Since we apparently agree on the core of this, I'll just address the couple points on which we disagree.
But the arbiter of what is in accordance with the Constitution is not the individual officer. That would be anarchy (and I agree that you already have that in practice, because the last year has not made your country look good), and it's also even more undemocratic than the current system.
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. If one believes they have been given an order in violation of some higher law/principle, they must choose which law they violate, and will face consequences in either case.
If we're on valid legal defenses: "I believed that law is unjust" most certainly is not a valid legal defense.
But "I believed the law was unconstitutional." is (provided you can get at least one judge/judiciary to agree with you.) I'll try and find the court ruling for this, but there is legal precedent for ignoring unconstitutional laws.
The right of revolution exists not when there laws that you consider unjust (that will be true in every country, anywhere), but when peaceful means of changing that are closed off to you. Imagine if 40% of a country believes that some laws are 'unjust' and a violent attempt to overthrow the popular government is therefore justified. That's madness, right?
First, this completely misses/ignores what I said in in the post-scriptum. Second, there are non-violent means of dissolving political ties (though history shows that violent means are far more likely.) Third, it ignores the reality of the situation in America today.
If there are fundamental disagreements on core principles within a society (whether that be between the people and the law, or the people amongst themselves) it is necessary and (in my opinion) inevitable that a new government be formed (whether that 'new' government is an alteration of the existing one, or the formation of an entirely separate one alongside or to replace the existing one, will depend on the nature of the disagreement.)
Originally America was founded as a confederation, with an almost non-existent central government. Even after the adoption of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), the US was a collection of separate, independent, sovereign States who were free to govern affairs within their own borders as they chose. Were we still organized this way I doubt that formation of a new government would be necessary, as the separate States would be able to accommodate the majority of views held by the citizens of the Union.
Today, America is ruled by a strong central government that regularly enforces its will on the states. There exist irreconcilable differences in core beliefs between multiple significant groups within her borders. Something like 25-50 percent of the population believes the most recent election/government to be fraudulent, and has no reason to believe this fraud will be overturned, or prevented in the future.
America needs a new government (and probably more than one, unless some portion of the population no longer lives here) as the existing one is failing her people. The only other option is giving America a new people, and that option without question justifies violent revolution.
Since we apparently agree on the core of this, I'll just address the couple points on which we disagree.
But the arbiter of what is in accordance with the Constitution is not the individual officer. That would be anarchy (and I agree that you already have that in practice, because the last year has not made your country look good), and it's also even more undemocratic than the current system.
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. If one believes they have been given an order in violation of some higher law/principle, they must choose which law they violate, and will face consequences in either case.
If we're on valid legal defenses: "I believed that law is unjust" most certainly is not a valid legal defense.
But "I believed the law was unconstitutional." is (provided you can get at least one judge/judiciary to agree with you.) I'll try and find the court ruling for this, but there is legal precedent for ignoring unconstitutional laws.
The right of revolution exists not when there laws that you consider unjust (that will be true in every country, anywhere), but when peaceful means of changing that are closed off to you. Imagine if 40% of a country believes that some laws are 'unjust' and a violent attempt to overthrow the popular government is therefore justified. That's madness, right?
First, this completely misses/ignores what I said in in the post-scriptum. Second, there are non-violent means of dissolving political ties (though history shows that violent means are far more likely.) Third, it ignores the reality of the situation in America today.
If there are fundamental disagreements on core principles within a society (whether that be between the people and the law, or the people amongst themselves) it is necessary and (in my opinion) inevitable that a new government be formed (whether that 'new' government is an alteration of the existing one, or the formation of an entirely separate one alongside or to replace the existing one, will depend on the nature of the disagreement.)
Originally America was founded as a confederation, with an almost non-existent central government. Even after the adoption of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), the US was a collection of separate, independent, sovereign States who were free to govern affairs within their own borders as they chose. Were we still organized this way I doubt that formation of a new government would be necessary, as the separate States would be able to accommodate the majority of views held by the citizens of the Union.
Today, America is ruled by a strong central government that regularly enforces it's will on the states. There exist irreconcilable differences in core beliefs between multiple significant groups within her borders. Something like 25-50 percent of the population believes the most recent election/government to be fraudulent, and has no reason to believe this fraud will be overturned, or prevented in the future.
America needs a new government (and probably more than one, unless some portion of the population no longer lives here) as the existing one is failing her people. The only other option is giving America a new people, and that option without question justifies violent revolution.