The Constitution is flawed...(full resolution below)

Totally understandable. I'll start by addressing the arguments against my contention, and then covering the flaws of my opponent's contentions. How can flaws of interpretation be the fault of the Constitution? My opponent ignores the fact that it is possible for us to know–based on other documents the Founding Fathers wrote, things they said, etc–what the original intent of the Constitution is. For clarification, this quote of John Adams was not from the Constitution, merely a quote showing the mindset of one–and many–of the Founding Fathers. While man does have inherent flaws in his nature, it is still possible to strive for excellence. Do we not say, "let us strive to be as good as we can possibly be" ? While perfection is certainly not attainable, and I am not advocating achievement of it, it is possible to strive for the highest good–more specifically, that outlined in the Constitution. Government's prime role ought to be to respect the individual rights of all humans, and to abide by popular sovereignty. My opponent says there is "no lack of accountability," but yet he says in the same sentence that "the accountability system doesn't work," as "it trusts all the Judicial Power to the Supreme Court." The Constitution was designed so that people would have ultimate control. Whether man abuses and twists the original intent of the Constitution are not flaws of the document itself, rather, as my opponent put it, "flaws of man." ==Contention 1 Refutation== While this may be the case (although not *everything* is linked to interstate commerce), the Constitution was designed so that *the people* would be able to decide and rule the government. "For the people, by the people." If the government attempts to alter the meaning of the Constitution, it is then up to the people to overthrow or reform the flawed government. ==Contention 2 Refutation== Who determines public safety? The people; once again, my concept of popular sovereignty. Take the analogy of the restaurant: if you visit a restaurant, who best knows what you want to eat–you, or the waiter? Likewise, the *people* not the government decide what is best for themselves. The Constitution was *designed* to promote this concept, but the government has twisted and misinterpreted the original intent. ==Contention 3 Refutation== The same logic used above applies here. The people, not the government, decide what is best for themselves, despite what the government does. The government is not acting in the interests of the people with the healthcare bill because the majority of people oppose it. This is an illegitimate action. ==Contention 4 Refutation== People hold the power, and people keep the government accountable–so is the argument of the Constitution. The Constitution was designed for a people that seek to uphold it's values. If you seek to destroy is or usurp it's power–and thus the power of the people–any government will likely succeed at doing so. Man has a way of twisting things to their own mindset. Conclusion The Constitution was written with a direct purpose in mind–individual rights and popular sovereignty–and when the government becomes corrupt, it is up to the people to alter or abolish it. The Constitution is not flawed, rather, the government's interpretations and actions are. The resolution is negated.