What if a law is made unconstitutionally?

[PureX]

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Where did MLK get the notion?

At what point does a "justified" disregard for the law become a selfish disregard for the rights and desires of others?

We also have a responsibility to obey the laws that we think are unjust because they represent the will of our nation, and we are just one citizen among many.

 

[jzeidler]

At what point does a "justified" disregard for the law become a selfish disregard for the rights and desires of others?

We also have a responsibility to obey the laws that we think are unjust because they represent the will of our nation, and we are just one citizen among many.

Was rosa parks wrong for breaking the law?

 

[PureX]

Was rosa parks wrong for breaking the law?

We can play this game ad infinitum, but the exceptions will not disprove the rule. If you are a self-righteous ideologue, you will not be able to understand that what you think is right may not be what your fellow citizens think is right, and that your fellow citizens HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG. If you are not a self-righteous ideologue, you will likely understand that there is a point at which, as a human being, you must stand up against the tyranny of the status quo, even though you know you will suffer the consequences. Your doing so may become a catalyst for positive change, though you will probably be jailed, beaten, and/or killed, and nothing will change. So you'd better be very sure of your resolve, and your presumed righteousness, before you make that stand.

The point being if you're looking for an absolute answer, here, there isn't one. As I stated above, when idealism meets reality, a conundrum will soon result.

 

[jzeidler]

We can play this game ad infinitum, but the exceptions will not disprove the rule. If you are a self-righteous ideologue, you will not be able to understand that what you think is right may not be what your your fellow citizens think is right, and that your fellow citizens HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG. If you are not a self-righteous ideologue, you will likely understand that there is a point at which, as a human being, you must stand up against the tyranny of the status quo, even though you know you will suffer the consequences. Your doing so may become a catalyst for positive change, though you will probably be jailed, beaten, and/or killed, and nothing will change. So you'd better be very sure of your resolve, and your presumed righteousness, before you make that stand.

The point being if you're looking for an absolute answer, here, there isn't one. As I stated above, when idealism meets reality, a conundrum will soon result.

All I did was ask a simple question, there is no need to try and attack my character.

You never really did answer my question though. Rosa parks took a stand and broke an unconstitutional law, was she wrong to do that?

 

[PureX]

All I did was ask a simple question, there is no need to try and attack my character.

You should have answered my previous question, first. Had you done so you wouldn't have needed asked yours.

Also, if you read my post closely, you will see that I did not attack anyone's character.

You never really did answer my question though. Rosa parks took a stand and broke an unconstitutional law, was she wrong to do that?

If you are expecting a yes/no answer, there isn't one. If you can't understand that, then there isn't much point to this exchange, is there?

 

[Jose Fly]

Was rosa parks wrong for breaking the law?

Rosa Parks is the favorite example of everyone who wants to break laws they don't like. They figure their cause is just, so when they break the law, they say "I'm like Rosa Parks." And if anyone challenges them on their civil disobedience, they quickly respond "Was Rosa Parks wrong to break the law?, thereby using her to shield themselves from criticism.

The problem with that is, there are also plenty of examples of people engaging in civil disobedience by breaking laws, on the other side of the issue Rosa Parks fought against. George Wallace also "broke the law" when he stood in the University doorway and tried to block black students from entering. He knew he was breaking the law and was going to be arrested, but he felt his cause was just. Yet today we don't hold George Wallace up as an example of civil disobedience that we should all follow; instead his actions are looked back on with disgust.

So obviously merely breaking a law for a cause you believe is just doesn't automatically make one "like Rosa Parks". You could just as easily be "like George Wallace". And what decides which category you get put in? It's pretty much decided by the larger society in which you live. There very well may be a few people today who still think Parks was wrong and Wallace was a hero, but they are a tiny minority. The general view among our society is that Parks was the hero and Wallace the villain.

IOW, this isn't so black/white as a lot of people try and make it.

 

[Stripe]

The constitution was made unconstitutionally. :think:

 

[elohiym]

Yet today we don't hold George Wallace up as an example of civil disobedience that we should all follow; instead his actions are looked back on with disgust.

