Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
So let me understand you. Laws are no longer really laws, but merely suggestions, and if by breaking the law you are not really harming anyone, in your opinion, then it's OK?
And what is the harm in issuing a assault weapon license?
|
Forgive me, I was raised in the Clinton era.
Let's recap: Someone said I welcome this civil disobediance. You said, no, that's not good, because we're a nation of laws, not men. I said, well, as civil disobediance goes, this isn't even as far out as Rosa Parks or lunch counters. From that you get Burger sez laws are just suggestions.
No. I said that if you're going to tolerate any forms of civil disobediance, this is a most tolerable form, because there is no harm to anyone prior to its resolution by the courts. Unlike, say, an assault weapon license, which, upon presentation to a salesman, would allow the immediate purchase of a device of mass mayhem.
If, on the other hand, you tolerate no civil disobediance whatsoever, then, yeah, you're right.
But let's go back to what's going on here. Each public official is sworn to uphold the laws that they are to enforce. If marraige clerk says I'm obligated to enforce not only the marriage laws but also the law/const. guaranteeing equal rights, and I can't comply with both so I'm going to comply with the equal rights law, how is that disobedient? It's a gray area, at least in light of the decisions of two state supreme courts. This isn't a southern sheriff saying that it's unclear whether the 4th/8th amendment allows him to shackle and flog a "Nee-grow" for looking at him funny.
At best, it's a police officer
refusing to enforce separate lunch counters because his belief is that such would violate the 14th amendment. Would you be opposed to his refusal?
