Who decides whether a law meets that standard?
Anybody, but this is different from the power to enforce.
As an individual, I can decide whatever I wish. But as an individual, I lack the power to enforce. I am therefore subject to the enforcement of the state.
But enforcement by the state does not mean the law meets those standards.
This applies to any law. That's why on this thread people are arguing about revision to the pot laws, but later on another thread people might be on different sides about a proposed law effectively repealing the 2nd amendment.
Whatever pony's on the racetrack isn't the real issue, but people's take on the matter has a funny way of changing based on it, and it's interesting to see who's all about law & order on one thread and who becomes more anarchist rebel when the subject changes. And also who doesn't change their stance.
That observation stems more from my participation in another political forum than this one, since I have less involvement here. But I'd expect to see a similar dichotomy (and be pleasantly surprised if I didn't).
I've seen a lot of people go from "lock all the punks up" to "from my cold, dead hands" when the subject changes.
So what's your take? Any difference there to you? Would you be equally readily compliant with authority if Barack Obama had the means and used them to force through legislation effectively repealing the 2nd Amendment? Or might you be inclined to say "hang on a minute there, hoss - I don't think that meets the standard"?
That sounds like more of a political trap than it is, though. My question is an earnest one, I'm interested in elaboration of your view.
