Oh no, I do not disagree with you, or Dr. Barlett. I merely brought up this up b/c for a good many years -- for a good many decades... after the USC was enacted this question was a sticking point to lawmakers, judges, legal scholars, etc. on both the state and national level.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this question was first addressed in 1819 or so w/ the Cohens v. Virginia case with CJ John Marshall citing as proof the opening lines of the USC which reads: "We, the people....", not "We, the states..."
But of course lawyers were no different then than they are now -- if they get kicked out the door, they'll try climbing though the window.
No, sir, with all due respect I disagree. The fundamental question re: the Constitution is: Was the US Constitution created for the benefit(s) of the individual states in the united States, or for the whole peoples of this nation called the United States? As to the question --"Does the fact that a law is validly enacted according to the Constitution mean that it binds one in conscience?" -- essentially changes horses in mid-stream, i.e. from jurisprudence to metaphysical.
Having read quite a bit of Barnetts writings, it's clear to me he would say for the 'whole people'.
Constitutional laws bind all of us in conscience because, in effect, we as citizens have sworn to support & defend our Constitution. As you said, it's the "highest law of the land".
Oh no, I do not disagree with you, or Dr. Barlett. I merely brought up this up b/c for a good many years -- for a good many decades... after the USC was enacted this question was a sticking point to lawmakers, judges, legal scholars, etc. on both the state and national level.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this question was first addressed in 1819 or so w/ the Cohens v. Virginia case with CJ John Marshall citing as proof the opening lines of the USC which reads: "We, the people....", not "We, the states..."
You are correct, of course. The 'states rightists' have more or less abandoned that particular aspect of their overall argument that states can ignore the Bill of Rights, -- but they still ignore them, using any means possible to give laws that violate individual rights the color of law.
But of course lawyers were no different then than they are now -- if they get kicked out the door, they'll try climbing though the window.
Lawyers, politicians, whatever, - statists of any stripe have one common goal, gaining the power to control people; its been called the socialist's disease.