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

I would like to begin by offering my sincere gratitude to Mongeese for providing me with the opportunity to argue governmental theory with him. I accept his definitions at present, but reserve the right to challenge them later should they be improperly used. I have deduced from the resolution that Pro wishes to address the value of Judicial Review, not its validity. Therefore, I will attempt to keep arguments of its legal status to a minimum. However, should he wish to argue its validity I am fully prepared to do so. I stand in firm negation to the resolution that: The United States Judicial Branch is seriously flawed due to its power of Judicial Review. In the opening round, Mongeese has offered two contentions to support this resolution. First, he contends that Judicial Review (henceforth known as ‘JR') is not a right protected by the Constitution. Second, he argues that JR gives the Judiciary too much power – a power with an unacceptable risk of abuse. I will address each issue below, and then offer an argument of my own. --------- FOUNDING INTENTIONS I will begin by questioning the validity of the sources provided by my opponent. Although his link to the Wikipedia article on Judicial Review was broken, I was able to locate it anyway. This article makes no mention of any of the arguments advanced by Pro, nor does it cite "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution." If Pro hopes to utilize the latter source, he should provide page numbers and perhaps a brief outline of the argument therein. The truth is, the primary source material is not very clear on the issue. Judicial Review is neither explicitly sanctioned, nor is it strictly prohibited within the language of the Constitution. According to James Madison's "Journal of the Federal Convention," there was some debate on the issue (giving a veto to the Judiciary). Some delegates were in favor, others were opposed. After postponing the issue several times, no compromise was decided upon.[1] So, as with many other issues, JR seems to have been left to later generations to sort out. Had they intended for JR to be illegal, they would have expressly prohibited it as did Virginia's 1776 State Constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The framers clearly intended for some body to exist to act as a check on the legislature and determine constitutionality. Madison's "Journal" shows that some wanted the judiciary to hold this sole role, others hoped to reserve this role for the executive, and still others wanted both branches to jointly hold the power of review. None spoke out in favor of leaving review to the legislature, or out of the federal government at all.[2] There is more than enough indirect language in the Constitution to support JR. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Essay No. 78, asserted that determining the constitutionality of laws was, by nature, the jurisdiction of the Judiciary: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law."[3] The Constitution was established as the supreme law of the land, as per Article VI, Clause 2. As such, no federal law may be passed that is contrary to the constitution. As Hamilton notes, this is a legal issue to be tried within a court of law. This, of course, is the jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch. TOO MUCH POWER TO THE JUDICIARY Pro's second contention is that the doctrine of JR provides too much power to the Judiciary. On theoretical grounds, he supposes that JR puts the nation at risk of Judicial abuse and arbitrary use of power, although he offers no explanation as to why this is so. I hope that by Round 2 he is able to offer some reasons. ---------- Governmental Theory CONTENTION ONE - Without Judicial Review there is not a sufficient check on the Legislature. With no body to question the validity, legality, and constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature, the latter body is beholden to no one. They would have free reign to oppress the minority, or pass any number of laws anathema to the Constitution. CONTENTION TWO - The Judiciary is in the best position to determine Constitutionality. a) This is an extension of Hamilton's argument above. Interpretation of law is the jurisdiction of the courts. b) Common sense suggests that the Legislature is an improper place to determine the validity of laws passed by itself. c) The Executive does not possess the proper powers to review laws once they have been passed. -------- 1. James Madison. Journal of the Federal Convention. Pgs 101-102; 398-405. A free version is available here: http://books.google.com.... 2. Ibid. Saturday, July 21. Pgs 398-405 3. Alexander Hamilton. Federalist No. 78. Para. 7. http://www.constitution.org...