But let's move from the abstract to reality. It's just that we are bound as a society to follow the rules of a government (at least until we possibly change them) or be willing to suffer the consequences. It's a binary choice (as all choices eventually are.)
It's that simple. We can work to change those rules, leave the society (for a foreign land, a commune, or prison), or suffer the penalties called for under those rules/laws.
That is reality.
Someone asked, well, what happens when a court enforces a rule/law incorrectly. Under the precepts of Marbury v. Madison, after appeals, etc, a court is simply incapable of enforcing a rule/law incorrectly... because it's the courts that decide what “correct” is. Madison gives the courts final say what the law is.... unless it is changed by legislation passed by representatives of the people at a later date.
Take slavery, for example. For an extended time, it was legal. The 13th Amendment, adopted in 1865, reversed 70 years of what the people had come to believe was a wrong set of rules/laws. (BTW, from a legal standpoint, the Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a PR stunt.)
But was wrong as slavery was, it was the absolute law of the land until ‘65.
As far as laws being “popular,” that is a very slippery slope.
Eugenics and the laws supporting it were widely popular in Europe and the US in the first third of the 20th Century. Class-ism laws still abound in many parts of the world. Sex with another’s spouse is still illegal in many areas, even in the Western world. Libel is a civil matter here, but a criminal matter in much of Europe. Which is the right course?
As far as “popularity” in the US is concerned, “Pedophilia Chic” was very popular in NY in the 1980s, and there were serious moves in NY and California to legalize so-called "consensual" sexual relationships, regardless of the age of the younger participant. Conductor Leonard Bernstein was very fond of showing up with his wife and some 10-14 year old boy at some very “social” events in NYC, and every “cafe society” person thought it was “so cool” that the three of them would share a bed later.
Popular sentiment against he war in Vietnam made Draft Dogging so “popular,” Jimmy Carter effectively legalized it. Obama has effectively legalized what you and I would call “illegal immigration.”
Bottom line. Work to change laws you don't like, and/or change the people who make them, but complaining that a court is wrong about a law is “wrong” without working to change it is like complaining about gravity.
What if the courts are making it up as they go along, practicing a form of anarchy?
I'm not talking about "unpopular," I am talking about reading one thing, and saying it means the opposite.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266] it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Compared with this ...
Our holding is compelled by the Supreme Court's opinion in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886). ...Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005)Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.).
My point is that such a government is corrupt, and is utterly untrustworthy. It certainly does not merit respect.
I've pointed this exact case out several times. I educate my family, and those I come in contact with, and they come to the same conclusion. The system is rotten.
The judges who pull these stunts KNOW they are dishonest hacks; Congress isn't going to do squat about it.
You can have your rotten and corrupt government. Defend it with all your might. Rail against me until you are blue in the face, and I will not be moved one inch by your plea to respect the government. The government get my "respect" for one reason. It is a brutal and effective wielder of violence, and it is more than happy to use it to keep me in line. I fart in its general direction.