[grumpygresh]

I think it’s questionable as to whether the BLM acted lawfully when they arguably violated the Bundy’s et al civil and land use rights.

Persons should obey the constitution, including political leaders, law enforcemement, judges, and bureaucrats. The problem we have today is that few in government even give a thought to what is supposed to be the highest law in the land. Many of our laws/regulations are essentailly unconstitutional; only twisted legal rationalization by immoral magistrates gives these rules their authority.

We really can’t obey or morally respect a “lawful” authority that gives illegal & unconstitutional orders.

[DoodleDawg]

I think it’s questionable as to whether the BLM acted lawfully when they arguably violated the Bundy’s et al civil and land use rights.

According to the BLM Bundy had no land use rights because he refused to pay the grazing fees. So from their standpoint they were acting lawfully.

We really can’t obey or morally respect a “lawful” authority that gives illegal & unconstitutional orders.

I don't disagree with you in theory. But it gets back to the question of who gets to decide if an order is illegal or unconstitutional? Or do we, as Graham seems to be suggesting, assume that any order from any person in authority, be it police or prosecutor or BLM or TSA or any other government abbreviation, is giving a lawful order merely because of the position they hold?