Is there any constitutional or legal protection/mechanism for laws passed under force or duress?

Let's say North Korean agents, right wing militia or Al Qeada stormed the congress and the senate under a joint session thereby also taking the president. Or, Washington D.C. in its entirety was under foreign military occupation. They force them, under threat of death, to pass a law. Is this law then legally enshrined or is it invalid?

Alternatively, what if both houses passed a law under duress, but the president found it agreeable and signed it without duress in a normal signing ceremony.

If we made such a law, wouldn't we have to return the entire western half of the US to Mexico?

Prefx wrote:

If we made such a law, wouldn't we have to return the entire western half of the US to Mexico?

I don't mean that we do not respect laws that other countries pass under duress or foreign occupation, just laws which Washington D.C passes.

Bruce; You don't need that scenario, for Congress and the President, to pass law unacceptable to the American People. The answer however would be the same and yes, the law would be valid, at the time the President signs the Bill. A Bill, however can be contested for Constitutionality, where as an Amendment to the Constitution cannot be.

Lower members of both chambers of the US Congress are always under duress, almost force, to comply with their leaders wishes. They are their to begin with to comply to the wishes of their constituents (electorate), but sometimes to get what the home folks want, they will be forced into voting for what they don't want. The recent 'Stimulus Bill' or the actual US 2009 Budget (voted for in Feb. 2009, though ended Oct. 2009), were both bloated with pork spending, just to get the required votes for passing. The resulting 1.4T$ deficit for the fiscal year 2009, would have been rejected by maybe 90% of the people, if they had any understanding what that figure represented.

I think that a "forced vote" is no vote at all (a vote is voluntary by nature), so any law passed by a "forced vote" is not passed by voting, and is therefore unConstitutional. If someone forces a law to be passed, they have in effect overthrown the government, along with the Constitution.

Gus wrote:

I think that a "forced vote" is no vote at all (a vote is voluntary by nature), so any law passed by a "forced vote" is not passed by voting, and is therefore unConstitutional. If someone forces a law to be passed, they have in effect overthrown the government, along with the Constitution.

I wish the Constitution was voluntary.