Replies

You seem to give consideration to only 2 ways of determining inherent rights. Your way, the legislature decides and everyone else (executive, judges, and juries) are somehow blindly obedient, and the way promoted by both the majorities and the dissenters in those court opinions that you cited which is that the "courts" interpret the law and everyone else (executive, lower judges, and juries) must somehow blindly obey.

But there is a 3rd more sensible way for inherent rights to be determined which takes into account the fact that government officers and citizen jurors in a free republic have consciences and you dismiss this way without addressing its value and logic.

Lysander Spooner explained it best in Trial by Jury (1852):

"In a representative government, there is no absurdity or contradiction, nor any arraying of the people against themselves, in requiring that the statutes or enactments of the government shall pass the ordeal of any number of separate tribunals, before it shall be determined that they are to have the force of laws.

"Our American constitutions have provided five of these separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate, executive, jury and judges; and have made it necessary that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all of all these separate tribunals, before its authority can be established by the punishment of those who choose to transgress it.

"The executive has a qualified veto upon the passage of laws, in most of our governments, and an absolute veto, in all of them, upon the execution of any laws which he deems unconstitutional; because his oath to support the constitution(as he understands it) forbids him to execute any law that he deems unconstitutional."

Your way, the legislature decides and everyone else (executive, judges, and juries) are somehow blindly obedient....

No, no, no. If a law is offensive to the plain language of the Constitution (or a state constitution), it should not be enforced by the executive or by juries, and should be overturned by judges. No one is talking about blind obedience. And constitutions can be amended to further restrict the powers of legislatures.

Sorry, but I will not allow that the conscience of a single individual should have primacy over the considered opinion of the assembled representives of the people. In a world where Bill Clinton can be twice elected President of the United States, we need to keep our governors on a short leash.