The phrase "a valid law" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the legitimacy or acceptability of a law within a legal context.
Example: "The court ruled that the statute in question was indeed a valid law and should be enforced."
Alternatives: "a legitimate law" or "an enforceable law".
Would this be a valid law?" Wisely, the Solicitor General, replied: "No, it would not".
Equating accommodation with anarchy, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion declared that religious beliefs had never been held to excuse compliance with a valid law.
positive, was bedeviled by a pair of humble but primal fears the likes of which he, an ambitious upper-middle-class guy with a two-year lease and a valid law degree, had never experienced.
This is the nub of the reasoning: The Court held that, in their operation with respect to the challenged funding agreement and the challenged payments made under that agreement, none of the challenged provisions is a valid law of the Commonwealth.
"The court held that, in their operation with respect to the challenged funding agreement and the challenged payments made under that agreement, none of the challenged provisions is a valid law of the commonwealth," the high court said in a judgment summary.
The centre's director of legal advocacy, Daniel Webb, said a question now before the court was whether that was a constitutionally valid law.
One way to respond to this potential problem is to argue that there is no violation of the principle requiring toleration for a person's conscience when government fails to exempt a person who wishes to act on her conscience in a way that violates an otherwise valid law.
Scalia's opinion that an individual's religious views do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law" infuriated both religious and civil-liberties groups, and prompted Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Justice Scalia held in no uncertain terms that "an individual's religious beliefs" do not "excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate".
Thus in § 29 of the Prolegomena, as we have seen, Kant begins from a merely subjective "empirical rule" of constant conjunction or association among our perceptions (of heat following illumination by the sun), which is then transformed into a "necessary and universally valid law" by adding the a priori concept of cause.
