Civil Disobedience Aff Case

September 16, 2017 | Author: Matthew Wylie | Category: Civil Disobedience, Jurisprudence, Rule Of Law, Democracy, Morality
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Traditional Novice LD Case...


Affirmative I Affirm the resolution Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

In order to further clarify the round I offer the following definitions Civil Disobedience- According to Black's Law dictionary Civil Disobedience is ¨A deliberate but nonviolent act of lawbreaking to call attention to a particular law or set of laws of questionable legitimacy or morality¨ Civil Disorder- Is defined by Title 18 U.S. code section 232 (18 U.S. Code § 232) as any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual. Rule of Law- According to the American Bar Association rule of law is both A system of selfgovernment in which all persons, including the government, are accountable under the law and a fair, robust, and accessible legal process in which rights and responsibilities based in law are evenly enforced

Value- My value for the round is morality which is inherently valued by the question within the resolution Criterion- My criterion for the round is Protection of Rights, morality requires that human rights are protected by humanity

Contention I: Civil Disobedience is required for Protection of Minorities Sub A. Some citizens must express themselves through civil disobedience to be heard. According to Elias Berg [ Democracy and the Majority Principle: A Study in Twelve Contemporary Political Theories, 1965, p. 27-28.] It is true that the use of the majority principle implies a formal right to express a preference on the issues to be decided; to that extent, it implies the legitimacy of opposition. Yet as we have seen above, majority decisions may be regarded as ipso facto 'right' and thereby, once they have been made, as sacrosanct and exempt from criticism. The use of the majority principle is therefore compatible with a majority dictatorship in which the minority's formal right of opposition is only of temporary duration. Moreover, even if all the citizens have the right to criticize as well as to take part in the making of decisions, some citizens may be permanently in the minority and may be constantly overruled by a majority refusing to make any concessions to their demands; the use of the majority principle does not necessarily preclude majority tyranny." as harmless and permissible or be regarded as obstructive and thereby as illegitimate. Oppression by the majority prevents the minority, to uphold their positive rights to democratic government as implied by the social contract Sub B. Historically minorities have have attempted to use democratic processes to change their society but have been ignored. [miorities] had tried petitioning, lobbying, writing letters, going to court, voting for candidates that represented their interests, legal protest, and still their views were ignored.” as a result demonstrations, such as acts of civil disobedience such as sit ins, blockades, tree sits and forest occupations, have emerged in the last decade, prompted by the continuing mass clearcuts and destruction of the forest ecosystem and widespread environmental consequences.

Contention II: Civil disobedience is effective in creating government changes Sub A. Civil disobedience increases visibility of laws Democratic systems, while adhering to citizens require forceful methodologies for individuals to be able to show their displeasure with laws According to Karen M. Gebbia-Pinetti [“Statutory Interpretation, Democratic Legitimacy and Legal-System Values,” Seton Hall Legislative Journal, v. 21, 1997, p. 240-42.] A legal system will be “good,” “just,” “fair,” or “workable” only if it structures societal relations and resolves disputes well enough to earn the respect and adherence of the public and, thereby, to prevent societal collapse. Throughout history, and across legal systems, theorists have employed similar, Law is the foundational mechanism of social interaction and the reflection of how a society organizes itself.

functional meta-principles as criteria by which to measure how well law accomplishes these tasks. These criteria, which I term “legal-system values,” are that law [must] be predictable,

responsive to changes in society and in societal values, influential in fostering individual and societal growth and shaping values or morals, and fair and just in individual cases. replicable, vertically coherent across time, horizontally coherent across related areas of law,

Sub B. Civil disobedience brings about positive regime changes According to Paul F. Power [“Civil Disobedience as Functional Opposition,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1 (February, 1972), 45.] Civil disobedience may be of possible utility to conventional oppositional groups in several

Civil disobedience communicates to other opponents demands that they were unaware of or that they may have agreed to overlook—either among themselves or with that regime . (2) A conceivable result of (1) is that one or more of the opponents becomes uncomfortable and begins to perform an adversary role with the regime. (3) On the assumption that oppositions are already acting as adversaries against the regime, civil disobedience causes them to enter a tac it or express coalition among themselves, thereby increasing their combined adversary power over the sum of their previous, individual strengths. (4) Civil disobedience pluralizes a highly unified,oppositional pattern—a functional benefit if this kind of result is conducive to oppositional effectiveness vis à vis the regime . (5) Civil disobedience provokes conventional opponents of the regime to reexamine their constituency ways: (1)

bases to determine how they have failed to represent those dissenters who have chosen rule breaking over ordinary means of criticism; it compels them to take remedial action to regain the sympathy and voting power of these dissenters and

My Third Contention is that It is morally right to stand up against unjust laws. Sub A. Laws can be oppressive to a society According to Joseph Raz, [Professor of the Philosophy of Law at Columbia Law School, 2003 “About Morality And The Nature Of Law.” The American Journal of Jurisprudence. 48 Am. J. Juris.] The fact that the general duty to obey may depend on systemic features of the law does not, of course, show that it is compatible with a proper conception of how evil the law can be, and of how much injustice and oppression, etc., it may cause. It is unlikely that the systemic moral qualities of the law are entirely independent of, entirely unaffected by, the moral qualities of the content of the law, that is, of the moral content of the laws which constitute it. How are we, then,to assess the claim that there is a general obligation to obey? Sub B. It is the moral duty of the citizen to overthrow unjust governments According to Marjorie E. Kornhauser [Professor of Law Tulane Law School, Fall, 2002 The Role Of Tax Protests And Anti-Tax Rhetoric In America.” Buffalo Law Review, 50 Buffalo L. Rev. 819] “Legitimacy And The Right Of Revolution: an honored tradition in the United States dating back to Colonial times, because it recognizes that even in a democracy, the state's sovereignty is bound by the moral authority of the individual, who is morally obligated to resist immoral laws. n112 This resistance does not necessarily lead to violence, and in fact most people who believe and practice civil disobedience do not advocate violence. n113 Yet it is a potential consequence of civil disobedience, and indeed it occurred during the civil rights movement. If huma

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.