Civil disobedience in the modern United States is morally justified.

Rebuttal 1 - Stifling Debate A) I do not consider my opponent's accusation of hearsay to be a personal attack, but rather a mischaracterization given that I am making informed arguments "based on sound reasoning or information and/or having information especially as a result of study." I consider it illegitimate and it stifles the debate with needless argumentation that doesn't address my contention and ultimately keeps us away from the subject of civil disobedience. B) The objection being raised is hypocritical given my opponent's contention in round two that civil disobedience was rendered "obsolete and immoral" by the Social Contract Theory; now giving me the definition of the word is somewhat pointless given I'm well aware of the theory and I'm not disputing the definition nor is it helpful to cite the First Amendment's text with a citation while providing no "sources" for the argument being provided. You are sourcing definitions, which I don't need while "...there do still exist issues of racism and sexism, as well as discrimination based on religion" is without a source. Conclusion: A mischaracterization that is stifling our debate over Civil Disobedience and hypocritical given that you don't abide by the same standard yourself, which I've shown from round two, but the difference being I am consistent enough to approach my opponent's argument. Rebuttal 2 - General Welfare Clause A) Allow me to again walk you through my argument regarding the General Welfare Clause; Congress, the legislative branch of the Federal Government, was limited under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States and all other powers not delegated in the Constitution are reserved to the states and the the people under the Tenth Amendment. This is the concept of Federalism. Our Federal Government has shed this limitation under the guise of severe misconstruction that under Article 1, Section 8 there is a preamble that functions as an introduction and general statement to the specifically enumerated powers and because it includes the phrase "to promote the general welfare," Congress has with the endorsement of the judicial branch has adopted the view that this constitutes what is essentially an unlimited power given the broad and innumerable ways in which it could be said something "promotes the general welfare." Does this not constitute informed argument? Did I need to give a citation to define Federal Government, the enumeration of powers, Constitution, United States, Tenth Amendment, and General Welfare Clause to give you a definition or is it unreasonable to assume you have knowledge of each? B) Why are you asking for examples when in round three I provided a specific example referencing the Supreme Court decision in Helvring v. Davis that upheld the constitutionality of Social Security under the General Welfare Clause? Did you overlook it? The Social Security Administration web site maintains a whole page solely to address the issue. [1] The Supreme Court affirmed this again in United States v. Butler. The largest federal program in existence is justified on this basis taking money from a worker's wages before he ever receives his wages without his consent and redistributed. The Supreme Court also ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that such workers have no right to there so-called contribution. So legally there is no recourse and there is not a single politician one could vote for to rectify the injustice. Civil Disobedience is the only recourse although it would involve you being seized by federal agents and being caged thus joining the world's largest prison population. It is the primary constitutional basis for an array of Government departments and agencies along with numerous federal programs down to the most frivolous spending habits such the FCC spending $350,000 to sponsor a NASCAR driver. C) The irony being James Madison defended the drafting of the Constitution from anti-federalist objections for precisely the same thing, "It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction." He continued, "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter." [2] Rebuttal 3 - Commerce Clause A) The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Commerce means an exchange or trade of goods (as opposed to the production of them) between a person in one state and another in a different state. To regulate means to make it regular and remove obstructions between the states to domestic trade. Cases like Wickard v. Filburn obliterated the meaning by ruling against an individual farmer keeping his own wheat for his own consumption. I provided my opponent with the most recent example of this interpretation over Obama's new health care law mandating individual Americans must purchase health insurance coverage or face a penalty. Currently in the United States, the Federal Government asserts the power to force Americans to do this when this doesn't even involve commerce and the law specifically addresses individuals and coercively mandate they purchase insurance even though health insurance even though it goes well beyond a group of people pooling risk against an unlikely catastrophic event. Rebuttal 4 - Second Amendment, Etc. A) The disobedience in terms of the Second Amendment given the host of legislative laws and regulations does follow given it is recognition of an inalienable right and given your remarks about social contract theory, surely you understand the concept of natural rights, and these are rights that cannot be taken away or given away. Pointing to other nations with even greater restrictions doesn't undermine my argument the least bit. B) I would reject your premise that the Constitution is a "living document" but I have never in this debate asserted that the process of amending the Constitution through ratification by the the overwhelming majority of States and Congress is disobedience. That is blatantly false. C) I have responded to your objection regarding citation of the Declaration of Independence, even though the abuses presently tower over the abuses that warranted America's independence. Regrettably, my opponent believes repeating the same thing qualifies as rebuttal. So I repeat my original rebuttal - "The word "despotism" means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and should not be confused with 'despot'". And yet I must endure charges of conjecture! Rebuttal 5 - Other A) Running out of space, but here goes: my opponent claims my second contention is "extreme Libertarianism," which is another mischaracterization and list different forms of it in response without explaining what he considers extreme or how they pertain to me personally or to the contention. Like me ascribing extreme Progessivism to his contention. B) The government collection of all communications would be an obvious reference to the astonishing revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the NSA. The collection of rainwater is an obvious reference to the case of Gary Harrington. Yes, the payroll tax is a form of tyranny considering the state takes your money before you ever see it and calls it a contribution but argues you have no legal right to it. While my opponent's reactions become increasingly puerile, to speak of toilets, shows how absurdly intrusive government has become through environmental and efficiency requirements via EERE. Yes, Michelle Obama lobbied and her husband signed into law a federal statue called the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. C) My opponent again mischaracterizes my argument as an appeal to motive when rather I present a very rational argument illustrating a conflict of interest and self-dealing. Would a person cast a vote to terminate their career or would a person cast a vote to cut off the program they financially depend on? I don't appreciate an opponent who engages in frivolous maneuver throughout the debate using mischaracterizations to avoid in engaging in substantive debate on the arguments and doing it repeatedly. I don't appreciate an [3] opponent that charges a lack of citation when your citations are basically definitions. [1] http://www.ssa.gov... [2] http://www.constitution.org... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...