Previous -5 - -2
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

Ric47 Wrote: May 16, 2012 12:57 PM
I believe that those who violate the law (either actively or passively) on moral grounds have the moral obligation to accept the punishment that the law provides for its violators. Very few advocates of active or passive resistance to law seem to publically share this view – they seem to think that their self proclaimed righteousness exempts them from the penalties of the law. I despise that point of view. And I am uncertain where Williams stands on that issue.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

Ric47 Wrote: May 16, 2012 12:56 PM
I find repugnant the idea that individual members of law enforcement (civil or military) should use their own political judgment to refuse direct orders to enforce civil law over an issue as minor as ObamaCare. I admit that there are some government policies in our past and/or possible in our future in which I, if I were on active law enforcement duty, might refuse to carry out – I'd mention the forced relocation and uncompensated seizure of property of our First Peoples early in our history and native born citizens of Japanese descent during WW-II as historical examples and in the future any similar treatment of cultural, religious, racial, or political sub-populations without individual due process of law.
In response to:

Should We Obey All Laws?

Ric47 Wrote: May 16, 2012 12:54 PM
In a democratic republican system, there must be a clear distinction between laws one disagrees with for personal/political reasons and laws which exceed constitutional limitations. I think that unconstitutional laws fit Williams' thesis but laws that some of us (but not others) find morally repugnant do not. There are many reasonable constitutional arguments supporting ObamaCare and several historical precedents, not the least of which is Medicare. ObamaCare, regardless of any inefficacy and/or undesirability as a law, is neither clearly constitutional nor clearly unconstitutional.
In response to:

The President's Private War

Ric47 Wrote: May 05, 2012 11:28 AM
The Constitution in Article I Section 8 provides Congress the power to declare war, establish and fund the military, and establish the codes of military justice and goes no further. Nepolitano must have confused the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution explicitly provides Congress power over military action by the States (Article I Section 10) but fails to explicitly empower Congress that power over the President. There is NO place in the Constitution that "limits the presidential use of war powers to those necessary for an immediate defense of the United States or those exercised pursuant to a valid congressional declaration of war" – that limitation applies ONLY to the States.
Previous -5 - -2