Is it Possibe to support the rule of law and engage in civil disobedience? Yes.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW IN THE AGE OF THE LAWLESSNESS OF OBAMA

By The American Refugee

Recently, my tweep friend, Sarah J Butler, @viannahlee disagreed with a tweet I made quoting Jefferson on disobeying an unjust law. Obama’s disregard of the law, and the misunderstanding many people have thinking civil disobedience means doing whatever you want, has assuredly led to her attitude.

Confusion over civil disobedience can often revolve around a person’s understanding of the word just, in the particular context of the law they are breaking. Many would argue that no man is above the law, if you don’t like a law lobby to have it changed. However these same people would generally not expect people to follow a particular law that is immoral and in violation of natural law on it’s face. For example, if the government passed a law requiring that people eat their first born child, few would argue that it would not be the moral requirement of parents to break that law.

Respect for the rule of law is a proud part of the history of our nation. Yet, so is civil disobedience. Our founding fathers broke the laws of the British Crown, to which they were subject.  Jefferson is reported to have said, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."  Jefferson is known to have written, in the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..”.  In our more recent history Dr. Martin Luther King said "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.  Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."  Yet we would have chaos if every individual was looking at every law and making a judgment about which to follow and not follow.

For me, the issue revolves around how I view the word just.  It is not just, for an individual, to decide completely of his own accord, that a law is unjust and demand that all others heed his judgment.  However, when a law’s injustice is especially grave, and its injustice is self evident, we have reached a point where I believe, as did our founders, that the law must be broken.  In our system of government, the constitution takes precedent over any other written law, so unconstitutional laws should not be followed.

Who decides that a law is unconstitutional? Is it just, for an individual to make that judgment?  There are no kings in America.  We do have a Supreme Court which has asserted the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, and the other branches of government have allowed them to do it.

This power is not explicitly in the constitution but has been inferred from the history, structure, and provisions of the constitution. The power is called judicial review. The Supreme Court first asserted this power in 1803, in Marbury vs Madison.  In many cases, this has led judicial tyranny where activist judges has decided what they wished the constitution said, rather than what it does, and declared laws in line with the constitution and supported by the people, unconstitutional.  Other times, the court has saved us from legislative overreach.  Still other times, the court has refused to overturn clearly unconstitutional laws.

Are the courts the only ones to decide?  Each president, member of congress, member of our military, and many others take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. Is an individual honoring that oath if he follows a law he believes is unconstitutional on its face? 

My argument is that it goes to clarity, severity, and how many legitimate authorities agree with you.  If the president truly believes that a law is clearly unconstitutional, and gravely unjust, and his most trusted advisors tell him that, I believe he is obligated to ignore the law.  Some conservatives may get upset with me at this point because Obama has done just this, with DOMA, when we disagreed with him.  If we think the president is wrong, it is our job to see to it that he is impeached and convicted. The political process, in the end, is all we have to settle such matters.  Remember, it is in just this way that a future Republican president may refuse to enforce ObamaCare.

This concept does not excuse Obama from not enforcing laws which are clearly constitutional, or laws which he himself fought to pass and argued were constitutional.  It is his duty to faithfully execute all laws of the United States unless he believes they are gravely unjust and unconstitutional.  His absolute ignoring of a host laws is giving the idea of civil disobedience a bad name.

With respect to ObamaCare, I believe it is our duty to disobey this law.  ObamaCare is the greatest assault on liberty in the last 50 years.  I believe it will cause grave injustice.  I believe it is unconstitutional on its face.  ObamaCare makes it impossible to see just what behavior, or non behavior, the federal government can not outlaw or require.  It is the absolute end of individual liberty.

In striking it down, Judge Roger Vinson rightly made many observations. Vinson said Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance. In fact, the jurist ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize you or me for not doing something. He actually compared the "individual mandate" to requiring people to eat healthy food.

Judge Vinson also talked about the Founding Fathers. He stated:

"Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Now, allow us to examine that the law was not legitimately passed by the legislature.  All means of bribery, blackmail, intimidation, and suspension of rules was used to pass a bill which was never able to make it beyond a Senate filibuster.  Finally, when this unconstitutional law made its way through the court system and the Supreme Court had already written the decision declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, a Chief Justice was possibly blackmailed into changing his vote at the last minute so that the mandate would survive.  His last minute writing was sloppy and nonsensical, with little in common with his previous writings or thought.

I will not comply with ObamaCare.  It is an unjust and unconstitutional law.  I will not obtain the insurance the law requires and I will pay no fine.  You see, it is possible to believe in the rule of Law and civil disobedience. The rule of law was not followed in the passing of ObamaCare. This means that we actually support the rule of law by refusing to comply.

The American Refugee is a Blogger,  Radio Talk Show Host, WebMaster, and Social Media Guru. Twitter  FB Fan Page  FB Personal Page  Instagram

He is also a conservative, libertarian, Christian, community activist.