a document by Morris I Leibman who is a lawyer. In this document, Civil Disobedience: Aid or Hindrance to Justice? Leibman explains why he does not agree with civil disobedience.He states, In a democratic society, any violation of the law is an uncivil act. What he is saying is that no matter what you are doing whether it is civil or not you are still breaking the law. He uses all legal principals to explain why he does not agree. The opposing side is a book Civil Disobedience: Aid or Hindrance to Justice? by Morris I. Leibman. He states In a democratic society, any violation of the law is an uncivil act Leibman is a lawyer who believes any law broken is an uncivil act. He goes by the rules, the rule of law. Leibman believes there is nothing civil about disobedience. Any law that is broken is wrong. Leibman argues, the cast majority of its adult citizens are able to influence the law by freely voting for their own representatives. He is saying because citizens have the right to vote they can give their opinion that way. They do not need to break the law and go against the majority. They should respect the decision of the American society. Assumptions Leibman made are that not everyone is going to agree with with the laws passed. There will always be problems, even with just systems. There can always be another way to go around it. He states, the just system includes multiple opportunities for peaceful change and development.He uses Article 28 and 29 from the Declaration of Independence. They say that Americans have the right to public order and the general welfare and a democratic society. There is always room for improvement he continuously states throughout his lecture. To him there is no reason at all to break the law. He wants to get rid of civil disobedience all together. If people werent civil there would always be problems. To him civil disobedience is contradicting itself. Civil and disobedience means completely opposit...
