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

Thank you for such a solid argument. "PRO CONCEDES THE RESOLUTION" There is a difference between the concept of judicial review (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and how we allow the courts to use judicial review today (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I am arguing that we are currently going about judicial review in a dangerous and flawed way. "1. Pro is going to have to offer more than a vague secondary source to prove that Marshall's opinion was unconstitutional and that it stretched the Supreme Court's power beyond its intention. Merely citing a secondary source will not be sufficient in this instance. If he wishes to use the Politically Incorrect Guide as an outline for his argument, he show demonstrate the key points made that support the sources claims." http://en.wikipedia.org... "The Act set the number of Supreme Court justices at six: one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Supreme Court was given exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil actions between states, or between a state and the United States, as well as over all suits and proceedings brought against ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction over all other cases in which a state was a party and any cases brought by an ambassador. The Court was given appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the federal circuit courts as well as decisions by state courts holding invalid any statute or treaty of the United States; or holding valid any state law or practice that was challenged as being inconsistent with the federal constitution, treaties, or laws; or rejecting any claim made by a party under a provision of the federal constitution, treaties, or laws." This Act gave the Supreme Court more power than intended in the Constitution: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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." "I have already shown Judicial Review to fall within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. Pro has not offered a single rebuttal to this contention. To prove the Politically Incorrect Guide's case, Pro will need to prove that Judicial Review is, in fact, Constitutional. May I suggest Madison's 'Journal' as a starting point for searching for evidence. Should he choose to use the PIG as an outline for his argument, I reserve the right to challenge its validity in the Final Round of debate." I wish that PIG had a bibliography... Anyways, why am I the one who needs to say that judicial review is Constitutional? Isn't that your argument? "2. The term 'dangerous' is subject for debate. Pro is going to need to both define his meaning of dangerous, and demonstrate how Judicial Review in its current form is dangerous." Dangerous - able or likely to inflict injury or harm (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I say that our Judicial Review is quite likely to harm our rights, because of its power to overturn any law with a strict interpretation. "3. This is anything but the truth. The Supreme Court does not have complete and arbitrary power over all laws passed by the Legislature. The court does not hold the power to strike down any law, except those contrary to the Constitution. They must demonstrate the unconstitutionality of a law before they can render it void. If they fail in this endeavor they are impeachable by the U.S. Senate." It is quite easy to render a law unconstitutional by using an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution, and interpreting the words using any definition they please. "Furthermore, the Legislature and Executive have the ability (in some cases) to render a law unreviewable. This phenomenon is known as 'Judicial Stripping.'" I cannot find the exact situations in which Judicial Stripping can defeat Judicial Review. Additionally, the Judiciary Act of 1789 seems to have expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that Judicial Stripping becomes harder to do. "Pro has failed to offer an argument in favor of his resolution, instead contenting himself with merely rebutting a few of my points." The idea of a judicial review is nice, but the way we're doing it is dangerous. "He has failed to provide sufficient sources for the few claims he has made." I have PIG to state facts, and Wikipedia to support them. "He has conceded that Constitutional Review falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and that it is a positive attribute." Currently, it is not a positive attribute, because it allows nine people who are unelected to disallow whatever laws they want. "In the final round of debate I urge my opponent to present a full argument in defense of his resolution. My argument extends." I do believe I have a full argument now. Feel free to attack it now. Thank you for this debate.