The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy
...by Kayla Starr, adapted by Bonnie Blackberry
Civil Disobedience is the act of disobeying a law on grounds of moral or political principle. It is an attempt to influence society to accept a dissenting point of view. Although it usually uses tactics of nonviolence, it is more than mere passive resistance since it often takes active forms such as illegal street demonstrations or peaceful occupations of premises. The classic treatise on this topic is Henry David Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," which states that when a person's conscience and the laws clash, that person must follow his or her conscience. The stress on personal conscience and on the need to act now rather than to wait for legal change are recurring elements in civil disobedience movements. The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.
Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. Some of the most well known of these are:
1) The Boston Tea Party -- citizens of the colony of Massachusetts trespassed on a British ship and threw its cargo (tea from England) overboard, rather than be forced to pay taxes without representation to Britain. This was one of the many acts of civil disobedience leading to the War for Independence, establishing the United States of America as a sovereign state.
2) Anti-war movements have been a part of U.S. history since Thoreau went to jail for refusing to participate in the U.S. war against Mexico in 1849. More recent examples were the nationwide protests against the war in Viet Nam, U.S. involvement in Nicaragua and Central America, and the Gulf War. Actions have included refusal to pay for war, refusal to enlist in the military, occupation of draft centers, sit-ins, blockades, peace camps, and refusal to allow military recruiters on high school and college campuses.
3) The Women's Suffrage Movement lasted from 1848 until 1920, when thousands of courageous women marched in the streets, endured hunger strikes, and submitted to arrest and jail in order to gain the right to vote.
4) Abolition of slavery -- including Harriet Tubman's underground railway, giving sanctuary, and other actions which helped to end slavery.
5) The introduction of labor laws and unions. Sit-down strikes organized by the IWW, and CIO free speech confrontations led to the eradication of child labor and improved working conditions, established the 40-hour work week and improved job security and benefits.
6) The Civil Rights Movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, included sit-ins and illegal marches which weakened segregation in the south.
7) The Anti-Nuclear Movement, stimulated by people like Karen Silkwood and the Three Mile Island nuclear power accident, organized citizens throughout the country into direct action affinity groups, with consensus decision making and Gandhian nonviolence as its core. Massive acts of civil disobedience took place at nuclear power facilities across the country, followed by worldwide protests against first-strike nuclear weapons, occupying military bases, maintaining peace camps, interfering with manufacture and transport of nuclear bombs and devices, marching, sitting in, blockading and otherwise disrupting business as usual at nuclear sites.
8) Environmental and forest demonstrations, with acts of civil disobedience such as sit-ins, blockades, tree sits and forest occupations, have emerged in the last decade, prompted by the continuing mass clear cuts and destruction of the forest ecosystem and widespread environmental consequences.
In all of these struggles, citizens had reached the conclusion that the legal means for addressing their concerns had not worked. They had tried petitioning, lobbying, writing letters, going to court, voting for candidates that represented their interests, legal protest, and still their views were ignored.
In each of these movements, the protesters were compelled by deep moral convictions. Their distress was strong enough to motivate them to go against the grain, to sacrifice personal comfort, to face unknown danger, to give up their freedom and risk going to jail. Their love of truth and justice drove them to action. Many, but not all, of those committing civil disobedience in the last two decades have been trained in Gandhian nonviolence philosophy and tactics.
Non-Cooperation is used by some protesters during civil disobedience actions. Non-cooperation may include going limp, refusal to give information at booking, fasting and refusal to particpate in court proceedings.
Gandhi, who profoundly influenced nonviolent disobedience movements in the 20th century, stated that "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." Non-cooperation is not intended as a hostile act against police officers and jail guards. An understood theoretical basis is that nonviolent protest draws its strength from open confrontation and non-cooperation, i.e., civil disobedience. We retain as much power as we refuse to relinquish to the government. Non-cooperation is a form of resistance that is used to reaffirm our position that we are not criminals and that we are taking positive steps toward freeing the world of oppression and environmental suicide.
The decision to non-cooperate is a difficult choice to make, since it subjects those who choose it to greater possibilities for pain and punishment, and many times is misunderstood by law enforcement. In addition, it poses a dilemma for protesters who would prefer to communicate with the arresting officer, making it more difficult to communicate while being dragged across the ground.
Reasons some protesters choose non-cooperation:
1) Moral conviction: It would be wrong to be an accomplice to a procedure that supports what is morally unacceptable.
2) To increase the likelihood that all protesters are treated equally: Refusing to give names so that everyone committing the same act will be treated equally and fairly in jail and in sentencing. Refusing citation, bail, fines or probation keeps protesters together, increasing the potential for collective bargaining.
3) To extend the action: Going limp at arrest impedes the removal of the protesters, prolonging the disruption of business as usual.
