Disagreeing with laws and upholding laws and arguing they should be upheld

For sake of avoiding extraneous debate, I'm starting this as its own topic (based on Ringo's suggestion) and we don't have to discuss exactly where it came from.When a person disagrees with a law, must it be upheld, and must it be argued that it should be upheld just because it is on the books?I wholly disagree with the idea that a law must be upheld, and more importantly that one must argue it should be upheld by the state, when it is unjust. I personally do not understand such a thought process, or how laws become changed without both a refusal to carry out laws that are considered unjust, or arguing that they should not be carried out.Maybe I grew up listening to too many people arguing that it is a person's duty to challenge and defy unjust laws. In any case, if they are not defied and argued that they shouldn't be upheld, how then are they supposed to change? Why should a person be trapped in a position of demanding the upholding of something one feels is so directly unjust?As an example...If I were in Salem, I would have argued that laws against witches were unjust, and helped such suspects escape with their lives (thus I would not have upheld the law). If caught, I would have argued with the police not to uphold the law. If sent to court, I would have argued that the court should not uphold the unjust law.To agree that they should be upheld is a tacit agreement they are correct, at the very least their legitimacy as a tool in society.If I believe they are incorrect I cannot believe they are legitimate even as such a tool.Edited by Silent H, : not

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Okay, I was using unjust laws to include laws one disagrees with. I saw in the other thread that you (in a post to brenna) distinguished between the two. If you want to expand the difference between unjust laws and ones you disagree with please feel free to do so. You can riff off my Salem example for a comparison if you want.(on a side note: this was generated from a person arguing that a law I would call unjust (and I assume she would) should be upheld.) Very little. Would love to know more.I realize that it is possible to uphold laws while they are being changed. But I find that an absurdity unless there is a practical necessity to do so. For example, laws regarding traffic would be something that needs to be maintained, because otherwise there could be severe problems in the mean time.Perhaps Canada has not had such absurd laws as the US. Witch trials (well okay not the US but its in our borders), Prohibition, anti-abortion, anti-gay... I see no reason to uphold them while they are being changed.My own state suspended capital punishment, though it is the law and people were slated for execution, while the laws and practices were investigated. Well the first thing it does is it stops any further problems happening because of the law. It stops precedent for its activity, its necessity, while providing a precedent that laws can be changed... even at the lowest levels.I'm not sure if you know about US law, but we originally had a concept that juries were to be informed of their right to stop a law's execution if they felt it was wrong. They were not simply supposed to vote on whether a law was broken.I can see what you mean by having a polarizing effect. But that is sometimes advantageous as it breaks complacency that would otherwise be the norm. I don't think the people helping slaves escape polarized the community in a way against the anti-slavery movement. Likewise all the people beating Prohibition (with the help of yon Kanucks) certainly didn't polarize the nation... it built consensus.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

We have agreement on the first part of your argument, and would only add the judiciary. but... I have to admit having a problem with this. Meaning it is tough for me to crack. Let me try...I understand what you are saying. Certainly a person who has donned the role of civil servant (I would include things beyond just law enforcement, including the military) have given up a certain level of autonomy. They have deliberately taken responsibility for upholding laws and instructions, regardless of their opinions of them.And if it were reduced to every man for himself, smooth functioning would likely break down. It has got to be true that not every civil servant likes every law or order they receive. They have to yield.However, I would argue, that responsibility must still be balanced with their commitment to the nation as a citizen. Indeed their oaths (in the US) are principally to the Constitution, not to any specific leader or set of laws.And for practical purposes in the course of their duties, often waive the letter of any law, in order to uphold the spirit which is to preserve peace and protect the citizens. It is usually not the case that every crime is stepped on, even when caught.So if there is that flexibility in practice, and some amount of responsibility to rights over laws, then I think there is space for civil servants to "rebel" as it were in those instances they feel are important cases. Obviously if a person were constantly rebelling they probably shouldn't be in the civil service. But once in a while as laws are felt to be useless or contradictory to peace, safety, or civil rights... I say defy!I think, someone can correct me, that right now Oregon or CA are defying the enforcement of federal laws (regarding drugs). This is not just a legislative overturn, but on the enforcement side.When I was being processed for the military (long ago and didn't finish) there was a point where I was being told that soldiers are allowed to defy their orders if they feel it conflicts with law (including the Constitution). They have that right... though they are likely to find themselves in the pokey until their case is reviewed.Sometimes it takes defiance by these members to make a difference. A stirring image was that lone man stopping a column of tanks in China. Honestly it wasn't that guy alone. The tanks could have easily run him over. He made them think and stop. They defied their orders. Too bad many others did not.I think once a civil servant is confronted with a law which is disagreeable to their concept of humanity and rights, they should defy it just as much as any other individual.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Sweet posts people, and I especially love this one by omni. Indeed. I love that opening line... is it yours, or is it borrowed? I plan to borrow it so I thought I should ask.I'd also add that (on the flipside) an oppressed majority can also natter on and never realize they have a right not to be oppressed one day further. Today a majority of Americans have been hocking their rights for "security" and its taking defiance (including by law enforcement and military) to shake people from their "giving mood."

