Civil Disobedience

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles.

Civil Disobedience

Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau was uninterested in belonging to a state which misrepresented his beliefs and demonstrated disregard for human life and rights. In his discourse he specifically referred to his home state of Massachusetts. Thoreau writes about his night spent in jail after refusing to pay his poll-tax. He mentions that he refuses to pay this tax because he finds the service useless. He is willing and happily pays his highway taxes and helps support education because these services are necessary for the good of his neighbors. Thoreau believes voting is useless unless accompanied by action that demonstrates support for your vote. Voting creates a false illusion that you are taking action when in reality it is comparable to sitting back and doing nothing. In a nation where the majority rules, often times many will suffer unnecessarily before the majority realizes that change is necessary. Thoreau believes this flaw in the government and the way it is ran, slows down and often prevents progress from occurring. He acknowledges that often times the majorities opinion is not the right one. This led him to refuse to pay certain taxes because he believes it is wrong to blindly align oneself to government and support a government that is doing more harm than good simply to follow the majority and norms.

Thoreau accepted his time in jail with pride because his choice to stand up for what is right is what landed him there. He was an innocent man imprisoned for going against a flawed government and that he was proud of. As a prisoner he was viewed himself as freer than most of his neighbors because he made use of his conscious rather than allow a government to tell him right from wrong. Thoreau believes change is a result of disobedience. He preferred to live imprisoned and in constant clash with the government if it was a result of him standing up for human life and their rights. Thoreau urged others to follow his example and free themselves from a government that based decisions on what the majority believed rather than what is fair and right. Thoreau's argument remains relevant in present day. Often times we choose to abide by rule that are unfair because it is easier than taking action against the government and cultural norms. We should use all available resources to create progress where necessary in a peaceful manner even though often times that means facing a lot of opposition. This is necessary because our government is flawed and so are many of our policies.

Defiance: A Necessity

"Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the Constitution of the United States"

The Seventh of March Speech

The congressman discusses the difference of opinion entertained between the northern and southern states. He is specifically referring to slavery and the issues that surfaced nationwide because of this controversial topic.  Even as a Northern man the congressman clearly favored the existence of slavery. It is clear that he opposed any progression that would go against the word of the constitution.  The congressman writes this line when referring to the obligation stated within the constitution that any slave that escapes to the North shall be returned to his/her rightful owner. The congressman is angry that many members of the northern states are not fulfilling this obligation. This is one of the major conflicts among the southern and northern states that has prompted some to consider peaceful secession. Such talk of secession was occurring because there was much disagreement as to the morality of slavery.Considering the congressmen's obvious tone of support he uses when referring to slavery, it is no surprise that he is against northern men opting to ignore this part of the Constitution.

The congressmen portrays himself as fully devoted to the Constitution and the country. He, like many others who oppose progress, fail to realize that while the constitution was invaluable because it united all the states to form the United States, to blindly follow a document does not permit one to realize the flaws. Such defiance of the constitution was necessary to pave way for the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He thought foolish those who opposed the constitution even though variety of opinion is necessary for improvement and progression. It is now clear to us that this progression was in fact the best alternative. I believe many in present day society can learn from this congressman's error. Often times completely devoting oneself without question, allows for unfair policies, ideals, and policies to remain in place while there being a better alternative. 

Terminating a Monopoly

“This failure mean that Congress has a veto on all amendments and therefore no amendment that Congress opposes, including necessary reforms of Congress' power, can be enacted.”

 “End the Monopoly on Amendments”

Michael Rappaport

Currently the constitution provides us with two methods for constitutional amendment. The first and most used method requires that two-thirds of each house of Congress propose the amendment. The amendment is then sent to the states for ratification. The second and unused method for amending the constitution requires that two-thirds of congress call for a constitutional convention, during which an amendment would be proposed.

Congress enjoys full control of which constitutional amendments are proposed because of the current system. Congress holds all veto power as they will not propose an amendment they oppose, regardless of how necessary the amendment may be. For example, they are not likely not pass a term limit amendment, or any amendment that would constrain their power for that matter, even though such amendments have gained a lot of support in the last several decades.

Such amendments might have been enacted if there were an alternative method for amending the constitution. The author proposes the best solution is to grant state legislators the authority to propose a specific amendment. When considering this prevailing and dangerous control Congress holds over constitutional amendment, I am left wondering how many necessary amendments have been pushed aside because of personal interest held by the members of Congress.

Also, when considering that the second method has not been used because many fear that it would lead to a runway convention, I am left with the thought that maybe this is actually necessary for progress. Some fear that a convention with the original purpose of drafting a budget amendment for example, would create a platform for discussing issues such as same-sex marriage or gender equality. If this is the cases, such conventions should occur so that controversial but necessary amendments, such as the Equal Right Amendment, could be enacted. The author and myself, believe it is crucial to terminate this control Congress has over constitutional amendments by changing the way the way the constitution is amended.