First let's talk about this framework. The value is Gov Legit and the value is respecting where power comes from(?). However the Kant quote makes me think that this case more going for a freedom angle and trying to make the neg look like a despotic ruler. Why is Gov Legit a value? There a so many ways a government could be legitimate that to label it as a goal is incredibly nebulous. Its not like justice or liberty which are invariable and universal, gov legit varies from government to government. I guess you could go for the fulfilling contractual obligations angle instead. The value criterion is just god awful, because the Kant quote basically makes puts the aff in the position of being against anything that restricts liberty in order to achieve certain morals and virtues. However this position puts the aff in direct opposition to legal drinking and smoking ages, libel and slander laws, compulsory education, drug prohibitions, and a whole slew of other things the government forces you to do not to protect others freedom, but to 'force it's conception of happiness' upon you. And so his values criterion is obviously not how the US gains its legitimacy, and we are specifically talking about the us, this means that his value criterion epically fails in how extreme it is and could never possibly fullfill the value.