To: Qwinn; Canticle_of_Deborah; BlackElk; Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS; Carry_Okie
I can see how that would be politically suicidal and would probably be considered unconstitutional by a court - heh. Can't forget that the Judiciary also has that check against the executive and legislature. Well, now you've triggered, er, bullet number 3 at post number 227. However, the judiciary once restrained themselves for fear of having their independence breached, and would even say so repeatedly. And also there is the Nuremborg principle, inherent within the law, that I brought up at bullet number 7 that I now would state philosophically, in the hopes of preserving respect for the law by protecting it from overintepretation by judicial tyrants, in this manner:
When any specific law is in violation of common human decency, it is in violation of a higher law. It is the higher law which demands the errant law be defied.
This is where prudent prejudice must be applied. Each law must be conform to principles of decency or risk bringing discredit to all law and the proper rule of law. And discrediting the law has been happening, incrementally, for some time now. Destruction of our Constitutional Republic is top down. People are getting understandably unsettled by all the autocratic mumbo-jumbo rationalizations. Compelling State Interest is noticably Extra-Constitutional. The restlessness and demand for reforms will, G-d willing, escalate.
251 posted on
10/19/2003 12:19:37 PM PDT by
Avoiding_Sulla
(Keep G-d in the discussion -- keep G-d in the equation -- and you keep the republic.)
To: Avoiding_Sulla
"And discrediting the law has been happening, incrementally, for some time now. Destruction of our Constitutional Republic is top down. People are getting understandably unsettled by all the autocratic mumbo-jumbo rationalizations. Compelling State Interest is noticably Extra-Constitutional. The restlessness and demand for reforms will, G-d willing, escalate."
I couldn't agree with you more. I am in fact terrified of the powers our current judiciary wields.
All I'm trying to get at is that the arguments you are making could be just as validly made over abortion. In every way. I consider it every human being's moral duty to prevent every abortion they are aware of just as much as they are required to prevent every overt murder they can. No one does so. Why? Because the Courts have decreed that we can't, and throw us in jail if we try. It's been that way for 30 years. No one should be surprised now that the incrementalism has gone even further. Is it horrible? Yes. But everyone here should know by now that I agree it's horrible. That's not the point in debate.
I think it's just as wrong to rant at Jeb for failing to defy this order as it is to rant at Jeb for not marching down to the nearest abortion clinic and stopping every abortion he sees. If someone feels that strongly about it, they should be willing to do it themselves, rather than demanding that Bush break the law and face prison time -for- them.
Qwinn
253 posted on
10/19/2003 12:33:13 PM PDT by
Qwinn
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson