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

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 source outlined the history of Judicial Review. The rest was more about the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I apologize for the broken link. About the PIG, the fact was one of the random tidbits on the back cover. http://books.google.com... Scroll all the way down. "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." According to the PIG, page 78, 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. "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]" Alright, so the concept of judicial review is good, but where it is now, it is dangerous. "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." I said that whatever party controls the Senate and the President at the time of a death/retirement, which allows that party to have a stronger influence over its own cases, and therefore, even if the majority of people had left a politically party long ago, the once-majority, now-minority party would still have the power to automatically abolish any law they want by interpreting the Constitution in any way they please. "CONTENTION ONE - Without Judicial Review there is not a sufficient check on the Legislature." Judicial review is good, but giving all of its power to the majority power is dangerous. Making it only nine people, and making them not really representing the people all of the time, makes it worse. "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." The Supreme Court simply mirrors this problem by being compiled of people chosen by the President and the Senate. "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." Yes, but I disagree with how the court is set up to perform Judicial Review. So, I hope I explained myself well enough here. Thank you for a quick response.