Arguing for or against breaking the law by appealing to the law itself is a classic example of a category error. The argument in favor is incoherent and the argument against is circular. I mention this because this sort of category error seems to be in circulation.

Many opponents of the Azza withdrawal argue that it is legal to break the law to protest that withdrawal. That argument is incoherent. The only argument that can work is that the legal system has led to so great an injustice that the system itself is not worth upholding. That argument may very well be true but the burden of proof is a heavy one.

Similarly, when someone argues that acting heimish in shul is more important than following the strict letter of the law, it is circular to shoot him down by appealing to the strict letter of the law. I say this with emesdik love and esteem for MOChassid's Rebbe and (lehavdil bein chaim l'chaim) with fond memories of Rav Y. Piekarski zt"l, one of the great Poilish illuyim of the previous generation, who used to shmooze clear through laining.