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

[rubbing hands]... excellent...[/rubbing hands]

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I opened the thread with a vague enough concept that we could use any law, and not the one that sort of generated this whole debate. Since you have raised an interesting concept (one I had not really considered) about unjust vs disagreeable laws, perhaps we could use that law as an example... though I would like you to expand your position on this with perhaps more explicit defs of both, or some examples. On that particular law I would definitely have to disagree. Elevating a fetus to the status of personhood, such that its termination is equivalent to "murder", does not simply confer rights to the fetus.With that definition, a woman's rights would most definitely become limited in reaction to the fetus's elevated state. Honestly, to me saying that a fetus is as equal a person as a full human being, is an injustice to other human beings.Further, ranking its termination as murder certainly does take away someone's rights. All of them. Murder is a huge deal. In fact if it is a state with capital punishment, the person might very well be killed.I am intrigued by and can probably accept that there are unjust vs disagreeable laws, but when any law deals with another person's very life, that seems to cross a line where I have to call it unjust. Actually I believe that has happened, the lower speed limit became too dangerous and impractical so they raised it. But I understand your point it doesn't have to translate to defiance. I'm not passing those laws, other people are. A democracy does not guarantee intelligent voters, unbiased voters, or power grabs beyond the hands of the voters. I admit the US has had a lot of shitty laws and continues to have them. That does not mean I am the one passing them. And this fact begs the very question, what is a person to do when others have passed shitty laws?You say in a later post that you don't want to have to deal with Americocentric issues, and that is understandable. However, we are a democracy and these things can happen in a democracy. So what we are discussing is not hypothetical, even if it isn't happening in Canada.You can't appeal to the sanity of Canadians, and Canadian laws, when people who are oppressed in another nation ask... what do we do now? That was a sweet shot. However, isn't choosing not to arrest, or charge someone the same thing as commuting a sentence, only further down the ladder? Enforcing the laws is ALWAYS at the discretion of the officer on site, and then the prosecutor who chooses to take a case forward. That is within the law. So then is enforcing the same as upholding? Hmmmm. Another nice shot, but it sort of misses my point. While you are right everyone knows they can change, precedence is held very widely as a means of testing the validity of a law. Thus one which is not openly challenged, and keeps getting upheld, tends to be viewed as "just" and not worthy for reconsideration.In fact I'd have to throw a hot potato back at you. The precedence of upholding Roe V Wade (I know not a law but a decision which effects law) is used to argue for its merits. And many conservatives use your very argument to say there is no reason for it to continue.I'm sorry I don't know enough Canadian law to think of a similar example for you, but this is an example of the power of precedence.Likewise laws which have gone unenforced (not upheld) for ages are often considered either unjust or useless. Yes, a repeated point, but valid. Again I would mention (though you only have to answer it once) that police may choose not to press charges and prosecutors may choose not to try a case. That is also within the law.I would argue that the defiance of slave laws did a lot to bring about abolitionist policies in the US. It set examples, and gave stories from escaped slaves which helped motivate others. If it had been shut down and viewed as validly illegal, then there might not have been as much traction. That said, we can leave that example aside as you have a point that there was a lot of tension in the air anyway. Actually it wasn't consensus, as people have already mentioned. But we can say for sake of argument that it was, being that it was enacted in many states, and eventually voted on by reps of the people.Yes, the change in consensus was caused rather definitively by defiance of the law. People were not happy upholding it and chose not to. This meant crime grew, again aided by you wily Canadians. As the gov't tried to crack down, violence grew. Popular culture which at first supported the Gmen and gangbusters, began to find the criminals as heroes. All they were doing was defying "unjust" (what would you label them as?) laws. There was much graft among the police and local communities which decided to not uphold the laws... resulting in further backlashes.Eventually people in charge, and those who were supportive of the legislation, realized drinking was not as bad as the solution of trying to stop everyone from drinking.Isn't this similar to what has resulted in Canadian laws changing regarding drugs (specifically MJ)? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought I'd try to make this more relevant to you.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

