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

As with most debates I participate in, I expect this to be a learning experience for him, myself, and others about this civics issue. Now let's begin. In Round 2 my opponent provides various points to discredit the resolution "In the U. S. , people have a constitutional obligation to change the laws they refuse to follow. "As I explained in ROUND 1, the exact resolution I'm defending is "In the United States, people have a constitutional obligation to follow the law, and to change the laws they refuse to follow. "My opponent could only accept this debate AFTER having been aware that there was a ROUND 1 fairly-lengthy explanation for this debate--which introduces the potential challenger and readers to the complete resolution (which had too many characters to be used as the title of this debate). However, my opponent accepts the clarified ROUND 1 resolution, as indicated by the points he asserts in his ROUND 2 arguments. I will briefly go over every point and explain why he is either right or wrong in making them. I will then go on to thoroughly show that (1) citizens and others inside the U. S. do in fact have an obligation to follow the law; that the Constitution obligates people to follow the law, and (2) that our rights are different depending on the nation we're in--therefore it's a nation's social contract (framework of laws) that establishes rights; [legal] rights, therefore, do not exist outside of established social contracts, be they pertaining to a nation, to an enclosed, smaller district, or to the international community. Refuting my Opponent's List of ROUND 2 PointsMy opponent claims:1. "Pro makes the fundamental mistake of equating a 'constitutional obligation' with a 'moral obligation. '"No, I never equate moral obligation with constitutional obligation. What I do insist is that we have a moral and constitutional obligation to follow the law or to change the law in the U. S. to make those laws we refuse to follow compatible with the U. S. Constitution and our nation's laws. But I never state that moral obligation is necessarily equated with constitutional obligation, as there are many moral obligations that have no relationship to the Constitution or to laws.2. "Pro’s position is internally contradictory--Civil Disobedience is incompatible with an obligation to follow the law. "Here my opponent is correct. But it's not contradictory with an attempt to change the law so that at some point down the line our actions and political beliefs are consistent with the law. In fact, the founding father's wrote the constitution so that laws approved through federal legislation could be changed and so that citizens could eventually prohibit/allow practices they disapproved or approved of. Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Henry David Thoreau and others utilized civil disobedience but with the intent of making the consitution and federal/state legislation consistent with the actions/policies they wanted to prohibit (slavery/segregation) or permit (equal voting rights, etc. ).3. "Pro has the burden to show that the Constitution obligates individuals to change laws they disagree with. "I do have this responsibility, and it can be demonstrated in mutliple ways. First of all, America's Founding Father's wrote numerous papers explaining that the United States operates according to the principle of the "rule of law"; in fact, they explained (as is evidenced in the U. S. Constitution) that the U. S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land", and it enunciates the powers and the limitations of each branch of government, explains how laws and legislation must be passed, explains what branch of government has the power to interpret laws and pass down criminal sentences for breaking these laws; the Constitution also explicates what rights people have within the country and how it can be amended (changed) [1][2][3]. Article 6, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution (often referred to as the "Supremacy" clause) plainly addresses the U. S. Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" [4]:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . "Furthermore, John Adams, the 2nd President of the U. S. and also a contributor to the U. S. Constitution, elaborated that the U. S. is "a government of laws, and not of men", meaning that no person or group is above the law--not even the U. S. President or an elected official [3]. This is why the President, Justices of the Supreme Court, members of Congress and other elected officials must first recite an oath pledging to uphold the Constitution before carrying out their jobs [2]. New citizens to the U. S. must also recite an oath [oath of allegiance] pledging their loyalty to defend the U. S. Constitution [5]. It's quite clear that no one is above the law and that everyone has an obligation to follow it or suffer the criminal penalties for not doing so; I'll have more on this later.4. "The Resolution implies obligations that are not found in the Constitution, such as the obligation to vote. "I showed in my answer to his 3rd point that in the U. S. people have an obligation to follow the law or suffer the consequences for not following the law. The Constitution provides people with the freedom to speech, assemble, to petition the government, and to vote (among other rights) to effect political change [1].5. "Individuals have no obligation to follow the law. "But the Constitution DOES obligate people to follow the law, since it empowers Congress and the President to pass federal laws that restrain civil behavior; it also empowers states (and local governments within states) to pass legislation, including laws that people must adhere to. Just as critical, the Constitution empowers the Courts to pass down sentences and other criminal penalties on individuals that do not follow the law. The Constitution obligates people to follow the law or to suffer the consequences for not doing so--it is the "supreme Law of the Land"; it empowers people with certain rights to participate democratically and to engage the government and reform the law if they dislike certain laws. But the obligation to follow the law is there and is plainly stated. This by itself demonstrates that people have a constitutional obligation to follow the law, or to change the laws they refuse to follow, because of the criminal penalties that will imposed if they persist in not following the law. To state it clearly, the consequences of not following the law are criminal penalties; therefore if a person wants to avoid these, he has an obligation to either follow the law or change it so that it accommodates his political beliefs. Failure to adhere to the law will result in criminal penalities when convicted, no matter how the person personally or morally feels about it. In the U. S, People Have an Obligation to Follow the Law or to Suffer the ConsequencesArticle 6, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution plainly addresses the fact that the U. S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" [4]:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . "The U. S. Constitution empowers Congress and the President to pass federal laws that restrain civil behavior; it also empowers states (and local governments within states) to pass legislation, including laws that people must adhere to. It empowers the U. S. Judicial system to bestow criminal sentences and other criminal penalties on those convicted of breaking the law, whether the convicted approve of it or not [1]. The Constitution does obligate people to follow the law simply on the basis that it is the "supreme Law of the Land" [4]. People within the U. S. have an obligation to follow the law because it empowers the Courts (and the established penal system) with lawful control over the convicted's life for breaking the law [6]. As I already explained, the U. S. operates under the principle of the "rule of law", which is further elaborated by the creed that the U. S. is "a government of laws, and not of men"; no one person or group is above the law--no matter the position or title in the country [3]. This is why elected and appointed U. S. government officials must first recite an oath pledging to uphold the Constitution before carrying out their jobs [2]. This is also why new citizens of the U. S. must also recite an oath [oath of allegiance] pledging their loyalty to defend the U. S. Constitution and the nation's laws [5]. The responsibility to follow the law is something everyone in the U. S. must do. Even juveniles that break the law and are convicted will be restrained within juvenile detention centers or receive other criminal penalties [7]. No one is free from the obligation of following the law within the U. S. 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 as citizens come from these. (Topic will continue in ROUND 4. )Sources this ROUND[1] (. http://constitutionus.com...)[2] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] (. http://www.citizenshipstudyguide.com...)[4] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)[6] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[7] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)ROUND 2 Sources1 in ROUND 22 in ROUND 23 (. http://www.biography.com......)4 (. http://www.biography.com......)5 (. http://voices.yahoo.com......)6 (. http://www.biography.com......)7 (. http://www.history.com......)8 (. http://www.stltoday.com......)9 (. http://www.newyorker.com......)10 (. http://www.biography.com......)11 (. http://plato.stanford.edu......)