“A righteous law is a man-made code that conforms to the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that does not conform to the moral law,” King replied. “You have not only a legal but also a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. And he concluded by referring to St. Augustine`s teaching that “an unjust law is not a law at all.” “A Lawyer Looks at Civil Disobedience” reflects King`s success in convincing, at least in part, Powell that the Jim Crow regime was morally rotten and that rot was deeply within the bar ranks. Powell, however, draws the line on thoughts and behaviors that reject important principles of a legal regime that was imperfect for him but essentially good. Powell never questions U.S. capability. He argues that “due process and the democratic process, while sometimes painfully slow, are a far more reliable and certainly less dangerous way to correct injustice and solve social problems” than to comply with ad hoc demands backed by threats of civil disobedience. Finally, King insists on distinguishing his disobedience to the law from that of his opponents: “I do not advocate in any way circumventing or opposing the law as the fanatical segregationist would. That would lead to anarchy. Those who break an unjust law must do so openly, with love, and with a willingness to accept punishment.
“You have not only a legal but also a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility not to obey unjust laws. Clearly, DOMA and the states that passed their own DOMA laws were “fair” according to Dr. King`s reasoning. Nothing in Scripture, Holy Tradition and Natural Law would authorize same-sex marriage. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which form the basis of our government, have been heavily influenced by biblical religion. As Joseph Bottum writes in his book An Anxiety Age, “The religion of the West has given the West the belief in a God distinct and above every man, social structure, or nation. This has given us an understanding of the obligations to this God that are also different and beyond the obligations to society and the state.
“If injustice is part of the necessary frictions of the government machine, let it go, let it go: maybe it will wear out smoothly – certainly the machine will wear out. But if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to others, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I must do, in any case, is be careful not to accept the injustice that I condemn. ” – Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience King states that his commandments showed respect for an acceptable right that was well understood: a person “who breaks a law that conscience says is unjust, and who willingly accepts the sentence of imprisonment, Awakening the conscience of the community about its injustice actually expresses the greatest respect for the law. Lewis F. Powell, Jr., president of the American Bar Association in 1964-65, made a constant contribution to this critical camp. In a lecture at Washington and Lee University School of Law in April 1966, Powell confronted what he called the “heresy” of civil disobedience, the idea that “some laws are `just` and others are `unjust`; that everyone can determine for himself, according to his own conscience, which laws are “unjust”; that everyone is free to violate `unjust` laws – as long as they do so peacefully. More importantly, King challenges the premise that “frustrations” and “discontent” are necessarily bad, and that “extremism” is a vice. He insists that the social unrest that so troubled the eight clergy should have been seen as a sign of hope – that long-oppressed blacks were questioning their subordinate status. “The present tension in the South,” King asserts, “is a necessary phase of transition from a repugnant negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust fate, to a substantial and positive peace in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality.” Many observers have echoed these beliefs. One of them was Morris I.
Leibman, a prominent figure in the Chicago Bar Association who, as chairman of the American Bar Association`s Standing Committee on Education Against Communism, gave a speech entitled “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Legal Society” in 1964. Concerned about communist exploitation of racial conflict, Leibman insisted that “never in the history of mankind have so many people lived so freely, legally, so humanely.” Our “imperfections,” he said, “do not justify demolishing the structures that have allowed us to move forward.” Leibman questioned two battle cries he associated with the black liberation movement, condemning “freedom now” and “just civil disobedience.” The first is a dangerous deception: “The cry for immediacy is the cry for impossibility. It is a cry without memory or perspective. Immediacy is impossible in a partnership of persons. What is possible is to patiently continue to build the structures that allow the development of a better justice. I have almost come to the unfortunate conclusion that the great stumbling block of the Negro on his path to freedom is not the white civic council or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more committed to “order” than justice. who constantly says, “I agree with you for the purpose you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.” who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more favorable season.” Among the commentaries that most dramatically frame the tension between law and justice are Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.`s “Letter from Birmingham Prison” (1963), one of the most famous writings of the Second Reconstruction, and subsequent criticisms from jurists, including future Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell.
Jr. “A Lawyer Looks at Civil Disobedience” (1966). “There are unjust laws; Should we just obey them, or should we strive to change and obey them until we succeed, or will we transgress them immediately? Men generally think that under such a government they should wait until they have convinced the majority to change it. They think that if they resist, the cure would be worse than the disease. But it is the fault of the government itself that the cure is worse than the disease. It only makes things worse. Why is it not more inclined to anticipate and consider reforms? Why does she not appreciate her wise minority? Why does he cry and defend himself before he gets hurt? Why doesn`t it encourage its citizens to be vigilant in pointing out their mistakes and doing better than it would like? Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience First, King denies his allegation that he is an intruder, pointing out that his Southern Christian Leadership Conference had a branch in Birmingham and that in fact the head of that branch, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, had invited King to the city. More fundamentally, however, King challenges the initiate-stranger dichotomy. “I am in Birmingham,” King wrote, because “injustice is here” and “injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Powell accuses King of offering few things in his letter that distinguish “good” from “bad” law, except subjective preferences. Following Judge Hugo Black, Powell argued that it would be better for the country and black America if racial justice activists left their demands to democratically sanctioned trials rather than ad hoc dramatization in the streets. Following Judge Black, Powell warned that the propensity to act at will, regardless of the law, would be greatly increased by applause for appeals to sources above legality.
On the second point, King actually agreed with the Birmingham pastors that negotiation, not protest, is the preferred method of remedying injustice. But, he said, if one side refuses to come to the table, negotiations are not possible without a catalyst. “The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so grave that it will inevitably open the door to negotiations,” King wrote. Despite King`s efforts, however, he was unable to achieve what dozens of philosophers and theologians failed to do – create a consensus metric that can distinguish moral laws from immoral laws in a vast, diverse, and polarized society. King could not escape the reality that his distinction between just and unjust laws was inevitably challenged. Powell was right to note the danger posed by King`s certainty: Governor Ross Barnett, a devout Christian segregationist, was also filled with certainty. “Well, what`s the difference between the two? How do you determine whether a law is just or unjust? A righteous law is a man-made code that is compatible with God`s moral law or law. An unjust law is a code that does not conform to the moral law.
In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.