The State Has Rights that the Man Does Not

Daris321, this has been a fascinating debate. Thank you for an entertaining discussion and respectfully rebutting my point of view. The scope of this debate is to discuss whether the State can be justified doing acts that individuals can not, specifically whether the State can deprive Man of liberty. The United States of America (US) is being used as a case example to address this very relevant issue. I established that the US is a multi-branched fluid entity that has inherent checks and balances to ensure that the State can't exercise its authority capriciously and certainly not violently. That is to say there is a formal process in which to establish the law of the land that can be challenged by individuals through the court system (eg., Judicial review). My opponent and I disagree with the definition and functioning nature of the State. Pro's definition of the State included it as having a monopoly on violence and has question why the State can legitimately use violence. However, no specific examples have been given where such violence has been used to repress its citizen's liberty or to demonstrate that the State fails to provide peaceful stability. I would content that the 1st amendment right of free speech, right of association, and right to petition the government, in addition to the due process guarantees of the 5th and 14th amendments ensure that our society stays stable even in the face of economic instability that we are currently enduring; no violence unrest of the populace, and no violent suppression by the State to quell any protests. I agree with pro that rights are finite and that the State does punish its citizen's for breaking established laws. But what Pro fails to mention is that in the US individuals are considered innocent until proven guilty and that burden fails on the State, which is ultimately decided by a jury of ones peers. The point being that there is a process to our judicial system and the State does not always punish those arrested for crimes. Laws aren't restrictions of liberty but rules for society to obey to ensure peace. I also agree with my opponent that the Patriot act is a highly contentious law that has very controversial aspects. And the parliamentary procedures both houses of Congress use can obfuscate the voting record or what political strategy is being employed, but ultimately this information is public knowledge. But more to the point, the Supreme Court has applied its judicial review and has upheld controversial parts of the Patriot act (1). So, the law was challenged but the challengers were unable to provide evidence of misconduct from the State to demonstrate that the law should be deemed unconstitutional. None-the-less, just because you and I don't agree with the ruling doesn't demonstrate the State can or does violate our liberty. Apparently, there are many America that would disagree with us. And just for the record, the Senate vote on the Patriot act is public record as is the majority and dissenting views from the Supreme Court (2) As for the states' rights vs. Federal rights, Pro points to the 10th Amendment to demonstrate that the Federal government should concede laws that the US states finds objectionable. But from a historical perspective, at the time the Constitution was ratified, the 10th Amendment protected slavery and the states had their own constitution and bill of rights (3). However, since that time, the Supreme Court has supplied legal precedence that Federal law supercedes state law, which is known as the Supremacy clause (4); and the 14th amendment extends the Bill of Rights to include the US states. Thus, no US state has a constitutional basis to violate a federal law. So, in my mind the constitution is working fine because it has established the basis for the government structure that runs the State, which has been functioning for over 200 hundred years, survived a civil war and is currently an established global leader. I would also point out that a law can never be a priori assumed unconstitutional until the nine jurists of the Supreme court rule it as such. For example, the Patriot act can only be ruled unconstitutional if it is used to violate the constitutional right of an individual, it gets challenged, and the court concludes it is unconstitutional after lengthy deliberations. The US has a legal process in place to challenge any action the government does that we feel tramples on our individual rights. Granted, if you are deemed an enemy combatant then I will concede this law does not conform to the human right standards that the constitution affords to its citizens. I also don't naï¿½vely assume that the nine judges are infallible; there have been some horrific rulings in our history (5). But overall I believe the system works because there are no examples where any of our constitutional rights having been trampled on with no legal repercussion. The US founding fathers designed the State to protect the public weal and provide a high quality of life for all its citizens, because individuals are only concerned with their primary life's function as they have defined with no legal or natural obligation to help or secure the peace for others. So, the State has a different role for providing for the health of the union, and thus has different justification for the actions it takes in that regard. But nowhere in our history has the State expanded it powers to a point where violence has been used to deprive man his constitutional right to liberty. References: 1)http://www.csmonitor.com... 2)http://www.mainjustice.com... 3)http://civilliberty.about.com... 4)http://en.wikipedia.org.... 5)http://en.wikipedia.org...