4) To demonstrate that the criminal justice system is part of the problem: It may be a corporation that is damaging the environment, jeopardizing all our lives and our children's future, but it is the criminal justice system that is legitimizing and supporting it.
Civil disobedience is often an effective means of changing laws and protecting liberties. It also embodies an important moral concept that there are times when law and justice do not coincide and that to obey the law at such times can be an abdication of ethical responsibility. The choice of civil disobedience and non-cooperation is not for everyone. We all choose to do what feels right to us personally. However, it is hoped that this article will make such a choice more understandable to those who have wondered about this form of protest.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nobody Will Observe on
-
Gandhi lead a movement of millions of people who agreed to non-violently resist British rule. Like grains of sand in a machine, if 10 million grains clog a machine, it will not work.
-
-
-
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others- as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders- serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few- as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men- serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:
"I am too high-born to be propertied,
To be a secondary at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."
Civil Disobedience
By Henry David Thoreau
1849
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Marchlenski on
-
Civil Disobedience is not for a Lawless Society or Country. Armed Revolution is. With the huge amount of Firepower and Technology the Military has over us and the positioning of traitorous Generals as replacements for 'fired' Patriot Generals and Leaders we can-NOT count on the Military to be nothing other than this Government's Enforcers. Now they have Foreign Troops here and ready to carry out the Final Solution for Dissidents.
I hear some people trying to "Promise" a violent response to Gun Seizures. That is their decision but know that although it's the Highest form of Patriotism, it's also Suicide. WHY "Suicide"? America is too full of "Willing Slaves" that will Obey for their food, healthcare and shelter (they will also become lawless and self-destruct and destroy others). America and Americans have "Fundamentally Changed". We are 'cooked'! Is this a 'Defeatist' mentality? I consider it a 'Realistic' mentality. America, Too many of you have slept, stole, and self-abused yourself into Oblivion. The Remainder can NOT save you and may not be able to save themselves even a little.
Myself? I already HAVE this perspective or paradigm, what I'll DO with it as time passes and personal situations change? I will have to rely on the immediate leading of God the Holy Spirit.
Then there's the issue of "God's Judgement" upon this Nation of Abortion or the murder of 60 million babies (among other things). IS this a 'coming JUDGEMENT' from God? If so, do we 'fight it' or flee it? That' another Question each Christian must answer for themselves.
-
-
-
Thank You for the post.
-
-
-
You can fight and be against, OR support ONLY that which you wish to be.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Patriot Pete on
-
"In all of these struggles, citizens had reached the conclusion that the legal means for addressing their concerns had not worked. They had tried petitioning, lobbying, writing letters, going to court, voting for candidates that represented their interests, legal protest, and still their views were ignored."
This is where we are now but somehow we always seem to be there
-
-
-
Oui :)
-
-
-
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.
All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.
Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.
-
-
-
Supreme Court of the United States
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)
http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm
The question, whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric had been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
-
-
-
My Grandfather used to have a saying, "Believe nothing that you hear, and half of what you see." I wouldn't believe a thing, that comes out of Washington DC, in fact, it's my own personal belief, that this next election, thats coming up; that every American should march on Washington DC, and should fire every single person inside!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Nathan on
-
“A smart man only believes half of what he hears, a wise man knows which half.” Col. Jeff Cooper
As far as D.C. goes, I'm with you Troy.....I don't believe anything I hear coming from that cesspool.
-
-
-
Thanks for the croak. Was tiered of crickets
-
"Destroying the New World Order"
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Neil Oliver STUNNED as Dutch Official Reveals Covid-19 Was 'MILITARY Operation' in SHOCK Admission
Neil Oliver reacts after a top Dutch government official has admitted 'Covid' was a military operation.#gbnews #uknews #covid #coronavirus #covid19 Keep up t...
The Window - The Guthrie Trapp Trio with Tom Bukovac and Jimmy Wallace - The Bitter End - 2024/11/20
"https://youtu.be/j-1HCVILMjY?si=dAT6ofwOzx_61sXt"
"Less Prone thanks for your support Buddy! "
A Prelude to WW III ? It Seems There We Are Trailblazing Idiocy into More Blood and Destruction!
They're rolling out the 25th Amendment trying to stop Joe Biden from insanely thrusting the US in a…See More
Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]
DW Description: Chris Langan is known to have the highest IQ in the world, somewhere between 195 and 210. To give you an idea of what this means, the average...
RFK Jr. Appoinment Rocks the World of the Federal Health Agncies and The Big Pharma Profits!
The Appointment by Trump as Secretary of HHS has sent shockwaves through the federal government…See More
Somewhere in California.
Tom Waites and Iggy Pop meet in a midnight diner in Jim Jarmusch's 2003 film Coffee and Cigarettes.
Whatever Happened?
Whatever Happened? The unsung heroes will go about their dayRegardless of the welcome they've…See More
"cheeki kea Nice work! Thank you! "
© 2024 Created by truth.
Powered by
