The problem, as I see it, is that such "laws" were not duly passed. If the Constitution places restrictions on a legislature that it establishes, and then the legislature does something forbidden by that Constitution with votes, and records, in Legal* (as opposed to 'Lawful') manner then that does not make such action valid.
Consider, for instance, a Captain posting a guard (say a Private) with instructions not to let anyone pass, until some condition occurs. Later the Captain's Lieutenant comes along and orders the Private to allow him passage. Whose order is the Private bound to obey?
Now, let's alter the scene by filling in details: the place where the Private was posted was a murder scene, the Captain needed to keep the scene clean until investigators got there. (Does this change the answer you gave above?) The Lieutenant was the there to erase certain evidence. (Does this change the answer you gave above?)
But given that it is the military, and the question is about authority, the details here do not matter; the premises were not changed, therefore the conclusions [answers] should be consistent.
To consider "laws" "that were passed" as though they were valid, even when the such is expressly prohibited by the Constitution (say prohibiting people from running a printing operation unless they had a license; counter to most State Constitutions I've read) as though they were legitimate is to make the Constitution of no effect. The legislature could pass a law saying "no person may vote for a non-incumbent" and, according to that theory, would have to be held as valid until a) repeal or b) the court throws it out.
A "But until then, abide by it" attitude is, if I may quote the TN State Constitution (Art 1, Sec 2):
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
* - Legal: Having the appearance of official procedure/format.
IE The difference between legal and lawful is that one is about form, the other is about validity (or function, if you will).
Educational and excellent points. Having served I recognized the private’s dilemma...one we all face actually on a daily basis (To what shall I hold myself true? To self, To God, To the Laws of Man, to those in authority over me, or is all of the above ‘to self’?) Morals.
OneWingedShark, my knowledge of such constitutional details as you describe is severely inadequate for me to be able further contribute positively to this debate, thus I abstain. And will be left with living within the bounds of the government that is “absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”.
I will however continue the ‘fight’ to put representatives in place that follow the constitution under which they serve and work to remove laws that don’t pass the ‘common sense’ test or the constitutional test.
The question I ponder: What is the true end of our republic and representative democracy?
Is it that we get the leaders who are most like us, for all our flaws...leadership magnifying these flaws and destroying all in the process?