TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:24 am

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:00 am As a group, we like to call ourselves “law-abiding”. For us, it is a point of pride. We believe in the Rule of Law. This presents us with a dilemma, because we also claim to revere the Constitution - and most particularly, that part of it dealing with our first and second amendment rights. The dilemma is created because we face a conflict between reverence for the law, and reverence for the Constitution upon which the laws are framed.

We are about to be in a position where we have to choose one over the other. For me, that is not a difficult choice. The Constitution has primacy of position. I obey the law, right up until the point where the law contravenes the Constitution. When it does, I follow the Constitution. During the normal course of events, there is always some give and take over constitutional issues, and I normally expect to participate as a citizen in the push and pull between the Constitution, and the Law.

But these are not normal times. The country is more polarized than at any time since perhaps the CW1. I call it “CW1” for a reason: unless the left retracts its claws, there will be a CW2. If there is ONE lesson I learned from the left over the past 2 years is that resistance is a sacred obligation of citizenship when the rights of conscience are violated.

I intend to meet all of my obligations. Everything else flows from that.

Indeed, sir.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177