Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The people who started this country would disagree with you wholeheartedly. Our entire history as a nation is predicated upon people disobeying laws which were unjust. From the Revolution to the Civil War to Women’s Suffrage to the Civil Rights movement of the 20th century, government has needed to be reminded that the people, not a bureaucratic entity, are the true deciders in this country. Without people willing to stand against aggressive government officials, we would still be dependent upon white male landowners to run this great nation or we would still be the subjects of an island nation which could comfortably fit in one corner of the state of Texas.
There was nothing in the executive order issued by the Texas governor which gave the judge the authority to jail a woman who was merely trying to feed her family. Even if the judge’s decision were supported by said executive order, the judge - as someone who supposedly has studied the law and the Constitution - should not have jailed a woman for trying to keep her family fed by running her perfectly legal business. Jailing her for “refusing to apologize” for an action which did not merit an apology was egregious abuse of judicial power.
The government relies upon people with your attitude to enlarge their power base and run roughshod over the citizenry. No truer axiom has ever been uttered than “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
What an inaccurate revisionist history of America's birth. The primary impetus for the Revolutionary War was a revolt against what were deemed to be unfair taxes that were being used to finance British colonization of other parts of the world and the primary opposition was rooted in the fact that the American colonists had no voice in the British legislature. The "people who started this country" (e.g., the Founding Fathers) believed the rule of law to be the fundament of society. Incidentally, I don't see "the right to ignore laws with which one subjectively disagrees" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
It took all of five years after our country was founded before George Washington made this more than an academic point when he personally led an army of militiamen to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Its more than a little disingenuous to argue that the Founding Fathers were in favor of the populace rejecting and "taking a stand" against laws with which they disagreed given that fact.
As an aside, the governor of Texas expressly included imprisonment as a consequence of ignoring his executive order. Although he later walked that back, at the time Luther was jailed, the court not only had its inherent power to enforce its orders using arrest, it had the express authorization to do so by the governor in enforcing this particular executive order.
What an inaccurate revisionist history of America's birth. The primary impetus for the Revolutionary War was a revolt against what were deemed to be unfair taxes that were being used to finance British colonization of other parts of the world and the primary opposition was rooted in the fact that the American colonists had no voice in the British legislature. The "people who started this country" (e.g., the Founding Fathers) believed the rule of law to be the fundament of society. Incidentally, I don't see "the right to ignore laws with which one subjectively disagrees" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
It took all of five years after our country was founded before George Washington made this more than an academic point when he personally led an army of militiamen to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Its more than a little disingenuous to argue that the Founding Fathers were in favor of the populace rejecting and "taking a stand" against laws with which they disagreed given that fact.
As an aside, the governor of Texas expressly included imprisonment as a consequence of ignoring his executive order. Although he later walked that back, at the time Luther was jailed, the court not only had its inherent power to enforce its orders using arrest, it had the express authorization to do so by the governor in enforcing this particular executive order.
It wasn't specifically about taxes. The unfair taxes was the breaking point. It was about tyranny.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
I’m not surprised she was arrested at all, but I can still disagree that jailing her was a valid option.
I also don’t care if she did it for publicity. Authoritarian behavior should be publicized. Nor do I care if she made money from her gofundme page. Anyone who is willing to be unlawfully jailed in order to shine a light on government infringement of rights deserves a reward.
The courts and police were very tolerant of her behavior its almost as if she wanted the spectacle. What I find odd is Abbott criticizing his own executive order but this is what we have seen with Trump critical of states following his own guidelines. This is entirely bizarre.
What an inaccurate revisionist history of America's birth. The primary impetus for the Revolutionary War was a revolt against what were deemed to be unfair taxes that were being used to finance British colonization of other parts of the world and the primary opposition was rooted in the fact that the American colonists had no voice in the British legislature. The "people who started this country" (e.g., the Founding Fathers) believed the rule of law to be the fundament of society. Incidentally, I don't see "the right to ignore laws with which one subjectively disagrees" anywhere in the Bill of Rights.
It took all of five years after our country was founded before George Washington made this more than an academic point when he personally led an army of militiamen to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Its more than a little disingenuous to argue that the Founding Fathers were in favor of the populace rejecting and "taking a stand" against laws with which they disagreed given that fact.
As an aside, the governor of Texas expressly included imprisonment as a consequence of ignoring his executive order. Although he later walked that back, at the time Luther was jailed, the court not only had its inherent power to enforce its orders using arrest, it had the express authorization to do so by the governor in enforcing this particular executive order.
It’s apparent that you never delved into history beyond what you were required to learn in school.
It’s apparent that you never delved into history beyond what you were required to learn in school.
I can't figure out what issue you have with TEPLimey's understanding of history based on his responses. They look very accurate to me. BTW, I'm from the Whiskey Rebellion region of Western PA where they never got the message from Washington's militia army.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
