Lessons in Civil Disobedience

Americans assert that three branches of government exist at the national level; however, I contend the most powerful branch of government, the unrecognized fourth branch, overrides the combined influence of congress, the courts, and the president. Civil disobedience, the fourth branch of government, is an integral part of the law creation process in the United States. Recently we have witnessed an increased frequency of civil disobedience, and it is crucial that citizens understand what it entails and how they can use it responsibly. When is civil disobedience the right course to follow in order to change laws? Bree Newsome’s act of civil disobedience flawlessly demonstrates the correct etiquette and action of civil disobedience.

Throughout history protesters have said that civil disobience is the peaceful resistance of conscience. Civil disobedience was once the route to the democratic ways of our founding fathers of the United States of America. Van Dusen views civil disobedience as a physical attack to our democracy. I believe civil disobience is a negative force in our democracy that may lead to the destruction of our government because laws are disobeyed, causing new laws to come to order that follow the protester’s actions. I too have completed acts of civil disobedience, and I think my actions contribute to the negative force in a democracy. Civil disobedience began as a revolution for many rebels but eventually allowed ordinary citizens to damage the government

What is civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the opposing of a law one finds unjust by refusing to follow it and accepting the consequences. So many people have performed acts of civil disobedience from Martin Luther King Jr. to everyday people. But what people did as civil disobedience a hundred years ago is completely different today. It is such an important part of a free society because it helps to define what a free society is, shows the true meaning of freedom of speech, and shows the government that citizens are not willing to follow an unjust law without violence.

Civil Disobedience is classified as the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. This idea was brought into focus in the essay “Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience)” by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau’s opinion on the subject was that the government was involved in everyone’s business, trying to make the country better yet they had the opposite effect. His opinion was that there is a need to prioritize one’s conscious over the dictates of law. Though there are many things that Thoreau touches on, the three main issues that he discussed were The Mexican war, slavery, and the taxes that he was protesting against.

While growing up, our parents taught us what was right and what was wrong based on their beliefs and views. When we were younger, we were taught to follow and obey those who were older than us and possessed a higher authoritative status. One’s reasoning for being obedient includes: religious beliefs, background, and work ethics. Civil disobedience played a large role in America. Creating protests, riots, and sit-ins, America had many examples of disobedience. In America, we value our rights as citizens and individuals. We have the right to protest as stated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which is called Freedom of Speech. According to the Webster Dictionary, civil disobedience is said to be “the refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.” Citizens are willing to accept the legal consequences associated with their disobedient actions. How does the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Fining and jail time are the legal consequences enforced by authority but also there is a trend of change. I believe civil disobedience is justified simply by your own personal beliefs and the rights you attain as a citizen. The law is the law, if you disobey; the authoritative figure is responsible for giving a consequence.

America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.

How does the social responsibility of intellectuals to demonstrate civil disobedience differ from Lincoln and MLK’s time and today as demonstrated by Black lives matter and Antifa

I have read Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience and the obligation that your conscience mind follows and in reading this it states that people should not let the governments overrule or atrophy their consciences and that we as people are obligated to not allow the government to make them agents of any type of injustice. (Thoreau, 1849)

“The concept of righteous civil disobedience is incompatible with the concept of the American legal system.”

I believe that peaceful resistance to laws both positively and negatively impacts a free society. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws and government demands one considers unjust, and accepting the consequences. The first amendment prohibits Congress to enact any law that would intervene with any person's civil rights. Though everybody knows this, why are there discussions about what people can and cannot refuse to do. Some people refuse to do things because it goes against their faith, which as stated earlier is allowed according to the first amendment. While others refuse to see what is right in front of them, in the very center of the Declaration of Independence.

"Civil Disobedience" is one of Henry David Thoreau's most famous essays. One of the major problems most critics see with this essay deals with Thoreau's seemingly contradictory statements about society from the beginning to the end. Barry Wood, a well-known critical writer, attributes this change in beliefs to the enlightenment of Thoreau in jail. While I agree with Wood that Thoreau does achieve a form of enlightenment, I will show that Thoreau's views regarding the society he lived in never actually changed throughout the essay: the only aspect of the essay that changed was Thoreau's means of attacking his society. Thoreau uses his enlightened state to shift from an overt, blatant form of attack to a more subtle, psychological one.

The United States Constitution grants citizens the right to peacefully protest and petition the government; however, some people believe that civil disobedience should be expunged from the list of rights people have. I believe this would go against the notion of the United States being the "home of the free", freedom is only freedom when there are no restrictions. Yes, civil disobedience does case complications between the people and the government, but wasn't the government made " for the people, but the people"? Do they not have the right to live under laws they approve of?

The history of African-Americans has come a long way through the years. They were first imported as slaves as property to do hard labor for their owners. With no freedom, they were forced to obey orders until a revolution appeared. It took a civil war to finally free blacks and to give them the right to be citizens of the country. It was then that the chains of slavery were finally broken, but the chain of discrimination still existed. Under racial segregation, colored people were not allowed to share public facilities and activities with white people. The Civil Rights Movement was then established with its goal to clear any segregation and discrimination against African Americans. In today’s society, discrimination has been banned, but a degree of segregation still exists in our community such as schools. Segregation has not yet ending. The civil disobedience of African-Americans can be examined be looking at its origin, the consequences they had to overcome, and the outcome after their fight to be equal.

I don't think anyone should resist the laws, wether it's peaceful or not. If you feel like you should resist then peacefully would be best. I don't think it would be a positive effect or negative effect. I think it would be more positive if you did it peacefully, if you didn't do it peacefully that's where it will become a negative impact. I think everyone has a right of freedom of speech and that they have to right to voice their opinion. At the same time there is a way to go about that. Having an attitude or being angry and resisting in an outrageous way is negative and the situation will just escalate. Many people don't think about both sides of the field. Many people only defend or see one side. "Most of the critics of civil disobedience, although they may not have expressed definitive

Civil disobedience, while sometimes necessary to push the envelope sealed by the majority within our civilization, primarily breeds negative impacts in a free society. Although nonviolent resistance in the face of unjust regulations has prevailed in the past, inimical baggage always accompanies the attainments.