The United States Supreme Court is a reliable source in debate regarding constitutionality.

I appreciate your candor and look forward to finding the will of the people in this matter. Social Contract Theory Again, my opponent has done nothing to prove that we are not obligated to obey and respect the Constitution. .. PROVIDED we participate in its benefits. I have free speech, freedom of religion, freedom assemble, freedom of the press, and every other freedom the Constitution affords me. Con seems to believe that these freedoms are undeniable. .. however he neglects to observe that governments all across the world deny those freedoms to people every day. Furthermore, Con is right in that the US Supreme court does not have jurisdiction in matters of individual states. Unless those issues are appealed by persons within those states beyond the state level. Con has asserted that MOST cases heard by the Supreme Court are in regards to entities of the same state. .. yet has failed to provide any proof of this statistic, and therefore failed to meet the burden of proof for submitting new evidence into the debate. Obligation to the Constitution My opponent seeks to argue that it is impossible not to enjoy the benefit of free speech. "It's impossible. " However, I would argue that my opponent would have a different perspective if he did not live in a nation that afforded such benefits. Persons in China, Afghanistan, and other oppressive regimes do not have such a freedom. My opponent attempts to defeat me by building a straw-man argument. He writes "Just because it won't kill me [. .. ] doesn't mean it can regulate me in in every other action of my life. " This is not what I am arguing at all, the fact that they cannot regulate us in every other action of our lives is actually a freedom guaranteed to us by the very Constitution he seeks to undermine. My opponent claims that he does not have the freedom to absolve the contract, and that this freedom is required for it to have his consent. He also claims that he has never given consent. This could not be a more blatantly false argument. The fact is that there are several ways to absolve oneself of this contract, should they wish to no longer participate. A) Move to Canda. "Immigrating to Canada permanently is an exciting opportunity. "[1] They are currently accepting Visa applications. They have national healthcare, much cleaner air, lower violent crime rates, and say "eh" instead of just about everything. or B) Die. I know this seems like a harsh option, but it is something that America was founded upon. The founding fathers believed they were under an unfair social contract, so they fought against it. Many of them died, but ultimately they removed themselves from the social contract they were under and forged a new social contract. I write this to you from the great state of New Hampshire where the motto is "Live Free. .. or Die. " Another great man said it this way "Give me liberty, or give me death! "[2] Our founding fathers believed that they could change the social contract, and they did. Con. .. you have given consent. You participate. You speak freely, you either go to or went to schools paid for and maintained as part of the social contract, your freedom is defended daily by military forces created by that social contract, you drive or are driven on roads that are in place because of the social contract. There are innumerable freedoms and services you take advantage of that are given to you by the government's participation in this social contract. Consent of the Governed My opponent seems to believe that he is representative of the majority of the country. You are right, I would argue that if you vote you are participating in the social contract, also. .. not voting is a luxury afforded to you by the social contract as well. FDR's case was unique by the definition of the word unique. It has never happened again in US history, making it a unique event. Beyond that, my opponent again has asserted a fact and not provided any proof or evidence for that fact. When did FDR say he would pack the courts? Prove that Congress would have supported it. Prove that the Courts succumbed because of it. That is the key to debates. .. Prove it. You can disagree with the Supreme Court's authority all you want. However, you cannot disagree with the fact that they have been given authority, by the Constitution, to make the kinds of decision you are referring to. Appeal to Legitimate Authority My opponent has done nothing to prove that the Social Contract of the Constitution is a binding social contract, except say "no it isn't. " When an Ostrich puts its head in the sand, the world does not cease to exist. .. simply saying "no it isn't" does not function any differently. The Constitution is a document we are bound to, it affords us all of the freedoms we hold so dear. To deny the authority of the Constitution is to open the flood gates for the removal of every one of those freedoms. That Constitution gives the US Supreme Court the authority to judge the Constitutionality of a Law, provided that the case is under their original jurisdiction or is appealed through the appeal process. Ergo My apologies for not being more explicit in my citation. The name of the author is listed at the very top of the source cited. .. I guess my opponent did not look at my resources. The Author was Alexander Hamilton, first US Secretary of the Treasury. My opponent also claims that MOST cases are outside their jurisdiction and cites several so-called "Landmark cases. " To respond and bring clarity. Roe vs. Wade was within their jurisdiction. It started in Dallas, TX as a lawsuit against the state. The state held that it was correct, and Roe appealed it up to the US Supreme Court. Miranda vs. Arizona was also started in a State, and appealed. Tinker vs. Des Moines. .. also in a state and appealed. Article III, which has been cited so many times, states that the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases involving more than one state, with ambassadors and consules, in maritime issues, and also in cases which are appealed. This is pretty clear, all of these cases have been within their jurisdiction as they were appeal cases. Again, my opponent makes a statement without proving it. .. and in attempting to prove it, makes false statements. To conclude. .. this seems like a pretty clear case. My opponent has failed to show that the US Supreme Court is not a legitimate authority in cases that fall within their Jurisdiction. If they are indeed a legitimate authority, as I have shown them to be, then we can appeal to their authority as evidence in debate. Thank you again for the rigorous debate, and thank you to the readers for their participation as well. I urge you to vote Pro in this debate. [1]Citizen and Immigration Canada - . http://www.cic.gc.ca... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...!