Some additional, clarifying thoughts on the subject:
There may appear to be a contradiction in what I say in this video. I argue “the law” isn’t equivalent to “morality,” but I also appeal to the Constitution (the “supreme law of the land”). If the law isn’t equivalent to morality, why am I citing the laws of the Constitution as moral guideposts? To demonstrate the inherent hypocrisy and shortcomings of the system. Laws are supposed to be impenetrable, and yet politicians and bureaucrats routinely violate the most supreme laws (often by passing unconstitutional laws).
Ironically, the Constitution’s statement that it is the “supreme law of the land” says this supremacy extends to “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.” Yet numerous laws passed under this guidance contradict the Constitution. This reflects the fallibility of the Constitution (and the nature of power: people who seek power tend to keep seeking more of it).
This brings up another important note: The “founding fathers” repeatedly broke the law in their revolts against the British government. They did so inspired by principles later enshrined in the Constitution—only to violate the Constitution themselves. As noted in the video, the Sedition Act of 1798 was an egregious violation of free speech. In another example, Thomas Jefferson believed the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, even suggesting Congress would need to “appeal to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving & confirming an act which the nation had not previously authorized.” The nation’s third president and author of the Declaration of Independence believed “The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union.” He made the purchase, anyway.
George Washington signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 into law, codifying multiple constitutional violations. If even the men most associated with America’s founding values couldn’t follow the nation’s governing document, it shouldn’t be surprising that violations have continued throughout the nation’s history. While the Constitution identified important fundamental rights, it failed to provide a consistent way to protect them, further calling into question many people’s dogmatic obedience to “the law.”
One final note: A closing thought in the video points out that some laws do coincide with morality (for example, murder and theft are both illegal and immoral). However, the immorality of these offenses is the same whether or not “the law” says so, and ultimately, having a law against something doesn’t stop people from doing it. Murder and theft still occur, and the war on drugs is a great example of laws failing to control human behavior—50+ years later, people still produce, sell, and consume illegal drugs.
I strongly believe that the problem of people inflicting harm on others is not a legal problem but a spiritual and emotional one—one that won’t be solved through harsher penalties or more government authority but through humanity’s conscious evolution toward peace, freedom, and compassion for self and others.
Share this post