https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OjwkvfRqKC4/YHyDs0krYvI/AAAAAAAAQlM/6zC-ClQmqwUEnV...

Seems several are confused. Just a bill, through the legislative branch, passed and signed by everyone does not make it a legal law.

law can not be struck down because it is in violation of the "color" of law.

Explain

Yet on one point Marshall left absolutely no room for debate: any law which is contrary to the Constitution is by its very nature without authority. Such a law is void, lacking both legal form and legal substance. With or without a ruling by a court, such is the nature of law, according to Marshall.

IOW, the People, able to read the constitution, are also able to understand when a Color of law ruling has been propped up and given a fraudulent place as if it were actually law.
Without the corrupt court pounding the gavel and admitting the obvious, unconstitutional laws are null and void. Those with the ability to know history and able to read are unbound by any unconstitutional dictate.
The same way the military are able to refuse an illegal order.
They must Know the rules in order to know the difference.
Just following orders is not a defense.

And I have laid out the real stuff.

You are wrong.
I can say what is color of law
And what is unconstitutional.

The same way a military man can declare a n order illegal
And he better know what he is doing
And he better refuse to do what is illegal.
See
Nuremberg

You are wrong.
I can say what is color of law
And what is unconstitutional.

 So by pure declaration you can keep yourself from being prosecuted by a current law because you deem it Unconstitutional?  How do you keep cops from arresting you?  What is the process for this ability to declare color of law and be immune from legal action?


"The same way a military man can declare a n order illegal
And he better know what he is doing
And he better refuse to do what is illegal.
See
Nuremberg"

 Nuremberg was applied under international law and the laws of war, not US Constitutional Law.  



"Yet on one point Marshall left absolutely no room for debate: any law which is contrary to the Constitution is by its very nature without authority. Such a law is void, lacking both legal form and legal substance. With or without a ruling by a court, such is the nature of law, according to Marshall."


 Where did Marshall indicate that there was no requirement that there be a ruling by a court, or as he described it "Judicial Review"?  Marshall’s rule of law argument was derived from British law and legal scholarship, particularly the writings of Blackstone.  

 Nobody can declare a law Unconstitutional and have it be so without a legal review.  People think this, get arrested and lose in court all the time because saying this means nothing.  You need to use law to explain why it is Unconstitutional.    

 I think you are confusing Marshal's ruling on Marbury with  Unconstitutional Vagueness that is implemented from the Due Process Doctrine contained within the 5th and 14th Amendments.

 Again explain where Marshal said there is no requirement for any legal proceedings for a law to be "void" or otherwise without authority.  I can point to multiple examples where he specifically says things to the contrary.

 Lets start here:

"If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. If then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

 "I never said they wouldn't arrest me
I didn't even say the crooked courts would not convict me
I said I know the difference"

 Like the "Section 98" ruling you "knew" was indicative of US law that was Unconstitutional and it doesn't even exist?

 I am saying you need to use real laws to prove Unconstitutionality, you can not just say it and "know it" and it is applicable.  An example would be your argument about driver's licenses where your source left out the paragraph legalizing State administration over them in detail.  

 Or the fabricated Section 98, or the fabricated George Washington gun rights quote, or the fabricated quarantine restrictions.  None of them true but you "knew" they were Unconstitutional.  For instance you knew Sandy Hook was faked at one time.

 I will go with law that exists to prove Unconstitutional behavior over people that just "know" what it is and toss me lies to support it.



"You know military men are not to follow illegal orders."

 True, yet this is an affirmative defense.  They must prove - using actual laws, not Facebook lies, that the orders were illegal.  A court decides.


 "Knowing" a law is Unconstitutional while rotting in prison complaining about a crooked court is less appealing to me than using actual law to stay out of prison.  I accept I do not "know" if a law is Unconstitutional but instead must prove it using case law to get a judgement in my favor.  Marshall had a few things to say about that if we actually read what he wrote and don't let people cherry-pick out of context quotes for us.

 Below are the 968 case studies I have used to address this in the past.  It is separated by 3 sections.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/state-laws-held-unconstitutional.html

 They can be cross-referenced here under official record:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/