It is possible things have changed since I was going through processing. I think that really depends on the situation. Technically dutch peace keeping troops were following orders by not protecting the people they were assigned to in Bosnia. But they should have. And an entire gov't fell for that mistake which cost many people's lives.The "front lines" are always risky business, and the obligations of duty definitely get tested against obligations of compassion... and rights.I hope you get your commission and don't have to face such horrible situations.I do get restrictions on public disapproval. I view that as different than disobedience. My point was not clear. I was saying that image was stirring, but the real important factor was not seen in that image. The guy had steel balls that's for sure, but it took the soldiers in the tanks to choose to defy their orders to make that scene happen. How many people got plowed through in the square? This guy wouldn't have been anything but a red smear amongst all the others if the soldiers had obeyed.I think they were right, but I wonder where they are now. Actually I do understand your point here. Chain of command is important, and sometimes local "injustices" have to be carried out (or allowed for) within an overall action at mass scale. But this does not undermine my point... it only qualifies it.A civil servant better have some serious convictions, and understand the consequences very well, before engaging in disobedience.Then again, it is really not that tough for a street cop, or a prosecutor, on an average day of business. They not only have more freedom (discretion) to choose which laws they have to uphold, they nearly always do pick and choose. Subbie pointed out the practical reality which forces that situation, but sometimes there are ideological realities as well. If they feel something will be very unpopular, or result in a backlash they often choose not to enforce something.In fact sometimes if just unpopular with the police themselves, they sometimes choose not to enforce... despite the problems that causes in the community.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Actually its not, when its all about following orders. They were not given orders to fight, in fact counter orders if I remember, and were given no military back up support.It became a huge controversy, because it was the fault of higher ups as much as the guys on the ground.The guys on the ground should have defied orders, and not worried about support, and stuck up for the humans they knew were about to suffer and die needlessly.On the difference between public disapproval and disobedience. First of all one can simply not do something, or do something, contrary to orders but without making a scene about it. That keeps the disobedience clearly out of the public arena. Second, restricting the power of your state, is not the same as openly criticizing a policy. The latter does not gain much, for onesself or for one's organization/state. It creates a negative atmosphere without firmly committing onesself to action... sort of whiny.It makes sense to minimize public displays of approval, to force those within the group to choose their battles (with policy) wisely. It can't be run like a normal office, which can fall apart with a bunch of bickering over anything and everything, no matter how silly.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I am confused about something. I thought you had argued that there are "unjust" laws, which people should not uphold, and those which are simply "disagreeable" (or stupid) and so should be until they are changed. I think you gave an example (in another thread) of Nazi like laws having to turn people over... you'd fight that, and agree they should not be upheld. Am I right that you still feel there is such a division?I'm going to assume so, for purposes of debate.My argument is that elevating fetuses (fetii?) to the level of human being, such that there termination is murder, is unjust. It actively holds people responsible, and their lives forfeit, for a blob of cells. To me that is as ludicrous as stating that a book or flag has the status of a person, and so one must not destroy them or be committing murder. And this law has direct repercussions.Forget the guy in question, though his life is now forfeit (death or long prison sentence), think of what that means for doctors performing abortions, or scientists working on stem cells. If we agree that this guy should get prosecuted for murder, because a fetus is a person, just because its on the books, the rest begins to follow.This is of course the road that anti-abortionists are trying to work. Setting precedence for that legal classification.It is not just absurd, it is unjust, and this guy just got hit with it. And I do not understand why I should believe the State should uphold that law... just because it's on the books. Though of course I freely admit, neither of our opinions will stop whatever that state is going to do. I don't want to make this thread about molbio, so maybe I can chop off and cauterize that issue right here. If she meant it the way you suggest then she was not answering my question (in context). Plus, and this is more important, that to me is still considered supporting the law... even if qualified to the time it remains on the books. As it stands in another thread, she seems to undermine your interpretation by appealing to a lack of prosecution as evidence certain laws (stupid ones) aren't real... I think its obvious that logical problems arise for a person who in one post recognizes that it is possible not to prosecute laws that are on the books, and indeed that to not do so is to mark them as stupid (or not serious), and then claim that one is not supporting a specific law when arguing that particular one should be enforced because it is on the books. Remember she didn't simply