The United States judicial system is seriously flawed because of our current Judicial Review.

Thank you for the quick response, Mongeese. It would seem that this round will necessarily be a short one for two reasons. Pro has conceded the resolution on more than one occasion and Pro has failed to provide a case for his position. I will show Pro's concessions then briefly respond to his rebuttals. Since he has agreed to all points of my case, it extends to the final round unchallenged. ========= PRO CONCEDES THE RESOLUTION Pro has rebutted his own resolution, thus negating it. The following are his relevant statements: "Alright, so the concept of judicial review is good, but where it is now, it is dangerous." "Judicial review is good, but giving all of its power to the majority power is dangerous." "Yes [the judiciary is in the best position to interpret constitutionality], but I disagree with how the court is set up to perform Judicial Review." Pro concedes that Judicial Review is a positive attribute. Rather than stopping there, he goes on to agree that Constitutional Review is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that said court is the best equipped to determine constitutionality. These statements directly contradict the resolution that Judicial Review is a flaw of the U.S. Supreme Court. ========= Pro Claims: 1. "Marshall's use of judicial review was actually unconstitutional, and he had increased the power of the Supreme Court by introducing judicial review to extend its jurisdiction far beyond its intentions." 2. The current use of Judicial Review is dangerous. 3. The Supreme Court has the power to "Automatically abolish any law they want by interpreting the Constitution in any way they please." Rebuttals: 1. Pro is going to have to offer more than a vague secondary source to prove that Marshall's opinion was unconstitutional and that it stretched the Supreme Court's power beyond its intention. Merely citing a secondary source will not be sufficient in this instance. If he wishes to use the Politically Incorrect Guide as an outline for his argument, he show demonstrate the key points made that support the sources claims. I have already shown Judicial Review to fall within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. Pro has not offered a single rebuttal to this contention. To prove the Politically Incorrect Guide's case, Pro will need to prove that Judicial Review is, in fact, Constitutional. May I suggest Madison's "Journal" as a starting point for searching for evidence. Should he choose to use the PIG as an outline for his argument, I reserve the right to challenge its validity in the Final Round of debate. 2. The term 'dangerous' is subject for debate. Pro is going to need to both define his meaning of dangerous, and demonstrate how Judicial Review in its current form is dangerous. 3. This is anything but the truth. The Supreme Court does not have complete and arbitrary power over all laws passed by the Legislature. The court does not hold the power to strike down any law, except those contrary to the Constitution. They must demonstrate the unconstitutionality of a law before they can render it void. If they fail in this endeavor they are impeachable by the U.S. Senate. Furthermore, the Legislature and Executive have the ability (in some cases) to render a law unreviewable. This phenomenon is known as "Judicial Stripping." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...) ======== CONCLUSION Pro has failed to offer an argument in favor of his resolution, instead contenting himself with merely rebutting a few of my points. He has failed to provide sufficient sources for the few claims he has made. He has conceded that Constitutional Review falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that it is a positive attribute. In the final round of debate I urge my opponent to present a full argument in defense of his resolution. My argument extends.