Ashcroft must obey the law, even the ones he does not like. Period.
You've stood Bolts point on its head. - Reversed it.
-- He, - More, -- was arguing FOR the basic principles of law, not against them. Example:
'I'd give the devil benefit of [constitutional] law, for my own safety's sake.'
Ashcroft must obey the constitution, even the parts he does not like. -- And, - he must NOT support laws that violate it. - Period.
80 posted by tpaine
Ok. But Bolt didn't say "constitutional law". He said the law. Period.
And I said "Example", period. - You're nitpicking, I hope.
Who determines what law is and is not constitutional?
Every individual that swears an oath to honor the constitution must make that decision, - many times on the spot, -- as in a soldier determining a lawful order.
I believe that our constitution gives that responsibilty to the Supreme Court.
You are wrong. It is your responsiblity, & mine too, and we have all been shirking that duty.
Ashcroft must obey the law and it is not up to him to select which ones he thinks are constitutional or not. That was my point in quoting Bolt. The law is the law and it must apply to everyone, even the devil, as More says in "Man".
Numerous USSC decisions, the UCMJ, The Nurenberg trials, & some of the framers of the constitution, have said that unconstitutional law is null & void.
Your interpretation of Bolt is flawed.
Well, I am a human and by definition, flawed. I just don't think you understand my use of the quote. It is, I believe, an affirmation of the rule of law. Do you believe in the rule of law tapaine? I.e., do you believe that man should be ruled by law or his instincts? I believe that man must be ruled by law or we are no more than wild animals. Their "turf" is what's important to an animal. Protect it at all costs. The Rule of Law, on the other hand crosses over "turf" boundries and separates us from the animals. IMHO.