say they were justified, she said they SHOULD prosecute. This was her exact reply in Post 149... There is a problem here, and it is not mine. Hopefully my point on that matter is more than clear now. Well I agree, and I don't think we're that far off. Frankly I would hope that in most cases people agree with the laws that are being passed. The question is what happens if one is put in place that is not liked... and I don't mean in some transitory or temporary situation. If that happens one has to begin considering how to confront it.I agree completely that influencing legislators is the primary important vector for change. But one can really convince executive and judicial elements to take a stand... not to mention individuals on the scene. There's a huge gap between arguing something should not be done, or engaging in passive resistance, and conducting a guerrilla war. From a practical standpoint alone, for most things, using violence is likely to produce more harm than the odious law.So I hope you can see I am not advocating taking to the streets, or grabbing the shot gun, every time something disagreeable gets passed. There are many vectors for change, and you pick the right one to match the severity of the problem.In the fetal-homicide case I would argue public pressure should be brought to bear for the prosecutor to drop such a charge and so set a precedent that it is not important, that it is a stupid law, as molbio seemed to understand in that other thread regarding other laws. This I would disagree with. The essence of democracy... to me... is to use a majority vote system to generate agreements on solutions to communal problems, with a restriction on what "problems" they can address and "solutions" they can consider so as to maximize and preserve the rights of the individual. The state, or majority, is NOT the most important entity here, it is the individual.I agree with you (and your dad) that these agreements will involve a subordination of one's will to carry out any solution, but in the context of an agreement, not obedience to a "power" above onesself.That is to say the value of the decisions of the group, relate to the utility group decision-making and work division that kind of action provides. Once it strays beyond utility to the individual, and indeed the individual must view themselves as something that must be useful to the state's needs, then I think there is a problem. While most actions follow the route you described. In fact I might argue that most Americans are totally apathetic, I do agree that our uhmmmm persona, and so those that will disobey take the revel route.We tend to grow up with stories that foster that idea. The Boston Tea Party, and Massacre are two good examples. In fact, if we didn't have that spirit, and took the Canadian route, we'd likely still have the queen. In fact, wouldn't this all be Canada? And then YOU'D be stuck with shitty laws too. Actually police really don't have to go after every crime. It's the difference between letter and spirit of the law. The duty is to protect and serve the public, defending the Constitution. The laws are a merely a set of tools they can choose from, if they need to do something... not mandatory programs they must follow, or be derelict.I think that may be one of our differences. I see them as tools, and not mandates for action. Yeah that expression works down here too. And I have to agree with your point. A good example is the drug war. That said, it can also work the other way. I think it tends to go enact a bad law, as it starts hitting bumps put in more teeth, and then when they find out what a bloody mess they are making (and they bit off more than they could chew), the whole thing is discarded.That is essentially the process that Prohibition took. And I believe that is the same route the drug war will ultimately take. Uhmmmmm. Actually I don't know. But I'm going to boldly assert YES. I do believe that the violence associated with illegal abortions, and the fact that (and this is true) doctors were more openly defying the laws (public media began including sympathetic images of abortion doctors in this wake) that the ruling coincided with public sentiment.So anyway, I did answer your question about Prohibition, and yes I think the drug war is starting to fall (finally) into the same pattern.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

That does not logically follow.First of all, had this been prosecuted in that state before? It was passed, but had it been prosecuted there?Second, how would a law's not being prosecuted yet, which would indicate a state's enforcement agency has chosen not to despite its being on the books, differ from one that has stopped being prosecuted, because a state later choses not to despite its being on the books.Laws can go by the wayside, unenforced. To say, because they have been prosecuted in the past, NOW they must be upheld because they are on the books, is simply special pleading. Either agencies can decide NOT to prosecute, even though they are on the books, or they can't.I admit precedence, especially with successful prosecutions, builds precedence... but not mandates. And as we have been discussing in this thread, precedence can be broken.Given your apparent position here, that witches were being prosecuted meant that those were not dumb laws and you would have said they should be prosecuted? Laws against Atheism? Jews? Laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Okay, I can buy a spectrum. I'd still like to hear some criteria and examples. I though you argued that precedent doesn't mean anything? In any