I question this claim by Dr. Barnett -- that the Constitution binds "government officials, not private individuals". The USC is the highest law of the land. Period. It binds,and covers with its sheltering wings, every citizen of this country. The fact that mistakes have been, and will be, made -- indeed, some of them grievous -- in its name is not the fault of the document. The fault lies in unconquerable arrogance, political sensitivity, and all the other frailties that we humans are heir to.
==============
Barnett poses this fundamental question:
"The real question, then, is not whether the Constitution is binding on citizens, but whether citizens are bound by the commands or laws issued by officials acting in its name. Does the fact that a law is validly enacted according to the Constitution mean that it binds one in conscience?
No, sir, with all due respect I disagree. The fundamental question re: the Constitution is:
Was the US Constitution created for the benefit(s) of the individual states in the united States, or for the whole peoples of this nation called the United States?
As to the question --"Does the fact that a law is validly enacted according to the Constitution mean that it binds one in conscience?" -- essentially changes horses in mid-stream, i.e. from jurisprudence to metaphysical.
I question this claim by Dr. Barnett -- that the Constitution binds "government officials, not private individuals".
The USC is the highest law of the land. Period. It binds, and covers with its sheltering wings, every citizen of this country.
I doubt that Barnett would disagree. I sure don't.
The fact that mistakes have been, and will be, made -- indeed, some of them grievous -- in its name is not the fault of the document. The fault lies in unconquerable arrogance, political sensitivity, and all the other frailties that we humans are heir to.
Again, I'd bet that Barnett would agree.
Barnett poses this fundamental question:
"The real question, then, is not whether the Constitution is binding on citizens, but whether citizens are bound by the commands or laws issued by officials acting in its name.
Does the fact that a law is validly enacted according to the Constitution mean that it binds one in conscience?"
No, sir, with all due respect I disagree. The fundamental question re: the Constitution is:
Was the US Constitution created for the benefit(s) of the individual states in the united States, or for the whole peoples of this nation called the United States?
Having read quite a bit of Barnetts writings, it's clear to me he would say for the 'whole people'. Why would you disagree?
As to the question --"Does the fact that a law is validly enacted according to the Constitution mean that it binds one in conscience?" -- essentially changes horses in mid-stream, i.e. from jurisprudence to metaphysical.
Not at all, imo.. Constitutional laws bind all of us in conscience because, in effect, we as citizens have sworn to support & defend our Constitution. As you said, it's the "highest law of the land".