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

Thank you Con for such a well formulated argument. I appreciate the fact that you have clearly avoided any logical fallacies and have done your work to keep this a clean and upstanding debate. Kudos! Response = Social Contract Theory My opponent claims that this is just a theory, or a theoretical and philosophical opinion. However, all of our laws are based on the exercise of this ethical framework. What binds us to a law other than our agreement to either A) Obey it because of our duty as participants in the society that created it or B) fear of retribution based on the penalties for the violation that are agreed upon by the society that created it. To say that social contract theory is simply a theory and does not exist is to deny the fact that every US Citizen is currently participating in the contract of the constitution. Without acknowledging the Constitution as a social contract, it is simply a piece of paper with words on it. The very fact that we are bound by it proves that this is more than a theory, and applies to real life. Beyond that, even if you go by the aspect of the definition that CON has posted, the contract has placed all Judicial Authority in the United States of America under the authority of that Supreme Court. Article III, section 1 of the US Constitution states "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." [1] In fact, the Supreme Court is the only court that is actually mandated by the Constitution... and that very contract vests the judicial power into that court. We can argue about if they do their job correctly, but we cannot argue that they do not have authority over the constitution. Furthermore section 2 of Article III gives this Supreme Court Jurisdiction over "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." [1] To say that the Constitution does not grant them authority, is to ignore section III. Response = Obligation to the Constitution Our obligation does not mean that we are obligated to the branches that carry out the actions only. Our obligation is to the contract that creates those various powers. Do you exercise freedom of religion, speech, the press, or other freedoms allotted in the Constitution? Obviously you do, this very debate proves that you have the freedom to dissent. You are obligated to respect all articles of the US Constitution due to the fact that you participate in the benefits. This includes Article III which creates, and gives authority to the US Supreme Court as I have mentioned above. As a matter of side note, and fact clarity. The oath that Supreme Court Justices swear does not bind them to uphold the Constitution. The Oath they swear is ""I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." [2] It is implied that they will, but they do not formally swear to do so. Beyond that, them not upholding their portion of the social contract does not absolve your obligation to do so. If you speed, you are not upholding your portion of the contract, yet I am not free of my obligation not to steal your things or hurt you. Response = Consent of the Governed The fact that consent is indirect, does not mean it is not consent. Our laws and constitution are set up in such a way where we give the President and Congress the authority to decide for us. If those representatives are not fulfilling their duties, we have the power to remove them. If they are not picking judges who are fulfilling their obligations, we should impeach both the members of Executive and Legislative branches, as well as the Judicial Branch members. However, simply not acknowledging their authority is not an option to those participating in the benefits of the social contract. FDR's case was unique, and his threat was rather hollow. The President does not have the authority to add to the number of Supreme Court Justices, that power lies with the Congress. Also, the President would need to have his appointments confirmed by Congress. If "the people" were disatisfied with FDR's behavior, or the behavior of Congress if they succumbed and increased the number of justices... they have two options. No longer participate in the benefits of the social contract (and therefore remove their obligation to it), or use the power afforded to them by that social contract to remove said people from office. Beyond that, we have given our consent to be governed, if someone abuses that consent... they still have consent. Response = Appeal to Legitimate Authority My opponent believes he has proven that the Authority of the Supreme Court is invalid, and therefore the appeal to authority that he is challenging becomes a logical fallacy. However, as I have outlined above, the fact that they are inept at their jobs does not remove our obligation to the CONSTITUTION. That Constitution affords them the authority, so unless my opponent can prove that our obligation to the Constitution is nullified, we must still respect the authority that it affords to the Supreme Court, both in debate and in practice. Ergo I will afford my opponent one thing. The Constitution itself does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of Judicial Review, which is the process we are talking about. However, one of our Founding Fathers and the 1st Secretary of Treasury believed that this power should be vested in the Judicial Branch. He writes in The Federalist Papers: Number 78 "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. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."[3] The constitution affords the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction in cases of Ambassadors and Maritime Trials, as well as in cases where a state is a party [1] and appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. In order to prove that a given court decision was not constitutional he would have to prove that the case either A) Did not fall under their original jurisdiction or B) did not follow the process of appeals if not under original jurisdiction. If a decision was cited in a debate that was heard by the Supreme Court under their original jurisdiction or follow the chain of appeals... THAT particular citation would be an appeal to false authority (and the debater would need to do their work to prove that in the given debate). However, if the case did fall under their original jurisdiction or followed the process of appeals... the Supreme Court is a legitimate authority on that case. Conclusion To conclude, My opponent has failed to prove that we are not obligated to obey the social contract of the Constitution, nor has he proven that the Supreme Court is not a legitimate authority in Legal Cases, UNLESS they do not fall under their original jurisdiction or follow the process of appeals. Until he can prove either of those points, I urge you to follow logic and vote Pro in this debate. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://uspolitics.about.com... [3]http://avalon.law.yale.edu...