Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedomwarrior998
"So your position is that it is OK to break the laws of a Monarchy, but not those of a Republic? Isn't the law the law? Doesn't one have to work within the system to change it without resorting to breaking the law? Is breaking the law never an option? "

The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you.

91 posted on 01/29/2010 7:58:06 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: OldDeckHand
The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you.

So, England didn't have a Parliament? In any case, you still didn't answer the question. Is it OK to break the laws of a monarchy (or other non-republican form of government) but not the laws of a Republic? What makes the laws of a Republic more valid than the laws in other forms of government? You seem to assert the position that the law is the law, and breaking the law is never an option.

So let's go with that. Is it ever OK to break the law? If yes, then under what circumstances? If No, then why were the Framers OK in breaking the laws that they were subject to?

93 posted on 01/29/2010 8:02:17 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

To: OldDeckHand
The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you.

Does this also mean that you agree that Baker v. Nelson is the law (and thus Vaughn Walker is bound to follow it.) And that Prop 8 in California is a law that must be respected and followed?

94 posted on 01/29/2010 8:03:31 PM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson