The State Has Rights that the Man Does Not

"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." However, the man is not considered justified in his use of force. Why does the state get to use violence while the man does not? I find the fact that some states are more free than others to be irrelevant to the issue. There are rights in other countries that are not rights in the US. There are rights in the US that are not rights in other countries. This shows that there are infinite rights but finite rights which are recognized by the state. The rights still exist, but the state will punish a man for exercising them. Every law is a restriction on liberty. I don't think the situations where violence is used to limit freedom are as sparse as my opponent believes. The only reason we know of the civil rights movement is because the government was trampling on a LOT of people's rights. Every time a police officer steps beyond his bounds but not far enough to be reprimanded, justice is not served and rights are tread upon. I don't disagree with the purpose of the state. I disagree with the function. Of course, it is meant to provide peaceful stability to support freedom- it just fails. I do disagree however with the idea that laws are voted on in a transparent and democratic way. The PATRIOT Act was recently renewed underneath a medicare act (1) so that no one would be able to see which congressmen voted for the PATRIOT Act renewal. The renewal did away with all of the reforms leading up to that point on the original act. The PATRIOT Act is an excellent example of how even a democratic representative constitutional republic can still fail to uphold the very rights it espouses. The PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional on too many grounds to name, but to name just one it is blatantly against the 4th Amendment protection to be secure in one's holdings against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant supported by probable cause. Even when it was passed the first time, the PATRIOT Act was never read in congress. Currently, in order to get something passed, it is not uncommon to stick a bunch of favors into laws. New Orleans needs aid? Okay, I'll vote for that if you give Michigan a million dollars for roads. Within the PATRIOT Act, you'll see that the congress has put in protection against judicial review. Congress has the constitutional power to remove jurisdiction from the courts. That means that the PATRIOT Act will never be reviewed or overturned by the Supreme Court. The Tenth Amendment goes to protect the rights of the individual as well as the states. The wording of the Tenth Amendment is as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Primarily, the Tenth Amendment Movement wants to remove unconstitutional federal laws because they are the right of the people or of the State. The fact that it represents people who want the state to have more power over the federal government doesn't make the things they are talking about constitutional. The laws are still unconstitutional. The movement just wants those laws to be abolished so the states can have the power, which would be constitutional, therefore these conflicts absolutely represent a constitutional issue. The differences they have of where the central power should lay is explained in the constitution and these laws are against that position. That, however, is irrelevant because my point is that the constitution doesn't actually function. We try our best to make it function, but it just doesn't work very well. It is the nature of governments to expand their powers. The issue is declaratively settled, I agree. It is settled that the states have those rights because the federal government can only do those things that are specifically delegated to them and things that are implied to be delegated to them and things that are necessary and proper to fulfill those obligations. EVERYTHING outside of that is to the states or to the people, according to the constitution. My opponent points out that the issue has more to do with States' rights vs. federal rights than whether the state can justify actions where man could not. This is true, but I was using this both to rebut the idea that a state necessarily protects the rights of its citizens and to show that it fails to do the things that it promises to do. The constitution defines how US law is constituted, but US law doesn't always follow the constitution, so the constitution fails to do what it is meant to do. The state is just as free to trample on rights, it just has to jump through a rapidly diminishing number of hoops first. I agree with my opponent that just because a group opposes a law as unconstitutional, it does not suggest that the law tramples on the rights of individuals. However, the law CAN be unconstitutional and it CAN remain in effect despite the unconstitutionality of it. Also, one can easily use rationally based perception to determine that a law is unconstitutional, sometimes. Sometimes a law degree is not necessary to understand the rules. That also shows that the constitution doesn't really do anything unless there is a large amount of public support to either affirm the constitutionality of, or strike down the law. The opposition and I clearly disagree on the constitutionality of judicial review, but since it is not relevant for this particular debate, I will leave that on the wayside. Unless my opponent believes that the Supreme Court is infallible, he will agree that it is possible that it will determine the constitutionality of a situation incorrectly. This makes the Supreme Court a group of 9 (usually) non-elected judges who hold the power to strike down or uphold any law whatsoever over which they have jurisdiction. Since the Supreme Court is not elected, it does not reflect the views of society. Man (either collectively, or individually) does not have the right to strike down or uphold a law, so the state is, in my opinion, in this case, unjustified in its use of power that man does not share. Once again, I apologize for my vagueness. I was not suggesting that the opinion against the Bill of Rights was universal. I was suggesting that the people who were against the Bill of Rights were correct, in my opinion. People seem to believe that all of their rights come from those listed rights and that if a law doesn't go against any of them, it is constitutional. This is obviously not the case since there's a whole lot of constitution outside of those ten. I can clarify my analogy so that it fits the due process of the 14th Amendment. The wolves and sheep vote that being a sheep is illegal and so the sheep is arrested. When they get to court, they prove that the sheep is in fact a sheep. As per the statute, the penalty for being a sheep is being eaten by your peers (who are in this case, wolves). The sheep appeals because the constitution doesn't give the state the power to allow the sheep to be eaten, but the higher court upholds the decision as per the necessary and proper clause. How else will they regulate interstate sheep commerce? Stare decisis. The sheep will be eaten next Tuesday. With the state, the wolves can justify eating the sheep, without the state, the wolves will have to violate the sheep's rights without justification. I enjoyed this debate and hope my conduct was within the rules and expectations. I thank my opponent for being my first debate partner. (1)http://www.shaneshepard.net... (x)http://www.scn.org... A list of constitutional backings for why the PATRIOT Act violates the constitution.