Martin wrote: Nevertheless, Locke took many ideas from Rutherford in developing his 'social contract' theory. Both believed that in a society founded on principles of justice and freedom, the law is king, not the reverse.
Nevertheless the law can be king and you can have: 1. a king, and, 2. a sovereign legislature that is able to repeal any previous legislation.
As you noted,
Martin wrote: Lex, Our form of government in the United States allows for the Constitution to be changed, so in that sense, the people are above the Constitution, since they can change it through their elected officials.
so you also agree that previous legislation and constitutional provisions can be changed. Seidman's views (to the extent outlined in the short article) need not be outside of the remit of Lex Rex, and are only different in degree and methodology, and not in principle, from yours.
Martin wrote: What no legislator can ever do without becoming a tyrant, however, is to ignore the Constitution. In this country, it is not "rex lex" but "lex rex"-- the law itself is our king, not any man.
Anachronistic confusion. Lex Rex was a doctrine promulgated in a context where parliamentary sovereignty prevailed. It is fully consistent with the position outlined by Seidman.
"Parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. The concept also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation, and so that it is not bound by written law (in some cases, even a constitution) or by precedent. " (Wikipedia)
A strong and vigorous, sovereign legislature democratically accountable to the people is a check on the power of the executive and an unelected activist judiciary.