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

Resolution and PurposeMy objective in this debate is to show that the following resolution is true:In the United States, people have a constitutional obligation to follow the law, and to change the laws they refuse to follow.It can also be interpretted as an argument against nihilism--which permits people do whatever they choose and rejects the supremacy of the rule of law.My purpose in arguing this is to show that since our constitutional rights and individual liberties come from the constitution and the law it establishes, we have an obligation to protect the integrity and supremacy of the law. Without the law, we would have no clearly defined human rights and in fact anyone could do whatever he pleases based on passion alone. To avoid this condition--base social disorder--and to prevent the empowerment of despotic regimes and tyrants--which do whatever they want with minimal regard for those they rule--we have an obligation to protect the laws of civilization and the rights provided to us through them, even if it means laying down our lives in doing so!Even When We Disagree With a Law and Refuse to Follow It, We Have an Obligation to Change ItEven in the case where we do encounter laws we find to be oppressive, offensive, or just plain atrocious, and in bad need of eradication or alteration, our actions should remain consistent so as to demonstrate that the law and the right's afforded to us through it are still needed. If we must organize and protest a specific law or set of laws which we find oppressive or atrocious, this is absolutely appropriate--so long as we remain devoted to all other laws, to demonstrate good will to all members in our society and to keep it from plummeting into disorder. Non-violent civil disobedience can also be the right action to take when we're confronted with a particularly oppressive set of laws. In non-violent civil disobedience (sometimes simply labeled "civil disobedience"), a protestor refuses to abide by the offending law(s) or refuses to adhere to a related law(s) to grip the consciencenous of others and to force society to reassess its moral parameters, without ever resorting to violence [1]. The aim of non-violent civil disobedience is to place pressure on lawmakers to change or eradicate the offending law(s), while simultaneously maintaining the peace and tranquility in society so that it can still function [1].Notable participants of non-violent civil disobedience include:--Mahatma Gandhi, who protested British institutions and organized boycotts inside of India to gain independence of the South Asian nation, also his homeland; furthermore, he formulated most of the philosophy behind political non-violent action and civil disobedience, which he called "satyagraha"; it remains one of the most potent philosophies in freedom struggles today [2]. Gandhi was arrested and jailed for his non-violent political actions by the British government (inside India), but throughout his life he advocated the moral need to remain peaceful and to work within society to allow it to function [2].--Rosa Louise May Parks, a civil rights activist (and daughter of former slaves) who refused to surrender her bus seat to a white passenger on December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama; she was instructed to give up her seat but refused and was subsequently arrested [3]. Her action inspired the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to organize the Montgomery Bus Boycott on the day of her trial, to protest her arrest and to call for an end to segregation laws throughout the American South [3]. Though she was found guilty in her trial and required to pay a fine, Parks insisted throughout her life that people have a responsibility to work to end discrimination and unfair laws and to advance laws--such as those advocated by the Civil Rights Movement--that promote individual equality, greater opportunity, and social tranquility [3].--Martin Luther King Jr, a Baptist Minister and social activist who organized non-violent marches and boycotts to put an end to race segregation laws in the U.S. and to promote civil rights reform; his profound activism was instrumental in the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in increasing the number of blacks and minorities that registered to vote during that period, and in getting Americans to see the error of fighting the Vietnam War [4]. From the 1950s until his assassination in 1968, he led the American Civil Rights movement, and during this period he promoted non-violent civil disobodience and social activism as a means of stimulating changes to the nation's (or a state's) discriminatory laws; he often cited the non-violent social action philosophy of Gandhi as a major inspiration of his own political methods and was arrested for his protests multiple times [4][5].King felt that methods of non-violent activism not only needed to be admirable in the eyes of the public, but they had to be effective too to trigger change, hence his adoption of Gandhi's philosophy, which succeeded in gaining India's independence from Britain a full decade earlier [5].--President Nelson Mandela, a civil rights activist who was elected to become South Africa's first black President from 1994 to 1999 and who was conducive to the elimination of the Apartheid system that operated inside the county for nearly a century, but that also had a connection to early European colonial traditions [6]. For over 20 years as a young man, social activist/lawyer Nelson Mandela employed peaceful, non-violent acts of defiance against the South African government and its racist policies. The South African Apartheid System prevented blacks from running for elected office, from voting in the nation's elections; it required blacks to live in separate areas from whites and to use separate public facilities; it prohibited interracial marriage; beginning in the 1950s it instituted Land Acts acts that set aside more than 80% of the nation's land for the nation's white minority and forcibly removed blacks from areas designated for whites; the all-white government, fearing a united black backlash, further instituted policies to separate black South Africans from each other, by declaring 10 Bantu homelands; it then declared that Blacks were no longer the majority [7]. Apartheid plunged black South Africans into poverty, hopelessness [7]. Becoming disillusioned with the government's increasingly segregationist tendencies, Mandela very briefly flirted with more aggressive methods of political resistance and was arrested in 1963 for offenses, including attempted sabotage against the government; he was sentenced to life imprisonment [6]. As a leader of the Anti-apartheid movement, his incarceration drew international attention and increased support against the South African government [7]. While in prison, he lauded international efforts to get the South African government to change its policies; efforts included interntional sanctions and embargoes [7].The government resisted until the late 1980s, when President P.W. Botha finally instituted some reforms to reduce Apartheid policies; these reforms, however, were minimal [7]. In 1989 Botha resigned and his replacement, F.W. De Klerk, quickly acted to repeal some major Apartheid laws and to release Mandela from prison [6][7]. After being released, Mandela publically declared that he would peacefully cooperate with the government and that he forgave it for what it did to him, but that it urgently needed to eradicate all racist policies [8]. In 1994, a new constitution was established, which--for the first time--enfranchised blacks; that same year, Mandela was elected President, with F.W. De Klerk as his first deputy [6][7].Despite everything black South Africans had gone through, Mandela insisted that with the establishment of the new constitution, which provided legal equality, people had to move for reconcilation & forgiveness and to work within the law, to think about the future [9].--Henry David Thoreau, a 19th century poet, essayist, philosoper and abolitionist; he first coined the term "civil disobedience" when he and several others refused to pay the state poll tax that was being used to fund the American government's prosecution of the war in Mexico and to enforce the fugitive slave law [1][10]. He was opposed to slavery and even spent time in jail for his views, but recognized the importance of laws and the rights they provided [1][10].Each of these individuals utilized non-violent civil disobedience in their political methods, but insisted that the law had its place and that good laws had to be followed to maintain social cohesion and the law's integrity, but also to provide society with the peace and tranquility it requires to function. None of these iconic men and women defended cold, disordered nihilism, for to do so would be socially destructive.In the next ROUNDs I will review the importance of social contracts (constitutions and other legal frameworks) and demonstrate their primacy in establishing human rights & social laws, and I will also show, with examples, that it is perfeclty natural and typical for human communities to live under despots and regimes that do not acknowledge human rights or care much for civil laws.If we therefore want to live in a nation that provides us with rights and social laws, we must therefore collectively agree to the supremacy of the law--this is the foundation of social contract theory [11]. What we want (and do) is the foundation of societal laws and rights [11].(Important Note: SC = See comments section)[1] (http://plato.stanford.edu...)[2] (http://www.biography.com...)[3] SC[4] SC[5] SC[6] SC[7] SC[8] SC[9] SC[10] SC[11] SC