> no, actually, a higher law does back popular sovereignty in the popular
imagination via the declaration of independence in the US.
Higher only in the sense that an unjust law cannot be considered a law at all. For instance, if you take an umbrella in a stand that doesn't belong to you, and you thought that it did - you might be charged with theft. The judge would not conclude that yes, you did steal it but it is ok because it was a mistake, rather, the judge would conclude that no law had been violated in the first place. This is partially what nonviolent action is about. When oppressive authority is based on the law, and the law is unjust, then there is no "law" to violate since injustice and the law cannot coincide from the viewpoint of justice. The higher law here only is only an (of course, imagined) appeal to greater universality of the law itself, in its potential form.
ken