Did Rosa Parks violation of the law create anarchy? Gandhi, anarchy? And Gandhi was a radical application of civil disobedience, about as radical as it gets.
I think some amount of friction between "law" and "civil disobedience" is inevitable, all the time. But the more that government with its law and regulation expands, and in our case the feds have expanded wildly outside of its constitutional boundary, the more opportunity for friction.
See too, states in open violation of federal pot laws. Anarchy?
I'd like to hear some political leaders offer up a vision of a smaller federal government, with some particulars, spiced up with some red meat rhetoric that SCOTUS is wrong, the fed laws are NOT constitutional, and are VOID, but we'll follow them out of a sense to keep good order until the legal errors can be rectified.
What we have been hearing is something along the lines of the law is so perfect that it has to be followed until it gets straightened out by a legislature or a court. Like it is imperative, because if we don't, well, the whole edifice crumbles. How about the law show a bit less arrogance, and a little more humility; and how about poking a stick in the eye of the law by refusing to follow it, where such action does not result in harm.
On the state level, states would become individual nations if this principle was followed to its logical conclusion. In effect, this would mean secession and likely bloodshed. Revolutions must always be a last resort. No revolution will result in paradise on earth.
And while I'm in favor of drug decriminalization across the board, I would not be in favor of state-nullification, since pot bans aren't intrinsically evil.
OTOH, states would be within their rights to reject homosexual "marriage" legalization, since such laws deprive children of their God-given right to be raised by their natural parents.
As far as civil disobedience goes, that's fine, as long as you're willing to pay the penalty.
[[Did Rosa Parks violation of the law create anarchy? Gandhi, anarchy? And Gandhi was a radical application of civil disobedience, about as radical as it gets.]]
I ran across it a few yers ago, and wish I had kept the l ink, but in then ot too distant past, the federal government tried to pass a law requiring states to do something, can’t remember what now but many of the states said “NO!” and formed a coalition in which they all agreed NOT to enforce the federal law I ntheir respective states- The federa government was forced to back down and repeal the law because there was no way the government could enforce it
We could, and SHOULD do the same dang thing with both the gay marriage AND the health care law, and states should pass laws forbidding the government from enforcing it I n their states- the problem is however that states are too dependent on government handouts and so are too cowardly to take such a stand