dieselrealtor
Master
I am on point. Your argument is that the existence of the law is the justification for the law. "It's the law" isn't much of a justification for anything. It's a simple statement of fact. When the discussion revolves around the overstep of government and it acting beyond powers it was granted, an argument defending the status quo better have some more meat to it than "Well, that's just the way it is."
I use slavery because it is the perfect foil to your argument. If you can defend a modern law by none other than it's existence, then by the same token, slavery was justified when it was legal as well. It's all about consistency. Slavery didn't become morally bankrupt just because the law changed. Neither is this case morally justified just because the law says it's legal to do it.
But aside from all of that, this isn't just about statutory law. This is about federal departments exercising powers they don't have and judges ruling in contradiction to the spirit of the principles of this nation.
There are some here that will defend the action of the government no matter what, I am not quite sure why. On the payroll possibly?
I am confident that if a poster here was pulled over for a seat belt violation, was taken down by SWAT & their car confiscated there would be those here that would defend that action simply "because it is the law".