“Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”

I fail to understand the context or extent of this quote. It seems in direct conflict with certain Jeffersonian precepts, or those preceding him, who advocated for individual rights in preference to collective mandates. If a constitution is an agreement between members of a society who frame a set of rules implementing precepts, then any disagreement must be with the precepts themselves or the methodology / rules of their implementation. The precepts of any constitution are in its preamble; the organization structure and its powers and in the body and its methods of implementation in the rules. Which can also be in the constitution's body or set as addenda. Any or al of these elements are subject to revision, or deletion, as the document is an agreement between people. Unless someone is to claim divine origin; that is a different matter....

Seems to me to be the adjudication most needed in federal courts. At what point did disobedience of a constitutional mandate become tolerated to promote the best interests of the public -- not even temporarily, but permanently?!

The quote is strait forward and bears no hidden meaning.

I'm with you, Ronw13.

I would only add to this quote, "not even if they think it's in the best interest of the public"

I'm not sure how to rate this. As stated: Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated. A couple of thoughts, the nation's Constitution was an administrative / organizing tool effecting the federal body politic — based on the laws of nature and of nature's God. There was no mandate for the individual sovereigns united (We The People). Not including stare decisis, certain implementations of theocratic canons and personal greed, the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto was the first real and direct departure from constitution's original intent, nature's law and that which directly called for a general obedience from slaves (today's carnal gods demand obedience). Concerning the 2nd plank of the communist's slave mandates, disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.

Once the concepts of individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, nature's law, the nobility of man and that the constitutions (State, federal, etc.) were to limit the subject body politic(s) (instead of We The People) were lost, the totalitarian despots began mandating more and more tyranny — giving credence to the above quote.