No one appearing before the court is legally empowered to make a unilateral determination of same, either - why aren't you worried about that part of the law?
He swore no oath to uphold the authority of any court.
The existence and authority of the 11'th Circuit is a direct result of Article III of the Constitution, the Constitution being that which Judge Moore swore to uphold. Does Judge Moore's oath not apply to Article III for some reason? Are there other sections his oath doesn't cover? And does Roy Moore get to choose for himself which sections those are?
I didn't say that Moore or anyone else has the right to choose what orders he wants to obey. I said that he - and every other citizen - has the right and duty to disobey illegal orders.
If you can point out to me how the practical effect of effecting the first proposition is in any way, shape or form different from the practical effect of the second - particularly when we simply let people decide for themselves which court orders are "legal" - then I'm most interested to hear it. What it sounds like to me is that, so long as I wrap myself in the Constitution, I can avoid any ruling I don't like.
No one appearing before the court is legally empowered to make a unilateral determination of same, either - why aren't you worried about that part of the law?
They're "legally empowered" to acknowledge reality. In any case, it doesn't really matter whether or not they've unilaterally determined anything. The law is the law, regardless. All they're doing is following it.
The existence and authority of the 11'th Circuit is a direct result of Article III of the Constitution, the Constitution being that which Judge Moore swore to uphold.
Yes it is, and nowhere in that article are federal courts empowered to rewrite the Constitution. As I said above, they're empowered to make rulings based on the Constitution.
If you can point out to me how the practical effect of effecting the first proposition is in any way, shape or form different from the practical effect of the second - particularly when we simply let people decide for themselves which court orders are "legal" - then I'm most interested to hear it.
First of all, again I didn't say they could decide for themselves which orders are legal. The orders are either legal, or they're not legal. If they're not legal, then people have the right to disregard them.
As for the question about "practical effects", it's of course true as a practical matter that if you disobey a court order, legal or illegal, the courts have ways of making life unpleasant for you - that is, unless you can convince enough of your fellow-citizens that the order is, in fact, illegal.