“As the Supremacy Clause (Art VI Section 2) says, when you live under the Rule of Law, which is the Constitution, you are bound by federal law made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution. You are NOT bound by unconstitutional federal law.”
So the State of Alabama is not bound by this Federal Court decision? We are either governed by the rule of law or we aren’t; and if the rule of law no longer applies (or is applied in such a capricious manner as to neuter it) what options are left for saving the republic?
The whole point of “the rule of law” is that LAWMAKERS are bound by the written rule of law, the Constitution. It means that any “positive law” that comes down the pike is not necessarily valid. WE are PROTECTED by the rule of law of the Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land and any federal law IN PURSUANCE of it.
The rule of law does not mean being ruled by anything somebody calls “a law.” That’s how totalitarian regimes like Communism and Nazi Germany work. The rule of law means there’s something higher that LIMITS the whims and emotions of lawmakers and government officials. In our case it is the U.S. Constitution.
If lawmakers break the Law of the Land by unconstitutional acts, the states and the people simple are not bound by their illegal acts. That’s the difference between living free under the rule of law and living in tyranny under the whims of the rule of man.
To clarify, it is mainly FEDERAL lawmakers who are bound and limited by the Constitution. There are certain prohibitions to the states and of course state lawmakers are bound by those, but the Constitution is mainly pointed at the federal government.