One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. — Martin Luther King, Jr
When one group of people attempt to make fundamental changes to longstanding traditions and the society based upon those traditions, the importance of the methods utilized by the agents of change cannot be understated. Further, when these people seek significant changes to the rule of law and to the relationship between the State and the governed, their methods must be completely above-board to be accepted as legitimate. Though power hungry statists like Hugo Chavez or Barack Obama most certainly disagree, the methods used to effect change color the legitimacy of that change and, perhaps more importantly, the extent to which people are compelled to acquiesce to those changes. As MLK said in his famous Letter From a Birmingham Jail, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.
If, for example, the civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s had eschewed non-violence in favor of an “ends justify the means” approach, their results and Americans’ perception of the legitimacy of those results would be very different from what we have today. Luckily for all of us, they chose the legitimate path to effect that social change, counting on the conscience of America to do the right thing (the racist filibuster by the Democrats notwithstanding).
This same analogy holds true for the current conflict in America between conservatives on one side, who support limited Constitutional government, and the liberals on the other side of the constitutional chasm, who seek to expand the size and power of government in order to pursue a collectivist/statist agenda.
Those on the Left had two choices in the approach that they would take in their relentless attempt to change America into Amerika. People familiar with the US Constitution know that there is only one legitimate and legal method to expand the power of the federal government: to have both houses of Congress propose, and approve by a two-thirds supermajority, amendments to the Constitution. Those amendments must then be approved by a super-supermajority of three-fourths of the states’ legislative bodies before joining the law of the land in our founding document. This difficult method is certainly slow, but I would argue that it was intended to be difficult in order to give time for serious thought and to avoid the fickle nature of pure democracies. Contrary to the claims of those who revere the judiciary like gods, this is the only legal method of increasing the scope and power of the federal government of the United States.
Knowing that the American people do not support their statist agenda, the American left chose to undermine the system from within to achieve their goals, and history will record that fact. Of course, every clear thinking American with the power of observation knows that the Left does not give a rodent’s posterior about the desires of the governed and never will. The final passage of the government’s unconstitutional health care takeover – in the face of consistent majorities in opposition – proves that beyond the shadow of a doubt. The American left is all about power built on making people dependent on government. It is absolutely their raison d’etre. Consequently, they view us all as livestock living on the government collective and they act accordingly. The idea that they would let the Constitution stand in their way seems ludicrous… at least to them.
In contrast with honest debate and constitutional change, the route chosen by the left to implement their agenda involves dishonesty and political gamesmanship. Their game involves nominating activist judges into the federal judiciary, people who do not give a single thought to the text of the constitution or the original intent of the far brighter people who crafted our American system. These statist “[wo]men in black”, as Mark Levin dubbed them, plainly implement their own ideology, in many cases simply rubber-stamping the agenda of the hard left, forcing it on the rest of us without a bit of concern for the document that they swore to uphold.
Charlatans like Justice Sotomayor and President Obama prefer to keep their copies of the US Constitution hanging on a roll in their bathrooms, perforated into small squares…
So let’s examine a worst case scenario and assume that the freedom-loathing American Left ‘wins’ its perennial struggle against our Constitutional system. Imagine a situation in which they have so successfully infected the federal courts with agenda-driven statists like Sotomayor and Kagan that they strike down any legislation that does not fit their agenda.
When that day comes, egregiously dishonest statists like Obama and Pelosi will high five over their ‘victory’. But illegitimate methods result in an illegitimate victory, and patriotic Americans will be well within their rights to resist this falsely legitimized tyranny by any means necessary.
If the Left took the proper approach it would be different. If they won consecutive elections and amassed the numbers in both houses of Congress that are required for proposing amendments then successfully lobbied the citizens and representatives of 34 states to pass the amendments, it would be another story. In that case, I would begrudgingly admit defeat. Sure, I would cry real tears over the death of the American Experiment and what it means to history, to the world, and to future generations of Americans. But if America decided to stop being America and had followed the only legitimate path to make those changes, I would respect it. In that case, I might even look around for another country to call home – after all, my country would be dead in that case.
But they did not choose that route, so any ‘victory’ that they enjoy will be illegitimate and therefore freedom-loving American patriots should and will ignore it, fighting back in whichever means “shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness“. The left’s so-called victory would be pyrrhic indeed.





