There's a serious error in the first few seconds of this video, which undermines the message quite a bit. He posits a situation in which a unanimous Congress passes a law overturning the First Amendment, signed by the President; and he says that the right thing to do would be to resist this 'procedurally correct, unanimous' law.
What he wants to get at is a discussion of positive law (or 'political law,' as he calls it) versus natural law.
Unfortunately, the example doesn't go with the discussion. All of you see the problem: a law of the sort he describes would be unconstitutional on its face. A simple act of legislation cannot amend the Constitution. A government that tried to set aside the Constitution through simple legislation would merit a revolt even within the limited terms of positive law. Many of us have an obligation by oath to uphold the Constitution in such circumstances.
In order to get at the point he wants to get at, we need to think about whether or not it would be legitimate to amend the Constitution in a way that eliminates the First Amendment freedoms. The President doesn't sign proposed constitutional amendments; they go to the states for ratification.
The real point only becomes clear if and only if three-quarters or more of the states ratify the law -- the amendment that overturns the First Amendment. Now, perhaps, it's a question of natural law justifying a revolt against an unjust positive law.
Not Quite, Bill
Not Quite, Bill:
By Grim on Sunday, November 07, 2010