Kelly Ayotte Quotes

Explaining why his Justice Department was arguing in court that abortion protestors who interfere with abortion clinics could be criminally prosecuted. As a rabid abortion opponent, anti-choice people expected him to side with the violent protesters.

At the time many of the powerful and influential upper class felt that some of the laws did not necessarily apply to them or their corporations. They bribed legislators to change laws when they were inconvenient to ignore. Roosevelt was the first President to take them on.

See Charles James Fox, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Grover Cleveland, Jeremy Bentham, George Mason, and John Milton for other expressions of this idea. 1st Earl of Beaconsfield

Individual states passed laws that impinged on Indian rights and undid the effect of previous treaties. Some tribes complained to the President. In actuality, there was Federal legislation that preempted the states, but President Jackson, as a matter of policy allowed the state action.

Note that the two do NOT ALWAYS coincide. There are those who argue that law should be respected, right or wrong. There are also those who argue that law should be respected, only when it is in the right. Note also that “respect” and “obedience” are two different things. Some people argue that law and the courts and government must have respect. Others that they are only due obedience but not necessarily respect when they are in the wrong. Still others, like Thoreau, that obedience even is not required when the law is wrong. There are those who take this to the degree that obedience to a “wrong” law is wrong and there is a DUTY to disobey a wrong law. However, a more nuanced view does not treat all laws as the same importance. I may think a particular tax is unjust and wrong, but obedience does not necessarily have moral consequences. A law that says that people with a certain religion must not be hired, however, is sufficiently immoral that I am obliged to disobey it.

This quotation is classic in that it illustrates a fundamental difference between a political and religious view of rights. Politically a citizen is entitled to rights with no requirement or condition of responsibility. Politically, we may desire and applaud or even reward responsible behavior, but we may not condition the rights on someone’s version of responsible use of the rights. Indeed, the real test is if people have rights who are generally thought to be irresponsible. See {633640} .