The Constitution is flawed...(full resolution below)

==Negative Case== I maintain that if my opponent wants to argue that he has demonstrated that "all the so-called "flaws of the Constitution" are not truly the flaws of the document itself, but a failure to interpret it's meaning correctly, and a lack of accountability to interpret it properly," then he must actually demonstrate this in refuting my contentions. I maintain that the Founder's intent is irrelevant to this debate because this debate concerns whether or not the Constitution is flawed, not whether or not the founders intended to produce a limited government, which they obviously didn't. My opponent also makes the general argument that any document written to control the size of government would eventually fail. This is irrelevant to the debate, which only concerns the fact that the reason the Constitution failed was its flaws. ==Elastic Clause== I contend that the Elastic Clause has not and can not be "misused" because the Constitution allows Congress to do anything in its power to regulate, directly or indirectly, interstate commerce. My opponent has not refuted this in two rounds, except to argue about popular sovereignty, which I have argued is effectively unchecked by anything in the Constitution. My opponent has not countered those arguments. My opponent's long example does not warrant any of the claims he provides before and is entirely unrelated to the Elastic Clause. The lack of enforcement of the invasion clause and naturalization requirements is an issue of unconstitutionality, whilst I am arguing that the Constitution has no significant limits on power that some great government power grab might be considered unconstitutional. ==Wartime Exceptions== Contrary to my opponent's incorrect observation, no where did I contend that "the government *should* decide what is best for the people"; rather, I proved that it was the case. The rest of the paragraph is entirely irrelevant to the debate (whether or not the government adheres to the Constitution) or out of place (Supreme Court), in which case it is to be addressed later. My opponent, for some reason, believes my military "analogy" to be "theoretical," even though the draft has enslaved a portion of the population for involuntary military servitude in four different wars (World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War) [1] after the constitutional criminalization of slavery. Popular sovereignty has historically invaded essential human rights, and so "the people" cannot be trusted with the power. But this is a different debate. No where does my opponent contend my case regarding Habeas Corpus here, and since he has ignored it, he has conceded it. ==General Welfare== Once again, the government has set an arbitrary standard with the term "General Welfare. " My opponent has not contended this except to state that somehow the government is limited because of mob rule. Regardless of who has the power, the power is not limited by any concrete standard, and this power is further enabled by the General Welfare Clause. ==The Supreme Court== Article 3 Section 2 does not, in fact, allow Congress to overrule the Supreme Court, or hold its decisions accountable. It may only limit the scope of its power to judicial activity. Such regulations of Congress are themselves regulated in the Constitution, which still grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction [4] and all the judicial power of the United States [5]. ==Conclusion== -The USFG has unlimited power warranted by the Elastic Clause, which effectively works with the Interstate Commerce Clause to ensure this. Therefore, the resolution is negated. -The USFG can suspend habeas corpus whenever it deems the public safety is in danger. Therefore, the resolution is negated. -The USFG can do whatever it sees to be providing for the General Welfare. Therefore, the resolution is negated. -An unchecked Supreme Court can construe the meaning of the Constitution as it sees fit. Therefore, the resolution is negated. Indeed, flaws in the Constitution prevent the limitation of the United States Federal Government. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.factasy.com... [3] . http://www.usconstitution.net... [4] . http://www.usconstitution.net... [5] . http://www.usconstitution.net...