Should We Obey All Laws?

Townhall.com ^ | May 16, 2012 | Walter E. Williams

[Kaslin]

Let's think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a law -- and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional -- requiring American families to attend church services at least three times a month. Should we obey such a law? Suppose Congress, acting under the Constitution's commerce clause, enacted a law requiring motorists to get eight hours of sleep before driving on interstate highways. Its justification might be that drowsy motorists risk highway accidents and accidents affect interstate commerce. Suppose you were a jury member during the 1850s and a free person were on trial for assisting a runaway slave, in clear violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you vote to convict and punish?

A moral person would find each one of those laws either morally repugnant or to be a clear violation of our Constitution. You say, "Williams, you're wrong this time. In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional." That court decision, as well as some others in our past, makes my case. Moral people can't rely solely on the courts to establish what's right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

Soon, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, euphemistically titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There is absolutely no constitutional authority for Congress to force any American to enter into a contract to buy any good or service. But if the court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, what should we do?

State governors and legislators ought to summon up the courage of our Founding Fathers in response to the 5th Congress' Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Led by Jefferson and James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 were drafted where legislatures took the position that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. They said, "Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government ... (and) whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The 10th Amendment to our Constitution supports that vision: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In a word, if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, citizens should press their state governors and legislatures to nullify the law. You say, "Williams, the last time states got into this nullification business, it led to a war that cost 600,000 lives." Two things are different this time. First, most Americans are against Obamacare, and secondly, I don't believe that you could find a U.S. soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot down fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.

Congress has already gone far beyond the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In Federalist No. 45, Madison explained: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." That vision has been turned on its head; it's the federal government whose powers are numerous and indefinite, and those of the state are now few and defined.

Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: "Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. ... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

[Biggirl]

Not surprised, because gun sales have gone up through the roof.

[Biggirl]

That is why I go with the teaching of Jesus, to render unto God what is God’s.

[Biggirl]

There is.

[Truthsearcher]

Judging by the complacency over 1.3 million state sanctioned murders every year, I’d say no.

[Biggirl]

Take confort, there is hope.

[Biggirl]

I go by, love God first, others second, myself third.

[OldPossum]

I really wonder if, in our Nation as it exists today, there is a sufficient number of non-sheep to form the critical mass necessary to beat back tyranny...

That's a darn good question. My tentative answer is no, there aren't enough non-sheep. The American people seem to accept what there are told to do in ridiculous laws. The TSA bullcrap that goes on every day is proof of that.

[IronJack]

The illegal immigrants you equate to citizens are not part of the community that (ostensibly) created the laws. Therefore, they have no say in whether they should be obeyed or not.

If you crash my party, you don’t get to complain about the beer I’m serving. But if you helped pay for a keg and I went out and bought red wine instead (because I don’t like beer), then you have a right to kvetch.

[TBP]

Suppose you were on the jury for colonial newspaper publisher John Peter Zenger, who published articles against the King. Would you convict him of doing so? The jury didn’t — they said he had a right to do so.

[Mack the knife]

Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts to establish what’s right or wrong

---

A good deal of this crap would stop if School children (and their parents) were reminded that a jury has not only the right but the obligation to judge the law as well as the offence ... and that this concept was validated by the Supreme Court opinion that has not been superceded. In the 1800s, judges used to tell you this ... but no longer.

Every juror should start deliberations with a request to see a copy of the exact text of the law which the defendant is claimed to have violated. If the law is vague, and subject to multiple interpretations, then no one’s liberty or treasure should be confiscated to enforce it. Some judges will throw you off of the jury if you insist on actually seeing the text of the law.

The next question is, “Is this a law that we should enforce? In other words, is it moral?”

For example, if I were on a jury for a young person accused of violating a pot possession law, I would note that the past 3 Presidents have admitted to the press that they broke this law; and then I would ask, “Is this a law that should be enforced?”

If so, then the third question can be asked ... did the defendant intend to and then actually violate the law?

Check FIJA.com for more information.

[zeugma]

BFL, I’d like to reply to this at length

[TBP]

“...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” (Amendment V). This covers it.

[TBP]

Congress can remove the jurisdiction of the judiciary over a given issue. They have done so in the past.

[IronJack]

The Federal Judiciary, yes. But not the Supreme Court’s.

[TBP]

That amounts to the same thing, as the Supreme Court, except in a few specific cases prescribed in the Constitution itself, has only appellate jurisdiction. If you prevent the lower courts from taking up anything, you prevent the Supreme Court from getting that matter.

You pass the laws you want to pass in accord with the Constitution as written and take away the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary to change it. Nothing the Supremes can do at that point.

[IronJack]

The Supreme Court could conceivably act sua sponte and take the matter up without a writ being granted. And in certain matters, the Court is the body of First Jurisdiction.

But I think we're arguing arcana now.