[Non-Sequitur]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHETHER ITS ACTIONS ARE LEGAL.

No that would be the Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. If you see rebellion as the preferred solution to solving issues arrising under the Constitution then so be it.

[doryfunk]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO BE THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHETHER ITS ACTIONS ARE LEGAL.

"No that would be the Supreme Court, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. If you see rebellion as the preferred solution to solving issues arrising under the Constitution then so be it."

You are grossly in error. Article III of the Constitution deals with judicial power and vests the judicial power of the federal government of these united States to the supreme court. Judicial power is the power to judge the legality of an act based on laws written by the legislative branch. When the judicial branch becomes abusive of its power by ruling as they please regardless of the written law (legislating from the bench) it is the responsibilty of several different groups to place checks on this abuse of power. The Congress can pass a law that makes more specific what was meant by an old law. The executive branch of the federal government headed by the President can refuse to enforce the wrongful rulings. When none of these are done, it is the duty of each State as party to the contract to intervene on behalf of her citizens. Finally, the ultimate deciding power resides with the people.

To illustrate this point which you seem to have a hard time understanding, probably due to your government education, lets look at a hypothetical example. Pretend that the supreme court ruled that it was illegal to attend church services on Sunday. Certainly that is a far fetched position for the court, but do your best and pretend. Pretend that it goes even further, and that the president uses the executive power to enforce the ruling by the supreme court and starts arresting people for going to church because, after all, according to you, what the supreme court says is all that matters. What would be the proper recourse according to you? [Please dont respond by saying that this situation hasnt happened and cant happen. Certainly it hasnt. I only ask that use your imagination and give me the proper recourse to judicial tyranny backed by the executive branch.]