In the U.S., people have a constitutional obligation to change the laws they refuse to follow

Rights (and Laws) are established by Social ContractsRights (and Laws) are established by social contracts (constitutions and other legal frameworks). This is why legal rights (and Laws) can be different between countries; our rights are presented and clarified in these social contracts.For example, in France people are not legally protected in publicly spreading hateful views about a person or group based on ethnicity, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap--and the penalties for doing so upon conviction can be up to a year in prison and/or a fine of 45,000 euros [1]. Here inside the U.S. we have a greater extent of freedom of speech ( U.S. Courts have consistently ruled, even recently, that hate speech is protected by the Constitution [2]) but in France the laws on hate speech are very different, and they carry heavy penalties. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides Americans with the right to Free Speech (including public hate speech, according to the Courts [2]), does not apply in France [3]. An American in France would be very foolish to defend his hate speech using the U.S. Bill of Rights. Both unknown citizens and high-profile people in France have been prosecuted and convicted for using hate speech in public. In 2013 Bob Dylan was placed under judicial investigation in France for allegedly provoking ethnic hatred of Croats; the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights did not protect him [1]. In 2008, well-known French actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for publicly inciting hatred against Muslims--she was penalized with a hefty fine for the offense [1]. In 2011, British fashion designer John Galliano was convicted for making a disparaging rant against Jews in a French restaurant; his 6000 euro fine was suspended since he demonstrated intense public remorse in the months leading up to conviction, but the Court indicated that he would have to pay the fine if a similar hateful rant was acted out in the future [5].Compare hate speech laws in France to U.S. protections of hate speech in the U.S., where the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that even "hurtful" hate "speech" is constitutionally protected, even when protestors shout gay slurs and other amazing offenses at a fallen soldier's funeral, while the soldier's family watches on [2]. It's the social contracts in either country that bestows a person's rights--not personal feelings, not uncorroborated individual opinions.Rights and laws are listed and clarified by social contracts.Even the right to life is clarified by social contracts and is not identical around the globe. For example, in many countries around the world the use of capital punishment (a criminal sentence of death) has been outlawed; nations like Germany, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Norway and others have banned the practice altogether [6]. In the U.S., capital punishment is legally permitted and many states perform executions on convicted criminals, though almost always for crimes involving homicide [6]; in Iran, capital punishment is also legal but is handed down by the courts for the cimes of sodomy and kidnapping, besides for the crime of murder [7].There are many more examples of divergence on individual rights and laws between nations, and they touch various subjects, from gun rights to the simple act of purchasing bubble gum at a drugstore [8][9].Again, rights (and Laws) are established and clarified by social contracts and other legal frameworks; they are not derived nor protected by intuition, especially since everyone's intuition is different. Furthermore, the Earth has a long history of leaders--many of them national heroes--that stepped all over their countrymen, worked them to death, and even took away their lives without even batting an eye. National leaders like Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and others have forcibly worked their countrymen to death while privately dismissing their claims to individual rights [10]. So much for the laws of men living in their hearts. Nope. It's much better to get the law down on paper, where everybody can see it and where it can be clarified. Even the American Founding Fathers experienced private dissonance when it came to the "self-evident" rights of men. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and claimed liberty was an "unalienable" human "right", possessed slaves; as did George Washington [10].This speaks to the truth about why we have laws in the first place. The law is not a man; it is something beyond one individual--in fact, it exist for the community, and it defines permitted relations between individuals and between individuals and their government. The law pertains and applies to interaction within the group. This is why the law cannot be decided soley by one man--this would be unfair and horribly ineffective at optimizing satisfaction and peace within a community--chief reasons why laws exist to begin with. Instead the law belongs to the group and is decided by the group and is clarified with words in a legal manuscript and through associated, clarifying legislation.In ROUND 3 my opponent claims that no one citizen has an obligation to follow the law, and that no one can be forced to follow the law, because we are all in fact free people, with the power the to do what we want. He's correct to insinuate that no one can be forced to follow the law, and that people can choose to do whatever they want, but by insisting that people have no obligation to follow the law he's necessarily undermining why laws are created in the first place--and that's to provide us with law and order, to create peace and to create a nation where individuals can pursue happiness. If anybody could do whateve they want, since they have no obligation to follow the law, that means they can rob whoever they want, that means people can steal your identity, and take your credit/debit card information for their own personal use; since no one has an obligation to follow the law in my opponent's view, that means people can break voting laws and vote five times in the same election, that means people can break any traffic laws they wish, and that means a person is justified in practicing pedophilia and commiting rape; it means doctors don't have an obligation to follow established laws during medical procedures and they can provide substandard aid and use dirty equipment on patients; same with dentists. Since no citizen has an obligation to follow the law, it means murder is justifiable.What my opponent fails to grasp is that the law establishes concensus; it prevents people from becoming their own law--a major requirement in establishing a thriving, stable, peaceful civilization. When no citizen has an obligation to follow the law, you can throw stability, peace, civility, happiness and hope out the window! The law establishes a legal framework for everyone to follow to establish order and allow us to pursue our life's hopes, our dreams.My opponent also states this in ROUND 3: "People only have an obligation to follow the law 'if a person wants to avoid criminal penalties.' If a person is willing to accept the risk of criminal penalties, he has no obligation to follow the law. At best Pro argues only that individuals have an obligation to accept that the law exists."Well, okay, but if a person wants to maintain his full set of rights offered to him by the U.S. Constitution (the right to vote, the freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, the right to walk free, and many others) he has an obligation to follow the law. Otherwise in this country he shall only live as a convict--not as a constitutionally empowered citizen. In other words, if a person wants ALL HIS rights and freedoms, he must follow the law. A person has an obligation to follow the law if he has any realistic hope in living a satisfying life or, at the bare minimum, as a non-incarcerated citizen.Notes on the U.S. ConstitutionSince this debate is about the U.S. Constitution and the law it has jurisdiction over, I'm going to admit that sometimes the law can have inconsisties and be vague. Some legal scholars argue that since the law can be inconsistent at times and be vague, that the principle of the "rule of Law" only applies when the Law is written clearly and coherently, and when it's consistent, so as to not create barefaced confusion [11]. This should affirm in us the responsibility to change written law to get it to become consistent and coherent. Furthermore, the law is larger than what the Federal, state and local governments legislate.Articles 6 of the U.S. Constitution indicates that treaties signed by the U.S. with foreign nations and international organizations shall have such jurisdiction so as to be identified as belonging to the "supreme Law of the Land". Since this is the case, agreements, resolutions and charters passed by the UN through binding procedures legally have jurisdiction over U.S. policies and U.S. law, including those pertaining to human rights and those addressing treatment of civilians, refugees, combatants, soldiers and prisoners of war, since the U.S. has signed on to and is an active member of the UN organization and its Security Council [3]. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)[3] Round 3, Source 1[5] (http://www.nytimes.com...)[6] (http://www.nytimes.com...)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[8] (http://www.csmonitor.com...)[9] (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...)[10] (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...)[11] Round 3, Source 2