3 ms·

And yet, nobody's ever seen change without breaking the law...

ethbro 9y ago
Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.
- bitJericho 9y ago
  Almost all involving civil disobedience
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Some. Brown v Board was initiated as a lawsuit against government. And many of those that were started as a result of civil disobedience then pursued legal means to resolve the dispute. My point being that one of the great features of our government is that there are methods of changing things that do not involve breaking the law. One of the most effective efforts for Civil Rights as a whole in the 1960s was increasing minority turnout to the ballots, as suddenly their interests had to be taken into account by those wishing to be elected.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. All of them involved someone breaking the law on the books, and either being held accountable (e.g., Duke Power)—which I'm not sure is actual progress, though the passage of the law, which, in these examples, was usually a result of civil disobedience, might be—or having the law invalidated after the fact (e.g., Roe). So I'm not sure how that supports progress without lawbreaking.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    See my reply below, and I'll concede that some of the cases may have been provoked by breaking the law. But I still feel like there's a big difference between: A) Breaking the law and then appealing to the judicial or legislative or executive for redress B) Repeatedly breaking the law in pursuit of justice because it's inconvenient The latter furthers dissolving the rule of law. The former supports it in an odd sort of way.

Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.

bitJericho 9y ago
Almost all involving civil disobedience
- ethbro 9y ago
  Some. Brown v Board was initiated as a lawsuit against government. And many of those that were started as a result of civil disobedience then pursued legal means to resolve the dispute. My point being that one of the great features of our government is that there are methods of changing things that do not involve breaking the law. One of the most effective efforts for Civil Rights as a whole in the 1960s was increasing minority turnout to the ballots, as suddenly their interests had to be taken into account by those wishing to be elected.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. All of them involved someone breaking the law on the books, and either being held accountable (e.g., Duke Power)—which I'm not sure is actual progress, though the passage of the law, which, in these examples, was usually a result of civil disobedience, might be—or having the law invalidated after the fact (e.g., Roe). So I'm not sure how that supports progress without lawbreaking.
- ethbro 9y ago
  See my reply below, and I'll concede that some of the cases may have been provoked by breaking the law. But I still feel like there's a big difference between: A) Breaking the law and then appealing to the judicial or legislative or executive for redress B) Repeatedly breaking the law in pursuit of justice because it's inconvenient The latter furthers dissolving the rule of law. The former supports it in an odd sort of way.