Civil disobedience in the modern United States is morally justified.

Rebuttal 1 - Hearsay? Informed: based on sound reasoning or information and/or having information especially as a result of study or experience. My first contention on 'Government Abandonment of Constitutional Restraints' provided four concise examples of how our Federal Government has violated and removed the constraints on it in Constitution; the first example was of the General Welfare Clause as we see in Helvring v. Davis was lifting a phrase from the preamble expressing a general statement to give the Government a plenary power, the Commerce Clause as we see in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp another plenary power to regulating everything that "affects" commerce, using the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to deny free exercise, and the withering of the Second Amendment through legislative efforts like the Gun Control Act of 68, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and various other efforts. I will withhold from further examples given my opponent doesn't even address my argument and it is evident the government has met my opponent's criteria for disobedience. "The word "despotism" means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and should not be confused with 'despot'". Also - "Colloquially, 'despot' has been applied pejoratively to a person, particularity a head of state or government, who abuses his power and authority to oppress his people, subjects or subordinates." [1} As you can see, the Declaration of Independence and my quote from it have relevance to this issue. Rebuttal 2 - Tyranny? I again encourage my opponent to engage the argument rather than engaging in a mischaracterization (ex. examples = claims?) as away of avoiding addressing the contention while at the same time invalidating his complaint by giving a response. Note: I will proceed to refute my opponent's arguments without complaining about a lack of citation and addressing them on the merits. Tyranny: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority or similarly oppressive and unjust government by more than one person. My opponent claims none of the examples provided constitute tyranny on the part of government. His reason seems to be, again, mischaracterization. My examples of government actions, that are unconstitutional (arbitrary and unrestrained), are labeled "libertarian rhetoric" with a modifier (extreme). It begs a few questions, mainly, what is an extreme form of Libertarianism compared to Libertarianism itself? This is a fallacious argument and he should know better. Further, he raises a totally irrelevant position of his creation to ascribe it to Libertarianism to define it and this is a fallacious argument on several levels especially given I have not stated my position on taxation and this debate isn't about taxation. Continuing to argue against a straw man, and while I appreciate the superficial respect of my views, I don't agree with his appeal to popularity or the premise it is essential. Finally, there is no rational basis to assert or addresses any of my examples. The argument that Americans enjoy more freedom today than during the period of our founding, with the existence of slavery considered, is blatantly false. There are over 80,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register that would suggest otherwise, the federal government couldn't couldn't suggest collecting the communications of all it's citizens, seize one-eighth of the country's land, criminalize the collection of rain water on your own property, seize your property for the benefit of other private parties, mandate your purchase of insurance, siphon on your wages to pay the retirement benefits of others, decide what sort of toilets you can purchase, and the President's wife wouldn't be deciding what our children can and can't have for lunch. As for the Three-Fifths Clause, this is a common misconception given that it relates to representation in Congress and those supportive of slavery wanted blacks counted as a full person to give them more representatives in Congress whereas opponents of slavery didn't believe they should be counted so three-fifths was the compromise. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery explicitly and completely. Rebuttal 3 - Voting I would remind my opponent that Thoreau explained how inadequate voting can be and "other things" are arguably even less effective. 3a) The Two Party system - my opponent's attempt at rebuttal fails because he points to the existence of a third party, but this doesn't negate the understanding of what a two party system is given that it is where two main political parties dominate politics. I could go even go down the list of so-called third party officer holders: Angus King was a lifelong Democrat and to the extent he ran as independent was that he take what would be a republican position on some issues hardly making him a third party, Joe Lieberman keeps close ties to the Democratic Party and has stated he is a loyal Democrat hardly making him a third party candidate, and Jim Jeffords was someone clearly in line with the Democratic Party on most issues but was a republican who went "independent" and this another poor example. Ultimately it was irrelevant and insignificant to my point. 3b) My opponent has no rebuttal. He just, once again, presents a mischaracterization and alleviates himself from any meaningful response. It was not an appeal to motive, but pointing out a clear conflict of interest when massive amounts of money are at stake. Government employees are people who's income and livelihood are staked in Government and it would be irrational to assert they'd vote against it. The same holds true in the other examples. 3c) The Judicial Branch does in fact make laws. Roe v Wade is a classic example of seven justices on the Supreme Court overturning duly enacted laws by 46 separate legislatures. That is tyranny by judicial fiat no matter what your personal views may be on the subject. 3d) My remarks on immigration are informed argument. Both the former Bush Administration and the current Obama Administration as a matter of policy have pushed amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Both leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties in the House, as well as leadership in the Senate back the proposal under the guise of "reform." It is a federal crime and our laws do afford foreign nationals a way to become a citizen of the United States by applying for citizenship and becoming a naturalized citizen. It is foolhardy for my opponent to deny the fact that under EMTALA, any person, regardless of being a legal U.S. citizen, may enter and must receive medical care at an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay. It is even harder to deny the reality that illegal immigrants under the new healthcare law can receive emergency Medicaid for child births and surgery, when the USDA has a spanish flyer hanging in the Mexican embassy telling them they do not need to divulge their status to obtain benefits for their children, and the presidents of Mexico and Guatemala announced a deal this year to expedite the trip of illegals making their way to the U.S. At any rate, I was illustrating an prime example of the Government ignoring the laws they swore to uphold over the wishes of a solid majority of the people in this country and to illustrate a consensus among the two parties on the issue. My opponent doesn't address any of it. Rebuttal - Conclusion My opponent has offered no rebuttal to my informed arguments opting to mischaracterize it as "hearsay." I appreciate informal debate but I do not seriously need an opponent to provide me dictionary definitions and a link to show he has sources nor do I need him to source, for example, third party office holders to show he did a google search of third party office holders to make an irrelevant point that didn't refute the contention I made. I have submitted facts and made arguments from my general knowledge of these topics and while I appreciate formalities somewhat, I do not appreciate an opponent that fails to deal with arguments. Rebuttal - Extended Arguments Argument 1) I have offered actual empirical examples with informed argument to counter this contention and I would invite anyone to witness the fact that my opponent doesn't address any of these only offering a mischaracterization, which has evolved from hearsay to opinion. He provided the first amendment as an example of what he calls Social Contract theory, even though I used this to show Government has transgressed this right and I would be more than willing to extend this argument if my opponent would invite me to do so. I also addressed the issue of voting as an adequate means to resolve it. I wasn't asked to debate Social Contract theory, but it is worth mentioning that it is really an imaginary concept, it is irrational to imply consent on the part of people who are simply born into it, there can't be consent if the other party can use force, and if all people have natural rights that are inalienable, you cannot delegate or give them away. My opponent would have to clarify if he is strictly arguing from the basis of the word in the dictionary or the larger philosophical theory. Argument 2) My opponent's argument is basically that because all people cannot agree on just and unjust laws, he can make a leap to another rhetorical question that the majority would respond to disobiedience with even stricter and harsher laws against it. Finally, he concludes it is immoral. So basically his argument goes that because there is universal agreement or consensus, which rarely if never do you find it among people, and because government (or a majority) would respond even more unjustly, this convoluted argument through rhetorical questions warrants a conclusion that civil disobiedience is immoral. The contention fails.