Comment: If you read a little further

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You are lowering the bar of Law (see in situ)

If you read a little further

you would see that we agree.

I said Rule of Law was necessary for justice but not sufficient.

I clarified the same thing below that where I said even if they had done it with the required Amendment for it to be legitimate under the Rule of Law it would still be an unjust violation of natural law.

I agree that contracts can only be binding on voluntary parties to it.

But there is also a concept of Rule of Law, and it applies to imposed law. I agree imposed law carries the presupposition of illegitimacy by it's nature. But within that framework of imposed law, law abiding the Rule of Law is preferable, agreed?

I'm not how to be more clear. Merely abiding the Rule of Law does not grant legitimacy to a legal coda.

Without Rule of Law there is certainly no hint of legitimacy.

If I say 2+2 does not equal 5, it doesn't imply 2+2=9. It just means 2+2=5 is wrong, it doesn't even mean there necessarily exists a right answer.