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

It was quite intellectually stimulating. ==Negative Contention: The issue lies in the flaws of interpretation and a lack of accountability== My opponent's contenions have been adequately refuted, as will be further seen below. My opponent, on the other hand, has failed to adequately refute my arguments. He says things like, 'the people don't decide what is best for themselves,' and 'the original intent doesn't matter,' but I contest that the people *are* the ones that know what is best for themselves, and the original intent of the Constitution is crucial if we are to uphold it. My opponent claims that the USFG is unlimited because of flaws of the Constitution. I simply pointed out that if all of the said so-called "flaws" were fixed in my opponent's opinion, the government would still find some way around them–that is inevitable. The way to stop the government from being unlimited is through respect for the people's wishes–accountability–and those people to hold the government to interpret the Constitution correctly; aka, original intent. ==Elastic Clause== As I said in my first speech relating to this matter, the issue is a flaw in the interpretation, not the Constitution. My opponent even said: the original intent of the Elastic Clause was to allow congress the power to make laws that fulfilled the enumerated powers listed before. " Note, he didn't say "all powers" but only specific ones–aka, the original intent that my opponent says "doesn't matter. " ==Wartime Exceptions== Incorrect. Hitler thought he was doing what was best for the people, but that didn't change the fact that he committed genocide. As mentioned previously, thinking you are doing something and actually doing it are two completely different things that my opponent has gotten confused. And yes, the analogy is theoretical because, while drafts have been used, they haven't been done in the consent of the majority of the people. And, as also talked about before, the government still has to protect the rights of the individual. The issue of habeas corpus is really a non-issue, but I'll clarify this argument anyways. As can be seen easily in the wording, "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it," and thus the USFG can't suspend habeas corpus whenever they want. My opponent then said "This has been interpretted to mean that anyone opposing the government in war time can be arrested. " Once again, my opponent is not addressing the issue of his own claim–he says the Constitution is flawed, but yet all his examples talk about wrong interpretation. ==General Welfare== Actually, it's common knowledge that a definition of the term "general welfare" is essentially, "the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. " If the action doesn't benefit the majority, then it's not general welfare–and who but the people themselves know if it benefits the people? People decide what is best for themselves, not a government that is set up to protect those people. ==The Supreme Court== Upon examining the Constitution itself, we see that Article 3 Section 2 actually does allow Congress to regulate the supreme court: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. " It doesn't mean that Congress can only limit judicial activity, but that the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction *with exceptions and regulations that Congress shall make. * The truth is quite evident in the text. ==Conclusion== –The USFG does not have unlimited power due to the Elastic Clause, but rather unlimited power because of wrong interpretation as my opponent put it, and a lack of accountability from the people, and is thus limited by the Constitution. The resolution is affirmed. –The USFG can only suspend habeas corpus in an invasion or rebellion that could harm the public, and is thus limited by the Constitution. The resolution is affirmed. –The USFG can not do whatever it wants because general welfare is in the eye of the beholder (people), not the bestower (government), and is thus limited by the Constitution. The resolution is affirmed. –The Supreme Court does not have unlimited power; the Congress can determine what the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over. The resolution is affirmed. –The issue of popular sovereignty, accountability, and flaws of interpretation have not been adequately refuted by my opponent and thus still stand. The resolution is affirmed. It is flaws of interpretation, lack of accountability, not flaws of the Constitution, that allow the government unprecedented authority. Thank you.