Liberty > Security

Thanks for your responses, Contra. Here are my final rebuttals and conclusions: "Just because the law changes, doesn't mean the Constitution does" As mentioned earlier, interpretation of the Constitution changes because it is rooted in the common law, which evolves (and has evolved) over time. [1] "If men were given the power to create law and change it at will, as my opponent implies, the Constitution would be worthless. People could just change it when they felt like it!" The Constitution has changed [2], its interpretation has changed [3], and many governmental agencies and programs that currently exist are not listed in the Constitution. Note that I'm not saying the Constitution changes immediately overnight, merely that it changes as a gradual process over time, which empirical observation would seem to validate. "The only reason the Constitution seems more ineffective is because people are becoming more liberal with their interpretations to justify their policies" As I pointed out in the previous round, the evolution of law is an inevitability due to the nature of the legal system, which is designed to respond to changes in social and political pressures out of necessity, in addition to authority granted certain people to decide what is legal and the correct interpretation of the Constitution. I've advocated for removing this layer of authority as much as possible and creating precautions to secure against abuses of power, but I don't feel Pro has provided any kind of solution to the problem. Pro has only said that people need to "stop being liberal" in their interpretation, but who is going to force them to do so? The people in power are the very ones propounding these interpretations and clearly desire it. He has also advocated for using "legal channels" of the current system to solve the problem, when by his own estimation the current system has corrupted, failed, and created these problems, so why should we believe the system will just fix itself? My opponent says I'm arguing for the liberty of people to protect themselves. Pro has it backwards---I'm saying the opposite, that security of the rights granted is necessary for the liberty to exist, ie. historically the government granted the right to have guns and then people had the freedom to have guns. Firearms are the perfect example: if we imagine the only security being guns held by the people, then it would be necessary to hand out guns to as many people as possible (positive rights) to secure as best against a potential concentration of power reforming; on the other hand, if we just did nothing (freedom without security), then whoever obtained to most (or most powerful guns) could simply amass power and potentially deprive people of their rights---this is typically how governments are formed. I think this is based on popular misconceptions of positive versus negative rights. Even in a state of nature, wherein you are born with a degree of freedom, certain material conditions must be given to you for your freedom to exist (your parents must give you life, you must be fed, you must be protected from attack until raised to the age of awareness and can act on your own). Even then, you still must receive a natural endowment of available food and shelter if you are to live and act on your freedom. The thing is about positive rights is they're not just something you receive, but that you also pay forward---you receive the materials necessary to be free, but you use that freedom to capitalize on your inheritance and extend even greater freedoms to the next generation. I feel that my opponent is misunderstanding my argument, and points to a notion of security where the government "clamps down to maximize the idea of security." I've explained previously that totalitarianism decreases both personal security and freedom (and I don't believe Pro disagreed), and Pro also agreed with my definition that the sole function of government is to only provide the security necessary for freedom to exist. So I don't see how to logically consider security the only thing government does, but still have the "emphasis" be on something else. "Con also didn't refute my analysis in R2 which argued the significance of the Constitution" I think you're referring to around where you said, "we will spiral into a totalitarian state...if we abandon the Constitution..." If that's the case, then I feel you've once again misunderstood my argument: if your desire is to defend the Constitution, then security and protective measures are needed for it rather than expecting the current system (that you claim has failed to do so) to defend it on its own. I thought I made this clear. My opponent contends that my statement about the Constitution not imposing constraints against governmental abuse on its own is false, and suggests that if it didn't, Obama could hypothetically wage an illegal war against Syria. I think it's unusual to use this argument about a hypothetical when the very thing has happened in reality: Obama has already bombed Libya without Congressional approval [4] despite the Constitution clearly stating only Congress can declare war [5]. His predecessor initiated the Iraq War only under authorization based on the 1973 War Powers Act rather than a formal Congressional declaration of war, and in fact US Presidents have declared war without Congressional approval over 100 times throughout US history [6]. There is no better example of a "living Constitution" than this. I just don't see how an argument can be made based on proposition not being able to happen, when in fact it is currently happening and has happened over one hundred times in the past My opponent claims that greater levels of freedom would create "lawless anarchy." The only real-world examples of "lawless anarchy" are in countries such as Somalia (essentially lacking a official government) that exhibit extraordinarily fewer personal freedoms than we currently enjoy in the more secure Western world. We don't find their practices of domination by martial law or similar restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, and movement, or the common practices forced labor and trafficking. [7] [8] We don't see the incredibly harsh human rights violations, including frequent attacks by paramilitary and militia groups on civilians, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, and rampant assault on women [9] [10] One could also point to the lawless anarchy as existed in Lebanon, one of the "closest approximations of anarchy" [11], which in the 1980s militias operated with little regard for human rights, ruled by authority rather than election, and civilians were frequently attacked, extorted, and outright massacred [12]. Clearly, we are more free in our secure societies than in these real examples of "lawless anarchy," which have more in common with tyranny and totalitarianism than we do, proving the point that greater levels of both security and freedom exist in tandem, and freedom without security leads to loss of both. My conclusions: I don't feel that Pro has truly addressed my positions, or perhaps at times misunderstood them. I think I made a pretty detailed case for the primacy of positive rights over negative rights, as well as why the primary function of government is security (which Pro seemed to somewhat agree with). Whereas I suggested methods of removing authority, restructuring, and creating precautions to secure against abuses of power, my opponent seems to support the existing system---which, through unaccountability and corruption, has led to the very policies he agrees are a problem. Also, I believe I've adequately demonstrated through real-world examples that both freedom and security go hand in hand. To voters reading this debate, remember that Pro and I are not really debating the specific policies that we both agree on, but rather the larger value of security versus freedom.