay attention when we vote. Besides, a lower court could give an injunction against the law so things could happen very fast and stop the hurt way before the law were declared null and void.

They have removed the option of common sense decisions of what might be really right and fair and replaced it with laws and rules that dictate outcomes regardless of rationality.

You have heard of this democracy thing and how it works, right? It's kinda definitional as to regards what "common" sense is. Right and Fair gets to the agreements we made when we got together in the first place, the social contract if you will. Lots of smart people felt that was the rational way to decide things rather than wait for specific blips in the way laws are created to fight yahoos who get a hitch in their get-a-long because they can't buy beer after 2 am or have to wear their pants up to their waist and who find such things irrational.