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

1) Pro agrees that moral and constitutional obligations are distinct and different. To win this debate, Pro must defend the Resolution in terms of constitutional obligation. I would also emphasize that the Resolution has two components i) Individuals have a constitutional obligation to follow the law ii) Individuals have a constitutional obligation to change laws they refuse to follow Pro must win both these issues to win the debate. 2) Pro has conceded the case – he has acknowledged that I am correct that Civil disobedience is incompatible with an obligation to follow the law. I equally acknowledge that an attempt to change the law is not incompatible with an obligation to follow the law. Public referendums and democratic legislation are two ways to attempt to change the law while maintaining an obligation to follow the law. However, Civil Disobedience as a method of changing the law is incompatible with an obligation to follow the law. 3) Pro claims that the supremacy clause and the establishment of governmental power created an obligation for citizens to obey the law. First, the establishment of power of governance does not establish any obligation for individuals to recognize that power of governance. The Constitution only generates obligations for the governmental organizations it establishes. This is because the Constitution is the architectural document which established these governmental organizations. In creating the executive branch, the Constitution defined what that branch of government can and can’t do; the executive branch thus has obligations that are derived from the Constitution. There is no way to make sense of the claim that the establishment of the U.S. government created an obligation for individuals to acknowledge that government. Pro is claiming that upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, an obligation was instantaneously created for thousands of people who did not sign the document, who may have been opposed to ratification, or who may not have even known the Constitution existed. Pro mentions that individuals are given rights under the Constitution, but Constitutional Rights are simply obligations imposed on the government. The right to free speech is actually a restriction on the government’s ability to regulate speech. The 1st amendment doesn’t obligate people to speak freely; it DOES obligate the government to refrain from restricting free expression. Pro can offer no justification for the claim that the constitution generates any obligation for individuals, just as he could offer no justification that any other document could generate an obligation of obedience to an arbitrary group of people. I can’t create a document establishing the government of Raisor and claim that everyone now has an obligation to obey my laws. The Constitution is a document concerned with the constitution of the U.S. government- it establishes obligations for the government, not for individuals. As Pro notes, the U.S. is “a government of laws, not men;” the Constitution does not establish obligations for individuals except insofar as they operate as governmental actors. Again, Pro may argue that there is a moral obligation to uphold the constitution or obey the law- but this does not uphold the Resolution. Only an obligation generated by the constitution can be considered a “constitutional obligation.” Second, even if the Supremacy Clause established obligations for private citizens, it would only establish an obligation to submit to the laws of the land. Pro only argues that this clause establishes the supreme law of the land and that no man is above the law. At best Pro has shown that the establishment clause generates exclusive law-making legitimacy for the U.S. government. The only obligation this could generate is that individuals recognize the law-making power of the government. I can submit to the law without obeying it; Civil Disobedience calls for deliberately disobeying the law while submitting to the legal consequences. Criminals may disobey the law but they still submit to its supremacy when they must face legal sanction in court. Third, to win this debate Pro must prove both that the constitution creates the obligation to follow the law AND to change laws that individuals refuse to follow. The establishment clause clearly does not create an obligation for individuals who refuse to follow the law to try and change the law. Criminals in the U.S. aren’t charged with the additional crime of “not trying to change the law you broke.” What about laws that violate the constitution? 4) Pro has in no way demonstrated that the Constitution establishes an obligation to change laws individuals disagree with. My point 4 shows that such an argument would imply other obligations that are not found in the Constitution. As I pointed out, if the Constitution establishes the obligation to change laws individuals disagree with, why doesn’t the constitution compel democratic participation? In claiming that the Constitution obligates individuals to change laws they refuse to obey, is he claiming that individuals are obligated by the Constitution to perform civil disobedience? This is prima facie absurd – Pro’s argument implies that anyone who broke Jim Crowe laws but didn’t participate in the 1960’s Civil Rights movement was violating the Constitution. The Constitution does not compel individuals to Civil Disobedience, and none of Pro’s arguments come even close to demonstrating the Resolution. Again, Pro’s position would imply that any individual who refuses to obey a law is guilty of two crimes- the original legal infraction and the additional crime of not trying to change the law they broke. 5) Pro merely argues that the Constitution empowers the government with the ability to impose criminal penalties. At best this is an argument that the Constitution obligates individuals to submit to the law. The structure of Pro’s argument demonstrates this point. As Pro says: “If a person wants to avoid [criminal penalties], he has an obligation to either follow the law or change it so that it accommodates his political beliefs.” Thus, people only have an obligation to follow the law “if a person wants to avoid [criminal penalties.” If a person is willing to accept the risk of criminal penalties, he has no obligation to follow the law. At best Pro argues only that individuals have an obligation to accept that the law exists. In reality this argument says nothing about the obligations of individuals- it only lays out governmental powers. I can create a document that empowers me to impose fines on anyone who doesn’t compliment my hair, this does not obligate people to do so. a) PRO TOTALLY IGNORES MY ARGUMENT. I have presented the case that moral statements have no truth content, that moral arguments are just a language game, and that obligations aren’t real. Pro has offered no explanation of what a moral obligation actually is or what it means to claims obligations exist. Thus the Resolution is negated, as obligations do not exist. b) Pro offers no response to my argument that individuals have no obligations to the state because social contracts are fictional and obligations to the state cannot exist without consent. I never signed a contract with the U.S. government, no one ever asked me if I agreed to subject to the laws of the U.S.; it is absurd to say there is any contract between individuals and the government. c) Pro’s justification of legal obligation is provisional – Pro justifies obligation by an individual’s interest in upholding the obligation. This means that individuals who do not desire the consequences of upholding the obligation have no obligation at all. Pro’s fails to uphold the Resolution because his argument, at best, only shows that SOME people have an obligation to uphold the law. Pro offered no response to this.