I respect the "law" just fine. The people currently claiming authority over me, not so much. I only respect their authority when it is legitimate, not when it is won by trickery lying and double dealing. You offer me the false choice between respecting them or anarchy in seeming oblivion to the notion that choosing to respect them IS choosing anarchy.
Because if you want a government of men and not of laws, you want a king and not elected officials.
No, I want the government of laws. Men are fickle and capricious. That's why I insist on the highest possible standard of citizenship to qualify for the Office of the Presidency. That standard would have interdicted the Malignant incompetent now squatting in rule over us.
It matters not what a court nowadays thinks of Article II. It's legitimacy comes from the compact between states, and descends from what the Writers of the Constitution, and what the Ratifiers of the Constitution believed it to mean.
Courts do not decide truth. They just decide who gets the business end of the Law enforcement guns. Justice is done when truth coincides with their decision.
I remind you again what James Madison, Father of the Constitution, thought:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States...
“It matters not what a court nowadays thinks of Article II. It’s legitimacy comes from the compact between states, and descends from what the Writers of the Constitution, and what the Ratifiers of the Constitution believed it to mean.”
According to that compact, as written and ratified:
“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” — U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section. 1.