Civil disobedience in the modern United States is morally justified.

Rebuttal 1: "Informed?" In round two, I mentioned that much of my opponents statements were "hearsay" being defined as "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one"s direct knowledge." My opponent seems to have taken this statement as a personal attack; that was not the intent. If I were to say the sky is purple, the equator is covered in ice, and planes do not really fly" but I do not provide any sources, this is hearsay. If I were to say the sky is blue, the equator is hot, and planes fly" but do not provide any sources, this too is hearsay. There are accepted "truths" that may not require sources. However, due to the nature of this debate, you made a claim of "Government Abandonment of Constitutional Restraints," as well as you listed "reasons" with no sources. 1: The General Welfare Clause You say "Government has adopted a severe misconstruction that the preamble, a general statement as opposed to an actual power, using the phrase "to promote the general welfare" has essentially been adopted as an unlimited power to to tax, spend, and intrude into every sphere of life." I said "hearsay." Can you provide any evidence that to apply "to promote the general welfare" in the way that has been applied in modern times is invalid according to law" or is this your opinion? Can you empirically prove that this is "disobedience" as you put it? Thus far you have stated but not yet substantiated this idea. 2: You say of the U.S. Government""It destroys the concept of Federalism and bypasses the constitutional process of amending the Constitution." I said "hearsay." Do you have an example? As of yet you have not provided one. 3: You say "Power under the Commerce Clause that involved the trade or movement goods by gainful activity among the states (interstate commerce) has been stretched to unlimited proportions allowing regulation of any economic activity and further argued by the Obama Administration that all individuals can be mandated to purchase health insurance or face a penalty." I said "Hearsay." Can you show that this is a violation of the law". Or is this your opinion? Do you see the pattern? I did not mean to be insulting, I meant to give you an opportunity to provide evidence to support the truth of your claims" or in other words substantiate your claims. Until you substantiate your claims, for me to offer a rebuttal would be mere conjecture. This is intended to be a debate, not speculation of opinions. You say your examples are "concise," and yet, for example, to conclude that Gun legislation is disobedience to the second amendment does not follow. This nation in spite of, as you called It, "the withering of the Second Amendment through legislative efforts" is of the most free in the world in regard to gun freedom.(1) Due to the Constitution being a "living document," to conclude that amending the Constitution is akin to disobedience to that same Constitution is asinine. I maintain that the United States clearly is not under the rule of a despot, the quote from the declaration of Independence hardly applies. Despot: ": a ruler who has total power and who often uses that power in cruel and unfair ways" (2) Rebuttal 2:"Tyranny?" My opponent says "Note: I will proceed to refute my opponent's arguments without complaining about a lack of citation and addressing them on the merits." Again to clarify, I did not intend to sound annoyed, though I am. Sources and validity of statements are crucial to effective debating. A lack of citation, typically, shows a lack of merit. My opponent says ". My examples of government actions, that are unconstitutional (arbitrary and unrestrained), are labeled "libertarian rhetoric" with a modifier (extreme). It begs a few questions" "What is an extreme form of Libertarianism compared to Libertarianism itself?" Well there are several types of "Libertarianism." Anarcho-Capitalism, Classical Liberalism, Civil Libertarianism, Minarchism, Fiscal Libertarianism, Geolibertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Neolibertarianism, Objectivism, and Paleolibertarianism.(3) Surely you understand "extreme." Again this was not intended as an insult, just orientation. My opponent says "I have not stated my position on taxation and this debate isn't about taxation. Continuing to argue against a straw man, and while I appreciate the superficial respect of my views, I don't agree with his appeal to popularity or the premise it is essential." For this I do apologize, I did not mean to put words in your mouth. My opponent says "The argument that Americans enjoy more freedom today than during the period of our founding, with the existence of slavery considered, is blatantly false. There are over 80,000 pages of regulation in the Federal Register that would suggest otherwise," To be honest this made me laugh. We are obviously more free, on balance, then during the founding. This is evident by the lack of slavery and the progress made towards women"s rights as two main examples. My opponent suggests that more pages = less freedom. This argument has absolutely no credence. Surly the "surfs" of the dark ages were less free than we are today here in this society, Yet I would imagine their law had significantly less pages of law. I invite my opponent to show how the following have made him evidently less free, and in what way. He says" "the federal government couldn't couldn't suggest collecting the communications of all it's citizens" Not even sure this sentence makes sense. "seize one-eighth of the country's land, criminalize the collection of rain water on your own property" I leave this to the voters" Tyranny?!?!?! "seize your property for the benefit of other private parties" Substantiate please". "mandate your purchase of insurance" How Tyrannical! "siphon on your wages to pay the retirement benefits of others" Are you saying "Taxes" are tyranny". I thought you were offended I put those words in your mouth. "decide what sort of toilets you can purchase" LOL! "and the President's wife wouldn't be deciding what our children can and can't have for lunch" Good luck substantiating this one" she doesn"t. You might be able to justify an argument that she lobbies on this issue, but she certainly does not decide. My opponent says "As for the Three-Fifths Clause, this is a common misconception given that it relates to representation in Congress and those supportive of slavery wanted blacks counted as a full person to give them more representatives in Congress whereas opponents of slavery didn't believe they should be counted so three-fifths was the compromise. The Constitution was amended to abolish slavery explicitly and completely." Let me see if I understand your position" deciding which toilet you can purchase constitutes tyranny, but not counting an African American as a full person by law does not?!? Yes, Thank God the constitution was amended! Rebuttal 3: Voting 3a: Two party system Pro says "my opponent's attempt at rebuttal fails because he points to the existence of a third party" No I point out the existence of many other parties" And you are free to vote for anyone you wish. 3b. "conflict of interest" An appeal to motive is an appeal to a conflict of interest.(4) "A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough."(4) 3c. My opponent says "The Judicial Branch does in fact make laws. Roe v Wade is a classic example of seven justices on the Supreme Court overturning duly enacted laws by 46 separate legislatures. That is tyranny by judicial fiat no matter what your personal views may be on the subject." The Court serves to check and balance the legislative and executive branch. Throwing out unconstitutional laws is not tyranny, it is the prevention of tyranny. 3d. My opponent says "as a matter of policy have pushed amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants." Again our law of the land is a "living document." To push for change cannot inherently be discredited as tyranny" My opponent says "It is foolhardy for my opponent to deny the fact that under EMTALA, any person, regardless of being a legal U.S. citizen, may enter and must receive medical care at an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay." Protecting human rights is not tyranny. Does not the Declaration of Independence include the inalienable right of "life." Pro says "I was illustrating an prime example of the Government ignoring the laws they swore to uphold over the wishes of a solid majority of the people in this country and to illustrate a consensus among the two parties on the issue. My opponent doesn't address any of it." I wanted you to substantiate the claim that "a solid majority of the people" are "wishing" anything" Ergo" Hearsay. Pro says "I have submitted facts and made arguments from my general knowledge of these topics and while I appreciate formalities somewhat, I do not appreciate an opponent that fails to deal with arguments." You have submitted almost no facts" and made arguments from you assumptions. I do not appreciate an opponent that assumes his beliefs are facts and then will substantiate any claims. I am out of space, I will respond to "extended rebuttals" next round. (1) http://www.gunsandammo.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://civilliberty.about.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...