There are some good points within this essay. But the point calling for violating laws believed to be unconstitutional is problematic at best. We can't even get that much agreement HERE much less among people who differ even more than those here.
We don't really need 'agreement'. Booze prohibition failed because everyone ignored it, and in most cases officials refused to enforce it. Gun prohibitions could be countered in the same manner.
Most of us believe almost all gun control laws are unconstitutional but cannot ignore them without great peril to life and limb.
We are even more in peril for our liberty - [thus ultimately life & limb], if we ignore infringements.
Another contention is that the title "Esquire" given lawyers is a foreign title which Americans are forbidden to accept per the Constitution.
?? -- I don't see that discussed in the section I've cited. In any case its a petty non-issue.
Some argue that the 16th amendment, the income tax, was never legally adopted but stand to lose everything should we act upon that belief.
Yep, pledging ones life, fortune, & sacred honor to fight tyranny is dangerous indeed..
Reigning in court power is a great concern but Judicial Review was accepted even before the Constitution set up a federal judiciary.
So it was. Is there some point to that comment?
Prohibition is not an example to be followed wrt other laws one disagrees with. It's repeal was as much a result of the violence associated with the provision of illegal booze as anything. And it did not fail everywhere in any case. Mississippi didn't allow the sale of booze even as late as the 60s. My home county in Arkansas, Ashley, is to this day "dry" though it now allows "private clubs" to sell.
The danger to our liberty is greater when extra-legal actions are taken and justified though appeals to resist "unconstitutional" law. Freedom can only be retained when there is respect for the Rule of Law even laws with which you do not agree.
It is foolish to believe that the elected representatives of a Free People (and we are the freest to ever live) are the equivalent of unelected monarchs from 3000 miles away ruling over subjects not citizens.
I gave examples of differing opinions as to what is unconstitutional they did not come from your post. Their relevence is to show that people differ in their interpretations of what the document means.
The point is that Judicial Review was not the creation of an overwheening federal judiciary but a part of American history prior to the creation of the federal government.