Resolved: In a democracy, Civil Disobedience is morally justified.

It is noteworthy to point out that my opponent has not responded to the dilemma of determining whose morals are right and whose are not; nor to the many forms of undesirable activity that have, in some cases, evolved from what was originally accepted to be a "morally correct" campaign of civil disobedience. It appears we are still talking about two different things here when we use the term "civil disobedience. " While some forms of CD are done in "private" or in a passive sense such as failing to file income tax forms in order to protest the legality of income tax, and, by that very nature are not considered violent or inviting violence, a great deal of civil disobedience does invite violence, especially when done in a very public venue, such as the draft card burnings or flag burnings of the '60's and '70's or the WWI Veteran's March on Washington in 1932 [. http://veteransrightsnow.50megs.com...], where over a thousand women and children, wives and children of WWI veterans, were systematically lined up and executed by Gen. Geo. Patton in Florida as traitors to "teach their husbands a lesson" and not to engage in civil disobedience against their government. But my opponent states, "Violence does NOT occur in Civil Disobedience. " (Emphasis mine) In these cases, and many others, although the protesters themselves were NOT violent and did not resist arrest, violence, in the form of fire hoses and attack dogs as well as armed police and sometimes even military personnel DID in fact take place, harming the protesters and inciting return violence in the form of self-defense. Thus, it cannot be stated, unequivocally, that civil disobedience will not result in violence. In fact, although organizers of a civil disobedience event may caution against violence, the event itself may succumb to violence by others who are less motivated toward non-violence and, using the heightened excitement of the event, may turn that same peaceful event into a violent confrontation. If, in fact, civil disobedience was restricted to violation of the law being challenged rather than, for instance, marching in protest of some other law, such as civil rights or the current war, and if such disobedience were practiced by an individual who readily accepted arrest and confinement or other punishment, this still would not necessarily preclude violence. There is always the danger that persons with opposing viewpoints will instigate violence against the more passive protester. No matter what law a protester desires to break in an effort to demonstrate his moral opposition to it, there will always be people who support that same law and some will utilize violent measures to support that law. To address the Original resolution, given the most conservative definitions discussed, Civil Disobedience, if total non-violence is guaranteed, and no other laws, such as those regulating free speech, free assembly, march permits and conduct if any disorderly sort are broken, and it is agreed upon by a majority of the population to be a moral crusade against an immoral law, could be considered "justified. " However, this is not intended to be a carte blanche or a "get out of jail free" card. It is not a "right" handed down to accept law breaking in any form. No Constitutional Amendment exists that grants any individual the privilege to violate a duly enacted law. Many other mechanisms exist to remedy a perceived unjust law and must be exercised to their greatest extent before resorting to Civil Disobedience. Finally, any person who willfully and knowingly and with intent to do so, violates any law, statute or ordinance that has been enacted by legally elected lawmakers, must be ready willing and able to accept the prescribed punishment for same. It is also incumbent upon the government, at all levels, to enforce those same laws and apply prescribed punishment to those who violate them unless and until those laws are repealed, modified, or reversed.