The State Has Rights that the Man Does Not

To begin, I think our idea of the State is radically different. Your perspective is much in line with the political philosophy of Max Weber who espoused in his essay "Politics as a Vocation" (1) the concept that the State has the monopoly on violence. But even if this were true, having such a monopoly doesn't imply that any such violence will be used to repress the individuals of the State, thereby depriving Man of liberty. It would seem to me that the application of this definition is more suited to an authoritarian State, of which the US is not, where dictators use violence to ensure absolute and permanent power as was seen with Saddam Hussein. Those few cases where violence was used to deprive individual freedom in the US have more often than not lead to civil unrest, which as I mentioned in round one is evident in the Civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's. In my mind, the purpose of the State is to establish a rule of law in which to provide peaceful stability for the populace so they can pursue life, liberty, happiness and economic freedom. In the US, laws are often shaped by the executive branch, deliberated and ratified by the bicameral legislature, which votes on any given bill in a democratic and transparent fashion; and if a law is seen as a gross violation of a constitutional rights, it is reviewed by the judicial branch. Thus, no laws are forcibly or violently thrust upon the populace. It is also extremely important to keep in mind that in the US the State is not a uniform entity. But most importantly perhaps, is that at any given time the State is represented by public officials with different ideological slants whose time within government is limited. Thus, the State is not a monolithic entity resistant to change, but rather a fluid power structure defined by the will of the people. My opponent suggested that there are many federal laws that are currently ‘unconstitutional', as per the list on the Tenth Amendment movement's website that they wish to have nullified. But it is not individuals per se that this movement represents, but rather certain US states, who are at odds with particular federal laws. Moreover, this group feels that individual states should have more power over the federal government. Thus these conflicts don't represent a constitutional issue but rather differences of where the central power structure should lay. This issue, however, is declaratively settled in Article VI of the constitution (2), which states that Federal law is the law of the land, which stems from those Founding Fathers who were advocates of a strong centralized government (3) and who frowned upon the general structural weakness of the Articles of Confederation (4) drafted by the Continental Congress prior to the formation of the United States of America. This issue has more to do with States' rights vs Federal rights than it does with whether the State can justify actions Man can not. And just because one group opposes a law as unconstitutional, which the courts haven't or refuses to review, does not in and of itself suggest that the rights of all individuals have been violated. My opponent raises an interesting and very salient point about judicial review. It is true that judicial review is not explicitly stated in the constitution. Pro's alludes to the fact that this was done purposefully because the Founding Fathers didn't want to give the courts this power. I disagree. I would content that judicial review is expressly implied in the structure of judicial government spelled out in Article III section two of constitution (5). Specifically, " The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity". Marbury vs. Madison just validated this implied fact. Further, judicial review does not give the State more power over individuals, but rather it ensures that the judiciary has equal footing with the executive and the legislative branches to provide an essential balance of power of the State for the good of the people. It is also understood since 1938 that the courts assume a law is constitutional, leaving the burden of proof on the person making the challenge, which is why very few modern laws are deemed unconstitutional (6). I agree with Pro's assertion that some Founding Fathers were not advocates of the Bill of Rights, namely Hamilton (7), but this view was not universal (8). But I remind my opponent that the Founding Fathers were not and are not the representatives of the State. They were delegates representing their respective states charged with establishing a grand union with a vibrant functioning government. In fact, the debates that played out during the Constitution Convention of 1787 are a testament to the power of compromise that has helped shape the nature and structure of our uniquely American government, which administrates the State. Also, I would content that the Bill of Rights are not just promises, they represent a very real legal mechanism to protect against the arbitrary abuse of government power. Finally, while I appreciate my opponent's analogy to highlight his perspective about the justification of action, I think is represents a logical fallacy because the scenario is not relevant to the discussion: The State can't arbitrary or capriciously justify its actions against citizens of the state (see: Due Process clause of the constitution). Looking forward to your closing arguments. References: 1). http://www.ne.jp... 2). http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3). http://www.constitution.org... 4)ibid 5). http://www.law.cornell.edu... 6). http://civilrights.uslegal.com... 7). http://www.constitution.org... 8). http://www.wepin.com...