No, only the courts have the jurisdiction to do that. They have been vested with that power by the Constitution and we hope that the best legal minds are appointed to those position, and we place our trust in them that they will interpret the law the way the founders would have done. We do this because the alternative is too ridiculous and frightening - the idea that each individual can decide what is legal and what is not. That individual states can decide to ban guns while others do not, other states can decide that Arabs should he rounded up without warrant and other states may not. That people may decide that God wants all the Jews dead. I don't agree with every decision the court has made. I am downright opposed to some of them. But that's the way things go and the alternative is, by my way of thinking, even more frightening. They tend to get it right more often than not, IMHO, while I haven't detected the same track record with a lot of their opponents on this thread.
Well, when they make rulings that have nothing to do with the Constitution, then they are outside the law. A court cannot say there is a constitutional right to sodomy when plainly that right does not exist in writing. Scalia said as much in his dissent on Lawrence v. Texas. That's my point - we do not have to accept EVERY SINGLE RULING no matter what it is - because that opens the door for TYRANNY! The judge on the Court is not the final arbiter of right and wrong - they are confined by the Constitution, yet they continuously rule outside the Constitution, and even defy original intent when ruling within the Constitution (as they continuously do on 10 commandment cases and Free Exercise cases).
If you want to believe that the courts must be obeyed no matter what they rule, you go right ahead. Meanwhile, I will place God's law above those men in black robes.
We do this because the alternative is too ridiculous and frightening - the idea that each individual can decide what is legal and what is not.
When a judge rules outside the bounds of the Constitution, that is precisely what he is doing - placing his INDIVIDUAL biases above the written law (Lawrence, Everson, affirmative action, etc.). Show me the right to sodomy in the Constitution if you can...
I am downright opposed to some of them. But that's the way things go and the alternative is, by my way of thinking, even more frightening. They tend to get it right more often than not, IMHO, while I haven't detected the same track record with a lot of their opponents on this thread.
Glad to hear it. The question is, do you obey a judge no matter what? I don't. When a man's law contradicts God's law, I am obligated to obey God's law, and would rather be DEAD than do otherwise. That is what honor and virtue are all about. Some things are right and some things are wrong, and a judge doesn't get to decide what is right and wrong. Morality comes from God, not from man.