In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.?

Question

I am a debater for my highschool and I was just hoping that people wouldn't mind brainstorming the issue over and leaving feedback, links, ideals, just all around god advice (crappy advice also) thanks

Answer 1

Civil disobedience for justice is proper only in the context of courts of law in trial by jury.

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision."

US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006



If enough juries fail to convict based on the belief a law is unjust, the law cannot be used to create injustice. The jury is the embodiment of power to the people. A jury can overide a President, Congress and the Courts, including the Supreme Court if the jury believes the law to be contrary to the Constitution.

This is why it is critically important for people to learn the Constitution.

Example: Many believe the writ of habeas corpus to be an inalienable right guaranteed in the document.

The truth is found in Article I Section 9.

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."





Now, let’s move on to the more important distinction. A democracy by nature can be injurious to justice as the majority is always demanding their collective view alone be considered just, regardless of what the Constitution may have to say about it.

A government rule by whim of the majority is highly likely to be unjust. A government bound to bend to the will of a majority or a vociferous, possibly violent, minority and not the charter of its own existence is tyranny. I look to no majority to replace a King. I look to the Constitution that limits power of government, to protect individual rights from being usurped by a majority.

In a jury trial, not only is the defendant on trial as so is the law under which he is being prosecuted or, in some instances, persecuted.

A proper government looks after the rights of each individual, and in this way only, all; regardless of station, income, race, sex, and religion or any other distinction imaginable. In this way only can a government be just.



Citizens may not delegate the "right to initiate force" to government, as no one possess such a "right" to begin with. There is no such thing as the right to enslave. What individuals do possess is the right to defend against force (in some cases this may include pre-emptive action). As no individual in his private capacity, as a citizen, may initiate force against others, neither may he in his public capacity as a state official initiate force either.

No one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that alleged purpose is for the "public good". For is not the individual whose rights are being violated for the "public good", a member of the "public" also? How can such a violation be in the public's good? For is not his good also the good of the public, of which he is a member? The truth is, such violations are only in the irrational interests of a division of the public, but are not in the interests of the entire public. That is injustice defined.


In regards to protesting in the streets, it is proper for a people to protest against government veering from the intent of the Constitution, but protesting in order to "get your way" is not justice.

For example; if the government passed a law contrary to the Constitution, as in denying all people the right to own guns, regardless of their personal choice to own guns or not, the streets would be filled with protestors would be proper.

Protesting in the streets to deny the choice to own weapons is not. If successful, they would only empower a small category of citizens. The category known as criminals. The protestors would, in effect, force all non-criminals to be as defenseless as those who exercise their free choice to not own guns.

The only person who has the right to infringe on your right to own guns is you.

Answer 2

well guys be reasonable and don't post cases! haha debate rule 101 if u don't want your coach after you!!!!
is this the pofo dec topic? i think it is....
welllllll being a db8r myself....
if u can go neg on this topic...do so..its alot easier
try going to sites like the economist and newsweek...ive seen good stuff there also time and nyt
hehe u should know the good sources
what state r u in btw? i wnna know if im giving info to someone in mine....that would be bad
ill tell u im in the midwest!
but look up the ld topic 4 a few yrs ago...its the same resol.
u should b able to find stuff from there
next time try not to ask ppl to cut cards 4 u :P hehe
jk :D

Answer 3

Yes it is. Laws set in place aren't always just. Civil disobideince is an appropriate weapon in our arsenal to fight for justice when the government and laws set in place aren't

Answer 4

Generally - no.

All civil disobedience shows is that you feel that you have the right to disobey the law for your political opinions.

Generally, an act of 'civil disobedience' is infringing on the rights of other people. What gives you the right to interfere with other people?

Answer 5

yes, and the key word is CIVIL, as in being sane.

Answer 6

yes, now it is not so effective