case, what does it matter how many states disagree with me? I set out my criteria for what I feel is unjust and applied it.If it doesn't fit yours, I want to understand why? People, including stem cell researchers, could hang on that decision. You were just given all you needed to make a decision regarding the logic. On one hand she recognizes states choose not to prosecute, and when they don't the laws are meaningless (despite being on the books), yet then argues in one case that a law should be prosecuted because it is on the books. That makes the second argument one for support of the law... at the very least while it is on the books.You may of course act as if her agreeing with what you said earlier, changes the logic. But it doesn't. There is a contradiction and it is quite clear. Of course we can drop the matter between us because she is here now. Okay, from a brutish imperialist army. How does that argue against what I'm suggesting. If one's state is overrun by foreign powers, or brutish thugs within one's own, are you arguing passive resistance shouldn't be enacted? Okay yeah, I'm not saying people should start shooting police and prosecutors or something. But if enough letters or protests convince the prosecutor to drop that charge... great. That would not be a dereliction of duty, that would be a choice. My apologies for not getting my position out as eloquently as Omni might. I really was trying to address the essence. And that was to somewhat take democracy down a peg from some lofty concept, to that of a machine, an engine, a simple process.I view its "essence" to be no nobler than a fine axe. While it is useful to the individual to get things done more efficiently, it is a good thing to use. But it should not be used for any chore one has, is no more important than any other tool, and once it loses its utility to an individual it should be put away. I don't agree with your assessment. The individual chooses to engage in democracy for the sake of him(her)self. Its not that communities are evil or something, just that they only have so much utility, and then they can become useless. Once a community decides that it is more important than the individual, one loses democracy and gains an oligarchy.To my mind, anarchy is a loss of community action altogether, a despisement of such activity. Though they always seem to manage to put together demonstrations.But this may be semantics. Heheheh... I just meant that if we hadn't rebelled, we might all be one country, and then you'd have the same dopes voting for the stuff we have now. Then again, maybe by combining our nations the majority would be sane. That's because you guys don't have a REAL Constitution like ours, nyeah nyeah nyeah. Heheheh. There really is a reverence for the document here, I think mainly because it sets restrictions on the gov't (supposedly). Either that or because God gave it to us.On the current drug war, I always wondered if later events would mirror what happened after Prohibition. Like Chicago is all somehow pro-capone and you can find places that emulate that time period and gangsters. Will there be restaurants styled after LA gangs? Wil people go to dress up and have their pictures taken with their shirts off and pants half pulled down, waving chrome plated 45s. Great fun for the kids!

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

No, I'm afraid Ringo has declined, and anyway that would be unfair to him. I realize we both do not like each other, but the point is logic. So there is no reason for emotion. We don't even need to bring in evidence (unless you want to show that state has prosecuted the fetal-homicide law before to support part of your position).Two mature people should be able to handle this exchange without anger.It is very simple. If a state can choose NOT to prosecute a law on the books, then it should not matter whether it has done so yet or not. The choice remains. There is no logical necessity that once a law has been prosecuted, it must always be prosecuted thereafter (or it somehow becomes mandated). And if one feels that is true, there are repercussions.I asked a very simple set of questions related to that last point. Those were "stupid laws" which had been prosecuted. Would you then argue that they should have been, or should be upheld now?Isn't arguing that something should be upheld, the same as supporting a law, at the very least while it is on the books? If not, why not?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Molbio, I also said that I have no desire to discuss anything with you. That fact remains.However, sometimes necessity gets the better of desire. A point was raised about an argument you had made (and not by me). I have answered it properly and with quotes.If you are going to pop in here and try to defend your position by agreeing with someone else, who did not and will not defend you further on the arguments I made, your point stands in contention.I have not attacked you personally, nor have I distorted your statements or position. I have simply shown where they are inconsistent and illogical (or not sound). If you do not care to answer, fine, but your position has been rebutted soundly. And I think it is a distinct lack of maturity to pass the responsibility of making your own arguments on to others.If you want to defend your position, then do so. And really how hard could those questions be to answer? Yes, no, and perhaps short explanations for the difference.As a forward, I will freely post to you as I NEED to. For me that is when you pop into a discussion and try to defend a position, or attack mine, by