Similar sentiment was expressed during the creation of the US constitution, and the US court system. All philosophy of legal enforcement and jusdgement derives from the willful consent of the governed to comply with government.
This is why nullification was explicitly added. (Sorry to harp on that. It's just a feature, like any other. Just applicable here.) It was a means for the governed to express the loss of this consent, and to usurp that power back. Its inclusion was a testiment to that philosophy.
The basic scene, was that the US was creating an essentially brand new idea in governence, and wanted to fix all the problems it saw in its predesessor, while keep the benefits of that predecessor. The ability for judges to pronouce judgements, against the wills of the populace, spuriously, and without real regard to previous findings or cases, combined with their ability to punish jurors for refusing to find a specific, predefined verdict before the trial, were all seen ans inconsionable violations of the sacred trust between governed, and government. In retaliation to this, they built their system to incorporate essentially, the power of mob rule, as a sword of damoclese into the mix, to keep government in line.
The idea was that the public benefits by using law, and not mob rule, but by allowing that to be a possible resolution in the courts to clearly officious matters, it kept government clean and honest.
Nobody *really* wants the tyrrany and horror of mob rule. Likewise, bobody really wants the tyrrany of an authoritarian regime. By forcing the two into the same room, both were somewhat tamed.
Since it had never been tried before, and pretty much all precident for human government were lessons in varying degrees of authoritarianism, it has its warts.
I am not saying it is ideal.
I am saying it is what we have, and it is the law. Its creators had the foresight to see that their system may not be ideal, and may need updating. That's why we have amendments and legislators as tools to accomplish that.
The issue I have, is that instead of actually addressing the legal issues involved in a proper update of the constitutional legal code, we have instead elected to give a handful of people lifetime appointments to govern without oversight, or respect to the higher law that enables them, the ability to basically say whatever the fuck it is they want.
If there is a need to update the legal code, *THERE IS* a mechanism to do so. USE IT. *DONT* act like you can just flaunt the existing law because "its old". Use the mechanism, update the law, then it won't be old, and decisions made will be consistent with the established body of law.
Per the original philosophy behind the creation of our government, the act of altering the constition is by necessity, difficult. It is designed this way so that only by the mutual consent of the governed with the government, can any such change be made.