I think it's essential to question the relevance and appropriateness of our laws and precedences at all times.
I couldn't agree more. But, having questioned them, what then? Does one work to change what needs to be changed? Or does one choose to simply ignore the laws and precedences they don't like?
Isn't the word for that anarchy?
"precedences" - geez, I must have been half asleep. Don't I mean "precedents" - maybe it's just a senior moment.
Well Ron, to be honest I wasn't really going beyond the point of expressing mild frustration at the propensity to simply quote law and precedent without, as it were, engaging one's brain.
However as you invite me to go further, I suppose the idealists answer to your question is that one works within the system (even if that means the very laws that are suspect) to change what needs to be changed.
The pragmatic answer is more complex. Partly, it depends who you are I guess.
Some might suggest that one you have worked the system to the point where you are President, then, although not above the law, you at least have a position of authority that allows you to push the boundaries (as with Libya maybe).
Then of couse there are times where one might argue that the law is so very out of touch with social acceptability, and is held there only by minority vested interests perhaps, that something more forceful or revolutionary is the "only" option. Of course. it gets very complicated then, far more complicated than I have time for now.