You are posting lunacy.
C) And the following are the most grievous examples of it I have ever seen on this forum:
America's Founders, and every single founding document, were born and bred in 1) the Law of the Almighty, 2) the examples of democracic law in Greece and Rome and 3) Lex Rex. Our Founders steeped themselves in law and the history of cultures from which godly laws sprang. They concluded that law was of God, and from God, as individual freedom is, and that the one could only exist under the divine and inspired protection of the other. Freedom without law is anarchy. Law without freedom is tyranny. An unjust law, said Mahatma Gandhi, and later Martin Luther King, Jr., is not to be obeyed, but actively opposed for the sake of righteousness and justice. "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void," said Chief Justice Marshall. Are Americans upset that the just law of the land is not paid heed, not enforced, and in fact trampled underfoot like a welcome mat to criminals, while unjust and ungodly law is made up out of thin air daily in the courts? You yourself admit that if the faith of Americans rests in the law, which was established by God and secured by our Founders to defend the natural rights given Man by God, and that law is ignored, impugned, maligned, destroyed and replaced with some false substitute, we have every reason to be, to say the least, upset. How much more ungodly and repugnant that the practice is defended by the ignorant.
As I said previously, this is just plain Clintonesque, self-evidently so.
You are saying that it is mental poison to promote the idea that law keeps the world sane. I beg to differ. It is mental poison to profess such lunacy and to believe it. You believe that liberals believe in law and in obeying law? Au contraire, my FRiend, the liberals want only new rulings that do away with established law, and licentiousness (rather than freedom) like condoms for everyone, including murderers, baby killers, terrorists, adulterers, liars, and flag-burners.
Law exists in America to secure the freedoms of the people (ref. Declaration of Independence) and limit the reach of the law-keepers.
I dealt with this before, and I'll deal with it again, in the very same way, hoping that repetition will serve as a teacher where logic and fact itself do not:
You then have the temerity to say, in the very same post,
You spent your whole post denying the validity of law, then claim that the person to whom you are speaking makes a valid point when they put forth the idea that 'laws' are being 'broken.' Total lunacy.