The US Constitution and the “Rule of Law”
The first issue is deceptively simple: If you are in a position of appointed or elected civil authority in the Federal or a state government, may you be compelled to perform a task or duty that would violate your legitimately held religious beliefs?
The Second issue is a collateral one: is it ever ethical and/or acceptable behavior to engage in conduct prohibited by law and if so when?
The Third issue is was the 22 nd Amendment to the US Constitution necessary and proper to preserve the “Rule of Law” in the US?
Issue One:
First argument:
Oath of office to “uphold” the Constitution
Constitution makes SC the final authority on what the Constitution says and requires
Anglo Saxon courts had power of Mandamus; recall the issues in Marbury v.
Madison?
If you cannot morally do what is required of your office, resign.
Second argument:
The inclusion of the phrase “so help me God” is historical evidence of a belief held by the framers of the constitution that God’s law is fundamental basis for morality and man’s law and thus the oath with this language included (prescribed by the constitution itself) justifies placing god’s law first.

Rule of Law, page 2
Second Issue:
Civil Disobedience: what is it and is it “proper”?
In a legal sense? Scopes trial.
In a moral sense? Is non-violence and respect for the civil rights of others during the disobedience significant to your answer?
Third Issue:
What did the 22 nd Amendment do?
What historical precedence led to its adoption?
How are these three issues interrelated and how do they impact the concept of the rule of law?