Supreme Court's rulings for unconstitutional actions in schools has offset the balance of power

Thank you, whoever accepts this debate. I DEFINE: SUPREME COURT- 1. The highest federal court in the United States, consisting of nine justices and having jurisdiction over all other courts in the nation. RULING-an official or authoritative decision, decree, statement, or interpretation (as by a judge on a point of law) UNCONSTITUTIONAL- not according or consistent with the constitution of a body politic (as a nation [in this case, the US constitution]) SCHOOL- Any of the public institutions under governmental control in place to educate. OFFSET-to place over against something (as in the allocation of power over another power) BALANCE OF POWER (as represented in the US)- Any of the three powers set in place to keep a system of government from becoming overly dominated by any one of those individual powers (In this case, The Judicial, The Executive, and the Legislative Branches in the US) I observe: 1)The resolution is confined strictly to the United States and the afore mentioned powers involved (being the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches within the United states.) 2) You may only use references from other countries if it pertains to the current educational system in the US and how the Supreme Court rulings effected the educational system in the US. 3) By "offset", the Affirmative is proposing that the Supreme Court has more power than the other two branches would and the Negative is proposing that they have not (being that they are all of equal powers in response to these cases) 4) We must operate under the following Supreme Court rulings and these rulings alone to determine how this resolution should be approached: a)Goss v. Lopez (1975) Students are entitled to certain due process rights. Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.' b)Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983) Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers. The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values. c)New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school. A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school. d)Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987) Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school. Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated. I wish my opponent luck and would ask that the R1 be reserved solely for the establishment of framework and definitions. Should my opponent accept this debate, they should accept the framework and definitions (or else provide a fair alternative to them) and should reserve their case and refutations for Rs2-5. Thank you. ~EG