Obeying the law starts at the top: Column If politicians don't treat the law as worthy of respect, don't expect citizens to either.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds | USATODAY

Some people are now encouraging President Obama to basically ignore the Supreme Court where its rulings might impede the implementation of Obamacare. And a recent Rasmussen poll showed that 26% of likely voters — a minority, but still a significant number — say the president should be able to disregard federal court rulings "if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country."

Faced with a Supreme Court order to turn over the White House tapes, President Nixon complied and, shortly thereafter, resigned. But if Obama were to violate a high court decision, he wouldn't be the first president to do so. President Andrew Jackson, after all, ignored the justices' decision in favor of the Cherokee Nation in Worcester v. Georgia and sent the Cherokees on the Trail of Tears. His picture is on the $20 bill today, and although there's now a move to replace him, it's motivated more by a desire to have a woman on U.S. currency than by any disgust over Jackson's lawlessness.

The only remedy for presidential lawlessness, short of a coup or a civil war, is impeachment, and only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have ever been impeached. Neither was removed from office.

Of course, presidential lawlessness is a special case. Because the president controls not only the nation's law enforcement apparatus but also its military, it's pretty hard to call him to account. But what about the rest of us? If presidents can violate the law, why can't we?

It would be a bad thing for the country if Americans started to ask that question.

There are different reasons for choosing to obey or disobey the law. One reason for following the law is fear of consequences: If you break the law, you could be sent to jail, fined, or even killed.

The problem with "consequences" as a motivating tool for abiding the law is that often, there aren't many. Yes, the government's law-enforcement powers are formidable, and if the authorities decide to target you specifically, they stand an excellent chance of convicting you of something. (In fact, as I've discussed before, given the number of poorly understood criminal laws, it would be something of a miracle if they couldn't.)

Most of the time, though, the authorities are busy elsewhere. If people follow the law only when they fear the consequences of getting caught, it follows that they will cheerfully break the law when they aren't afraid of suffering any consequences.

But a society in which abiding the law is based purely on consequences is likely to be an ugly one. Laws will be broken willy-nilly, while the government will, to the best of its ability, crack down on people because consequences are the only motivator. The end result is likely to be anarchy, tyranny or an ugly combination of the worst features of both.

It's better, of course, if people follow the law because they want to. In a society in which people are generally law-abiding, the law enforcement presence can be light, and people can be reasonably confident that their fellow citizens are honest.

But for people to want to obey the law for reasons that go beyond avoiding punishment, several things have to be true. First, they must generally approve of the law: Maybe not of every individual provision, but they have to believe that, in general, the laws are just rather than unfair. Second, they have to feel reasonably confident that most others will obey the law, too: People like to feel like good citizens, but they don't like to feel like suckers. Finally, they have to feel as if the people in charge also respect the law. Examples are set at the top, and if the government treats unwelcome laws as unworthy of respect, you can expect the populace to feel the same way.

It's much better to live in a society in which the laws are just, and in which people follow them as much out of moral obligation as fear of consequences. But such a society requires a degree of self-discipline and self-restraint on the part of its members, and especially of its leaders. Does our political class possess these traits? If not, how long can we expect the rest of society to?

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.