What Wallace did was disgusting.
What Parks did was courageous.
One was trying to encourage immoral segregation, the other was trying to end it.

 

[elohiym]

At what point does a "justified" disregard for the law become a selfish disregard for the rights and desires of others?

I think it obvious, like the contrast between Parks' and Wallace's actions.

 

[Jose Fly]

What Wallace did was disgusting.
What Parks did was courageous.
One was trying to encourage immoral segregation, the other was trying to end it.

That's certainly the dominant view today. However, at the time and in that region of the country, there were many, many people who thought Parks was an "agitator" who was "upsetting the natural order of things" and Wallace was a "hero" for standing up for state's rights and "traditional values".

Just goes to show that merely engaging in civil disobedience doesn't automatically put you in the company of Rosa Parks. You could also be in the category of George Wallace.

 

[elohiym]

That's certainly the dominant view today. However, at the time and in that region of the country, there were many, many people who thought Parks was an "agitator" who was "upsetting the natural order of things" and Wallace was a "hero" for standing up for state's rights and "traditional values".

Just goes to show that merely engaging in civil disobedience doesn't automatically put you in the company of Rosa Parks. You could also be in the category of George Wallace.

My point is that you can easily see who had the moral position.

Do you want to argue that racial segregation is moral?

 

[Jose Fly]

My point is that you can easily see who had the moral position.

Yes, and it isn't based on the simple fact of civil disobedience.

Do you want to argue that racial segregation is moral?

No.

 

[PureX]

I think it obvious, like the contrast between Parks' and Wallace's actions.

How was that "obvious"? It certainly was not obvious to a great many people at the time.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If a law is made not in a way that is stated in the constitution is it truly a law and are we obligated to obey it?

In order to understand the Constitution of the United States and the other documents that supported it, one would first have to look at the original intent of the men who wrote those documents.

I will gladly talk original intent with the secular humanists that are currently posting in this thread (quip, PureX, shagster01, Jose Fly, elohym) if they're up for the task.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Darn, once again I am party pooper (no one wants to play with aCultureWarrior).

 

[Christian Liberty]

In order to understand the Constitution of the United States and the other documents that supported it, one would first have to look at the original intent of the men who wrote those documents.

I will gladly talk original intent with the secular humanists that are currently posting in this thread (quip, PureX, shagster01, Jose Fly, elohym) if they're up for the task.

Dude, even my world history professor at Patrick Henry College (one of the most conservative schools in the nation) says Barton is a joke. The man lies.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Dude, even my world history professor at Patrick Henry College (one of the most conservative schools in the nation) says Barton is a joke. The man lies.

We have a taker. Tell us about the Constitution of the United States, the documents that lead up to the Constitution and the documents afterwards, and the men that wrote them when it comes to their "original intent".

 

[Angel4Truth]

I guess my answer would be that we are not obligated to obey it, but we will be held accountable for our not obeying it until the courts deem the law unconstitutional. It's a bit of a catch-22, but that's what often happens when idealism meets reality.

 

[PureX]

 

[rexlunae]

But if it's not made correctly is it really technology a law?

Technology?

Technically, maybe?

Thomas Jefferson was very much against judiciary tyranny.

And notably, he wasn't involved in writing the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson explained it in 1798, "Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. ... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

He wanted things done according to the constitution.

According to the Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that holds the judicial power of the United States. What is the judicial power, you might ask? It "extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority".

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say over what the law is. So no other individual, and no branch of government has the power to strike down how the Supreme Court interprets the law. It is the expectation of the Constitution that the Court will follow the Constitution, but it doesn't allow for any mechanism for challenging the Court's interpretation other than appealing back to itself. The assumption that the Constitution makes is that the checks within the judicial branch against erroneous opinions are sufficient to guard against significant errors of interpretation. If it is widely believed that a justice of the Court is blatantly ignoring the Constitution, they could be impeached, but that is a fundamentally political process, which undermines the independence of the Court if taken, and it is thus avoided at almost all cost.

Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

Per the Constitution, the authority of the Supreme Court extends to "all cases in law and equity." If the two other branches are indeed governed by law, then they are under the authority of the Supreme Court's legal interpretations.