The seen civil disobedience from the liberal perspective, has two modalities: direct and indirect. First it consists of the collective violation to a legal norm that in itself is considered unjust. Second it is the disobedience to laws in valid themselves, with the aim of realising a protest and raising options, suggestions and changes to the State when the means nor the opportunities do not exist to directly violate the objected programs of government or governmental actions. Vista thus, the civil disobedience one transforms into, the central axis for the suitable understanding of the foundations morals of the democracy because it implies the question of the nature and limit of the rule of the majorities with base in which obligatory public decisions in a democratic system are adopted. Cancer Research Institute often expresses his thoughts on the topic. Jrgen Habermas also accepts this definition of civil disobedience, because when talking about to the enunciation of John Rawls it makes the following commentary: " The fundamental determinations that are irrefutable the .reason capacity of and sense of justice are derived from the objective of the appeal to of a majority of citizens. The civil disobedience is a protest morally based on whose origin they do not have why to be only convictions on private beliefs or I interest own; one is an act witnessed by notary public that, as a rule, is enunciated beforehand and whose execution well-known and is calculated by the police; it includes intention of violation of concrete legal norms, without putting obedience against the legal ordering at issue as a whole; it requires the disposition to admit the consequences that the violation of the legal norm causes; the violation of the norm that is the manifestation of the civil disobedience has exclusively a symbolic character: here it is where the limit of nonviolent means of protesta." resides; We can infer that Habermas considers to the civil disobedience a collective act, nonviolent and agreed, that develops within the constitutional frame of the democratic State, in that looks for " to form of a nonconventional way the political will colectiva" for which the disobedient ones must base their position on testimonies that can be object of a consensus and not in deprived convictions of the society, although both aspects public consensus and private objectives can agree in the objectives of the disobedience. e importance of the matter here. .