agreeing with others or making veiled commentary. You may of course do the same. I don't like it, but there you have it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I don't think my point was clear. I wanted to know why you thought it wasn't unjust, given the fact that it has pretty bad repercussions. Wouldn't the fact that it could then be applied to abortion doctors and stem cell researchers, make it somewhat unjust to you... even if not for this guy? Well those are a bunch of facts, and I agree with them. This is another set of facts, though the first one I believe begs the question. If I break the law and I win, then I have changed it. It took a black lady breaking a law to win a huge set of civil rights. It took an school teacher to break the law (heheheh... see I sneak in EvC) to... well he sort of lost, but it still lead to a failing of the law overall and so a change.You are right that prosecutors can "break" (in the vein of "bust") laws, by choosing not to prosecute. You are also right that they work according to their own idea of justice. But if enough people like me say a law is wrong, that might just effect their idea of justice, no? Well it's not just my plan. The founding fathers discussed this as a necessity, a reality, and indeed put it into practice and won. So I think evidence is on my side with that point.Then again, this shouldn't be advanced farther than I meant it. I agree that there are different methods to change laws, and breaking them is not the only route, or even the first one. And I don't believe law enforcement choosing not to use a law, is dereliction of duty or "breaking" (other than "busting") the law. Certainly pressuring them through letter campaigns or whatever to change their practices and policies is valid. Honestly I don't know a whole lot about that... is that in Canada? Seriously though, it was my impression that it took both sides of that equation to bring apartheid to an end. As it is, you mentioned Ghandi. In that case, didn't passive resistance and violence ultimately win?To sort of repeat a point, in both those cases it started with bad policy, got worse (violence wise) as the upper ups tried to put greater teeth into their policy, and then it failed. Now now, let's not put words in my mouth. I have not argued that people should rush into simply breaking laws, especially in some public sense... which is likely to have repercussions. I am advocating for people to take a stand as they can. For law and prosecutors it can mean choosing not to take on cases that are bad or unjust. And we have the freedom to convince them to do so, until we get the legislators to change the laws.Outright defiance and violence would really have to be made on a case by case basis, and with great caution. I can agree to your spectrum idea.With that said, I certainly believe people should NOT be arguing law enforcement MUST prosecute any case, just because it is on the books. I think they should be arguing laws which they disagree with should NOT be prosecuted.By the way, were you against gays getting married in defiance of the law? I realize they ultimately "lost". But I thought their defiance was laudable, and the civil servants who went along with it honourable for their actions.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I thought you said in the other thread that unjust laws could be fought... like Nazi laws against Jews and such. That there was a distinctive category of laws between which you would not say should be opposed and those that should be. So you believe such fetal-homicide laws are a good thing? That it is bad only in how it gets applied? I don't know, while I see your point that there is a difference between the surgeon and the killer, I don't think this issue is the same. This law promotes fetuses as human beings, thus logically creating whole new set of viable legal cases.If one says, okay we'll only consider a fetus human when the mother wants it, then we are entering a strange case of special pleading. I'll give you the point that you have more sane laws, if you give me the point that we don't have a queen. I think the cause and effect in that case is pretty obvious. But I'll tell you what, you give me the point that PR&V led to freedom in India and Pakistan, and I'll give you the point that it didn't in South Africa. But first and foremost they don't always prosecute what's on the books. So your question is answered, whether they do or not lawmaking continues and is necessary. If anything, it just goes to show how many laws aren't really necessary.I don't remember if you dealt with my explanation (my opinion I suppose) that laws are not mandates, but tools. The role of the Law Enforcement officer, is NOT just to enforce laws. The point is to keep peace and security, and the laws are available to them to do that. So they really can pick and choose.Now more philosophically, the executive and judicial branches act as checks to the legislative branches. They do not simply have to do what any other branch tells them. Well, there are some restrictions to their freedom, but as far as enforcing laws goes, or judging in a court case, they are not beholden to uphold the legislature's demands. that is how laws get undermined and overturned.Now if the public catches wind of some group putting a hold on what they wanted (through legislation) they have the power to put someone new within the executive and judicial areas to make sure the laws are upheld as they want. They can do the reverse as well.The powers are adversarial, and that is a good thing.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard