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

The fact there are different laws in different countries does not prove Pro"s case! I have never disputed that countries, as a fact of reality, establish and execute laws. This is a bare fact of reality; I could not and would not dispute this. What I do dispute is that individuals have any obligation to follow the laws established and executed by different countries and, more specifically, that any potential obligation to follow or change the law is generated by the U.S. Constitution. Stating the countries have different laws does NOT demonstrate that social contracts exist, or that they are legitimate. All Pro"s argument has demonstrated is that state entities have the physical power to prosecute those who do not follow their laws. That Bob Dylan was investigated by the French Government does not demonstrate a social contract existed between Bob Dylan and the French government. In fact, I strongly suspect that were Bob Dylan ever asked "is there a social contract between yourself and the French government?" Bob Dylan would have heartily responded "Hell no!" Pro"s position requires contracts between non-consenting parties, which is an absurd moral condition. I cannot create a contract with Pro without his consent, and neither can governments create a contract without citizen consent. If non-consent contracts are possible, then I am establishing the following contract between myself and Pro without his consent: "Con shall win this debate if contracts are possible without consent." Either way, the judges need to vote Con on this issue. Pro has not made the case that individuals have any obligation to government entities. As I have argued in my previous rounds, social contracts are fictitious and do not exist. I never signed a contract with the US government; the US government never asked if I agreed to follow the law. That the US government imposes its legal will on me through use of force only demonstrates that it has the ability to do so, not that I have an obligation to follow the legal will of the US. The Resolution is thus negated. In his final round, Pro seems to be shifting his entire position on the Resolution; Pro seems to be claiming that all rights and obligations are simply legal constructions and that morality and obligation does not exist apart from such constructions. First, this is a deviation from his earlier position when Pro stated that moral law and constitutional law were two different things. Pro appears to have no stable advocacy in this debate. Pro stated in R3: "there are many moral obligations that have no relationship to the Constitution or to laws." But then states in his final round "Even the right to life is clarified by social contracts and is not identical around the globe." Pro claims that individuals have no moral right to life, but only a legal right which varies based on geographic location. Second, even if Pro"s argument is correct and the bare fact of a functional government is enough to generate obligations to the law, he has only shown that individuals have a right to submit to the law. This is because Pro"s argument rests entirely on facts of power relations and not on normative claims. For example, he says "if a person wants to maintain his full set of rights"he has an obligation to follow the law." Thus, an individual only have obligations insofar as they desire certain outcomes dictated by existing power relations. This does not establish an absolute obligation to follow the law, it only establishes that individuals have an obligation to operate under existing power structures, i.e. submit to the law. As I stated before, Pro"s argument means that anyone who is willing to give up his full set of rights has no obligation to follow the law. Pro also argues that a lack of obligation to follow the law means "anyone can do whatever they want" and that it undermines the purpose of the law, the provision of law and order. Again we see that Pro"s argument deals not with obligation, but with bare facts of the existence of the state. For it is plainly clear that anyone CAN do whatever they want- individuals have the physical capability to break the law regardless of whether or not they have an obligation not to. The existence of an obligation does not preclude violation of the law. Furthermore, the US government has the physical power to arrest individuals and uphold law and order regardless of whether those individuals broke any obligation. Achieving a stable state, maintaining law and order, and following the law are matters only of existing power. No obligations need to exist for the outcomes Pro is advocating for. Pro says my position means that "murder is justifiable." This is not at all what I am arguing, and demonstrates the manner in which Pro conflates multiple issues. My argument does mean "murder is not a violation of constitutional obligation," as I argue that the constitution generates no individual obligations. My argument does mean "murder is not a violation of the social contract," as I argue that the social contract is fictitious. However, my argument does not preclude other arguments that render murder unjustifiable. I make very specific arguments about what we cannot claim about individual obligation; these don"t preclude other arguments for the unjustifiability of murder. Pro repeatedly says that individuals "have an obligation to follow the law or suffer the consequences." This clearly illustrates that at best, individuals only have an obligation to submit to the law. The "or" Pro includes demonstrates that any obligation individuals might have includes the option to not follow the law. Under Pro"s argument, and individual can say "I won"t follow the law; I"ll take whatever consequences happen." Throughout this debate, Pro conflates normative obligations with bare facts of existing legal power structures. This is not a debate about how states exercise their power, but about what obligations are generated by the US constitution. My position in this debate has been stable and consistent. The US constitution created the US government and defined the scope of governmental power. In doing so, the US constitution generated obligations for the government and individuals acting as governmental actors. The result of this is that only the government has constitutional obligations, such as the obligation not to bar free speech or the obligation not to search and detain without probable cause. Individuals have no constitutional obligations. It may be the case that individuals have moral obligations to follow the law. Even if this is so, those individuals do not have a constitutional obligation to follow the law, and so the Resolution is negated. Finally, even if you buy that the U.S. Constitution generates an obligation to follow the law, Pro has not even come close to proving that the Constitution generates an obligation to change laws individuals disagree with. Nowhere in this debate has Pro explained how the constitution obligates me to change the law! He only repeats the Supremacy Clause, which is merely an argument that individuals must follow the law. Pro"s own position, that individuals "have an obligation to follow the law or suffer the consequences," shows that individuals do NOT have an obligation to try to change the laws. Individuals can simply break the law and then suffer the consequences- no effort at legislative change required. Pro never responded to my argument that the Constitution creates no obligations that support an obligation to try and change the law, such as an obligation to vote. Pro only replied that the Constitution gave the right to vote- but a right to do something is not the same as a requirement to do something. If the Resolution were true, all criminals would be guilty of two crimes- the initial legal infraction and the additional infraction of not trying to change the law they refused to follow. This is not how our legal system functions, thus the resolution is patently false. I thank the judges for their time and urge a Con vote.