Yes, but the Constitution to which we are presumed to be bound sets up the Supreme Court as the arbiter of when a law is unconstitutional, and when it is not. You choose to ignore that designation.
It is inevitable that reasonable people will have good faith disagreements over the meaning of a particular provision of the Constitution. Or over federal laws. And it is logical and rational for people to set up a court system to resolve those disputes.
You apparently want to pitch all that out the window. If you disagree with a court opinion, then you feel free to disregard that opinion. "I think its unconstitutional, whatver that Court says. So I ignore it." And you could easily extend your argument to decisions of lower courts. Again, ignoring any decision with which you disagree. It is impossible to have any ordered society under that scheme.
The worst part is that you want to do that on a case by case basis. If the system becomes so corrupted that the Courts are abdicating their responsibility and enforcing tyranny, then you have a revolution and start over. That is legitimate. But you don't want that. You want to be free to pick and choose which Court decisions you will follow. Of course, you don't expect that of others. Even if Dems think Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, they should still follow it. Why? Because you think it is correct.
In the instant case, whether or not to post the commandments, I can tolerate an alternate point of view. In the case of Gore, however, what we had was an attempted coup. Free men would have been derelict to have allowed it. I credit the freepers who pounded on the doors and demanded to be let in when they attempted to count the votes in private for, in part, saving the republic and I credit the supreme court for honoring the constitution.
I agree that we can't have anarchy and vigilanties running all over the place, but when the constitution is clearly ignored, that's what we have. "If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy," - Justice Louis Brandeis -So people make mistakes. Fine. Then again,tell that to the innocent guy who spent ten years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Ok, so things happen. On the other hand, you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Reasonable people can disagree. A bad judge can be removed. Tyrants, however, need to be killed. I may not consider my myself qualified to second guess a judge in most cases, but I do know how to read. Sometimes even I know when my rights as a free man are being trampled by tyrants posing as legitimate government officials. When that happens, to ignore an illegitimate command from a tyrant is proper.
Example: All federal laws which infringe upon a free man's right to bear arms have zero legitimacy, period. Those who have passed, ruled in favor of, and enforced such laws while pretending to be loyal to the constitution have betrayed their oaths, the constitution and their fellow men. Those who ignore such laws in no way blemish their record as good citizens. Its as simple as that.
If you want to pass a legitimate federal gun law, you need to start a new government. The constitution of the present one cannot be amended in such a way as to allow them. Perhaps that is why no one has bothered to try. The bill of rights cannot be amended. It trumps the constitution and any attempt to amend it.
Finally, regardless of the above, even in cases where the constitution can be properly amended, some laws can never be legitimate, as certain rights of men are inalienable. Laws allowing for slavery or murder, for example, will never have legitimacy even if we were to amend the constitution to explicitly allow for them. Any effort to enforce them would never be anything other than tyranny of the majority and would be inconsistent with the founding principles of our government.
You are correct that we can't simply ignore laws just because we don't agree with them. That same rule applies, however, to our servants and their observance of the constitution that gives them their authority to begin with. When this does not happen, I submit that it is our right, prerogative and our duty as good citizens and as free men to ignore clearly unconstitutional laws and rulings and, if nessecary, to remove or eliminate those who would tyrannize us.