>That is exactly how government works. The legislative branch can veto laws.
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. The legislature makes law. They can change it however they want. Veto is a different concept entirely.
>And the judicial branch can over turn laws that are deemed illegal.
No, the judicial branch can overturn laws that are unconstitutional. Laws cannot be illegal unless they're enacted illegally. For a judge to find a law unconstitutional he must have some textual basis for doing so, and "that doesn't seem fair" isn't enough to do it.
>There are a couple of absurdities in this case...
The law is absurd in many, many ways. But the judges are still supposed to apply it as written unless it's unconstitutional. In this case the law is constitutional, so that's not a legitimate avenue for the defendant to pursue.
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. The legislature makes law. They can change it however they want. Veto is a different concept entirely.
>And the judicial branch can over turn laws that are deemed illegal.
No, the judicial branch can overturn laws that are unconstitutional. Laws cannot be illegal unless they're enacted illegally. For a judge to find a law unconstitutional he must have some textual basis for doing so, and "that doesn't seem fair" isn't enough to do it.
>There are a couple of absurdities in this case...
The law is absurd in many, many ways. But the judges are still supposed to apply it as written unless it's unconstitutional. In this case the law is constitutional, so that's not a legitimate avenue for the defendant to pursue.