Civil Dsobedience -vs- Civil Rights

.INTRODUCTION

The question remains the same after many decades of debates, when is violation of law

considered “civil disobedience” , and when is it just a violation of law. To answer this question

we examine the most important speeches of both, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s

(hereinafter “MLK”), “I Have A Dream Speech” at the Lincoln memorial in Washington Dc.,

and Governor George Wallace’s (hereinafter “Gov. Wallace”), “Inauguration Speech” in

Montgomery Alabama. In the process of analyzing these two contrasting speeches, we find the

very reason that a constitution exists, and has embodied within each provision thereof the

guaranteed enumerated and implicit rights that protects all citizens of this nation’s right to

freedom, justice, equality, life, liberty, in their pursuit of happiness. At the center of these

controversial speeches, we find the topics of race relations and Constitutional rights to be the

dominant issues, as Dr. King fights to have government ensure and protect the African American

citizen’s Constitutional rights to freedom and equality, while Gov. Wallace pledges to oppose

those rights based upon his belief that a constitutional provision cannot override his authority in

the state of Alabama, [see (Murphy, M., 2007), Philosophy of Law, Blackwell Publishing].

In the process of analyzing and distinguishing the legal philosophies of both speeches, we

will discuss seven (7) philosophical perspectives and determine how the principles of each

philosophy is consistent with the proper aim of law, to create societal harmony or well-being and

serve the common good.

I. POSITIVE LAW -vs- NATURAL LAW:

[A]. DISCUSSION OF RELATED ISSUES

When examining the Dr. King “I Have A Dream Speech” (hereinafter “the speech”), it is

clear to see...