Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!!

I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've gone
to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with the
question I asked.

Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and
every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even if
we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not
measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on
that?

OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the
obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians?
That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct?

OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with
obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING
public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think of
JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue.

Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC
would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the
point being discussed.

frtzw906