Replies

"There is no moral imperative to obey an unjust law, stevie."

I'm sure that's precisely the argument Kaleid Sheik Mohammad will be making at trial.

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

The Republic was nearly destroyed because it had grotesquely unjust laws once before--upheld by the Supreme Court, no less. I'm guessing that if you had been around in the 1850s, you wouldn't have been an abolitionist. And you'd be calling the prosecution and punishment of those who hid runaway slaves a perfectly legitimate business of the government.

Now, we have another proliferation of unjust laws. Predictably, we also have soulless legalists out there defending them.

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

Genuine Christians will not and should not obey unjust laws, because they are out of conformity with Divine Law, which supercedes every law of man. Just laws, even if they speak on matters that are inherently amoral, are not contradictory to Divine Law. To know the difference requires an understanding of the Word of God and a well-formed conscience.

America was founded on a presupposition of Christian morality (even amongst those who were not Christian). We have moved away from that presupposition, leading to a proliferation of unjust laws; in doing so, we may have already lost the Republic.

I'm sure that's precisely the argument Kaleid Sheik Mohammad will be making at trial.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

Funny that you say that, especially when the Framers did exactly that.

As a Republican I always ask: what would Lincoln say?. So I quote

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.

It does make me wonder what he meant by "not too intolerable"

Liberal family law is a putrid swamp when one compares it to Blackstone's Commentary Book I chapters 15 and 16.