Chandler NS SO13 Neg

Chandler NS

Page 1

I negate and value justice as a modern pragmatic contextualization of the principles of morality implied by the resolution. Observation 1 clarifies civil disobedience: Civil disobedience includes empirically violent actions. Howard Smead

writes, “A Few Words about the 60’s”, 2013. Web.

This anti-establishment

violence presaged the destructive violence of the anti-war movement that moved steadily during the latter 60's away from nonviolent direct action to acts of violent civil disobedience. When coupled with the salient rise in drug use among baby boomers in the counter-culture, the criminality of the period skyrocketed. The era drove — or allowed — people who in other times would never have committed anything worse than a traffic offense to delve into felonious crimes on a scale the Prohibition merely flirted with. The re-birth of social violence in the form of urban riots, violent demonstrations and violent police repression, precipitated for the first time in our history the emergence of terrorist violence by groups such as the Weather Underground and, according to some, the Black Panthers, although the Panther's image may far exceed its intent. The 60's left a legacy of conflict to be sure, but the record strongly contradicts the notion that the era created our culture of violence. This supercedes legal and utopian definitions of civil disobedience because we have to define things by how they exist in the real world. The standard is upholding social order. 1. Social order is a prerequisite for justice. Emil Brunner writes, “Justice and the Social Order”, 1945, p. 175. “In a state of anarchy, no justice is possible, since „the devoutest of men cannot live in peace if his wicked neighbor does not so desire.‟ But under a unified coercive power, however little it may trouble about justice, justice is at any rate possible since the mutual use of force by individuals is eliminated by the State monopolization of power.” My sole contention is that disobedience breeds disrespect for the law which results in the degradation of social order. A. A moral motive does not justify civil disobedience. Susan Tiefenbrun, Associate Professor Of Law At Thomas Jefferson School Of Law In San Diego, California, 2003; “Article: Civil Disobedience And The U.S. Constitution.” SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW. 32 SW. U. L. REV. 677 Another argument, based on the Machiavellian principle that laudable

ends do not justify purely illegal means, is often used by law and order supporters who refuse to consider the benign motivation of civil disobedient. They argue that to legitimize civil disobedience is contrary to a system governed by respect for the rule of law. n138 Erwin Griswold, cited by Dworkin, believes that it is of the essence of law that it is equally applied to all, that it binds all alike, irrespective of personal motive. For this reason, one who contemplates civil disobedience out of moral conviction should not be surprised and must not be bitter if a criminal conviction ensues ... organized society cannot endure on any other basis.

Chandler NS

Page 2

B. Civil disobedience undermines respect for the law Carl Cohen writes “Seven Arguments Against Civil Disobedience” 2003, Chapter 6. Professor of Philosophy at UMich. Civil disobedience that is defended by seeking to invoke some higher or natural law beyond and above the systems of positive law and alleged to have universal and supreme authority always proves unjustifiable at last. This is because the very nature of this defense is a serious threat to a stable social order.

An effective system of laws, and the peaceful and orderly life of a community under the laws, is possible only when the authority of those laws is not readily overthrown by appeal to some principles outside the legal system. Where the right to such appeal is vested in each citizens, and the only criteria for the judgment of this appeal are his understanding of its application to the case at hand, legal authority is readily overthrown, and social chaos, although not inevitable, is threatened and to some degree invited. So grave is this consequence that civil disobedience that relies upon the universal availability of such appeals can never be justified. C. Lack of respect for stability leads to chaos. Susan Tiefenbrun writes, Associate Professor Of Law At Thomas Jefferson School Of Law In San Diego, California, 2003 “Article: Civil Disobedience And The U.S. Constitution.” Southwestern University Law Review. 32 Sw. U. L. Rev. 677 In the eighteenth century, the French Revolution and its aftermath convinced Americans of the need to limit popular sovereignty in order to avoid the chaos and anarchy that consumed[*681] France after its Revolution. Everyone in the United States knew that after the French Revolution, France "groaned under the tyranny of the mob." n29 In France, government became anarchy, and violence

replaced law and order. n30 The French drafted, ratified, and then abrogated constitutions with alarming frequency. n31 They formed illegal assemblies which usurped the powers of existing French legislatures. n32 The Americans looked at France and feared that popular sovereignty unbridled in the United States could lead to a similar state of chaos. The leaders in the United States sought to establish a balance between the right to dissent and the need to maintain a stable government. The right to revolution and rebellion became obsolete in this climate, and the right to resistance needed careful limitations. In conclusion, social order is a prerequisite to social order in a democracy and all citizens in a democracy agree to obey to the state and must obey to maintain the social contract, an important factor of democracy. Civil disobedience contributes to social chaos rather than order and cannot be justified in a democratic state. Thus, I negate.