on site in regards to the law. His words are not "law" in the binding sense, however his words are backed and empowered by law. If a cop gives you a warning, lets say theoritically, to move away from an area due to a violation of the law he is within his rights to do so and is doing so with the full power vested upon him by the law. You can't hold up your constituion and go "NUH UH! Because this says I don't have to" because you have zero power to interprit the constitution in a legal sense. IE, HIS interpritation of the law...at that given point...is more accurately the "law" than YOUR interpritation of the constitution at that point.
Actually, I'm arguing that all laws should be treated as constitutional, and those carrying out the laws be viewed as performing in line with the constitution, up until such a point that they're ruled unconstitutional. Should such happen then retoractive action, such as freeing someone from prison or removing an infraction from someones record, could and likely would be appropriate. However, the only way to truly and LEGALLY know if a law is or isn't unconstitutional is for it to be ruled upon by a court. Anything else is simply an unsubstantiated opinion holding no legal status.Interestingly though, you are arguing a philosophical position that all unconstitutional laws are lawful until they are found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Sure, every citizen is entitled to assess whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. However, their assessment is worth about as much as their opinion on whether or not the new Britney Spears song is good. They're free to assess it. However, unless they are able to prove their assessment is correct to a judge their assessment has absolutely zero baring on the law or the legality of action taken against them.In that sense I disagree. While the courts are the final arbiter of the law, each individual citizen in this country is responsible for assessing whether laws are lawful or unlawful.
I would too. The difference is you'd sit there pouting that the Cop doesn't have the authority to do it because its unconstitutional and that he's acting illegally. I'd accept the fact that its illegal, that the cop is given the authority to act within the laws as they are passed and on the books and are currently upheld as correct, and accept that he's within his authority to arrest me and I will comply as I await my legal right to challenge the charge I view as unconstitutional in court.I would gladly go to jail in protest of a law that is unconstitutional in order to have it tossed out by the courts. However, I would have to be incredibly certain of it.
Hmm, nope. I see conservatives all the time trying to take action to cause the courts to overturn something as unconstitutional. Look at various state action aimed at trying to make Roe v. Wade relooked at for example. I don't think its illegitimate to stand in violation of the law in order to ATTMEPT to get it overturned. What I think is illegitimate is pretending that ones interpritation of the constitution is infallable and that those that are enforcing the laws as they are on the books and have currently been upheld have no power, their words mean nothing, and they should be condemned or besmirched for enforcing the laws based on that over inflated egotistical belief that their view of the constitution is unquestionably the correct one.Conservatives seem to argue that it is not a legitimate action to stand in violation of a law in order to have it overturned by the courts.