We live in a time where politicians seem to believe that they are the ultimate authority in the United States and that with a wave of their hand and a scratch of their pen, they can enact unassailable dictates that you have to follow.
This is so far from the truth that you could fit a solar system between them.
There are many laws in the land, with different states containing different laws to follow. But, the supreme laws are the ones enshrined in the Constitution. If any laws are issued that conflict with this supreme law of the land, then those laws are invalid and do not have to be followed.
This isn’t just the opinion of a freedom-loving American with a penchant for bucking authority, it’s also the opinion of the Supreme Court. The following is from the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is, in reality, no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot
operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the
fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
In short, if it doesn’t fit with the Constitution it’s not a law.
If we had to obey laws issued by authoritarians that didn’t fit into the boundaries of the Constitution then what’s the point of the Constitution? Moreover, what’s the point of calling ourselves a Republic?
You are not a subject, you are a citizen. As a citizen of a free Republic, it behooves you to laugh at authorities who attempt to push laws that are, without question, illegal. It’s your duty to tell leaders who say to you that their “patience is wearing thin” to watch their mouth when they’re talking to you and show respect to their bosses.
Let’s not get it twisted, disobedience to those who have assumed office can still come at great cost, be it legal or even physical in some cases. You may suffer setbacks and your mettle will be tested as they try to make your life hell, but ultimately if the law is on your side then your victory is all but guaranteed.
It is your duty to refuse compliance.