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

For clarification, I will be accepting the definitions provided by my opponent. I will be presenting an alternate view on the resolution, and will then refute my opponent's arguments point by point. I will further tie in my own arguments in my refutation to show why the Constitution's flaws do not keep the USFG from being limited. I stated resolved: that the Constitution's flaws do not keep the USFG from being limited Contentions: I. The issue lies in the flaws of interpretation and a lack of accountability The issue lies in the flaws of interpretation and a lack of accountability. We see many actions of the government being taken today, many of which can be considered "illegitimate" or essentially unlimited. As a result, the government ends up often times making legislative and policy changes that are not beneficial to America as a whole. I, like my opponent, believe that a limited government is the best kind. However, the reason for the government's seemingly "unlimited" power is both the flaws in the way the Constitution is interpreted (not written) and a failure on behalf of American citizens to hold the government accountable for doing what is right. The Constitution ought to be adhered to in the way the Founding Fathers meant it. Yes, we can't magically read the Fathers' minds, however we can look at historical documents that they wrote. John Adams, 2nd President of the United States said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. " While I am not advocating a "religious" government, this statement–as well as many others from other Fathers–show both the expectation and concept behind the USFG: a limited government that is held accountable and in check by it's constituents. Adams said, "The people have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge - I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers. " In order to have a limited government, the Constitution must be interpreted properly–as the Founding Fathers intended–and in order for that to happen, American people must hold the government accountable. Now let's see how all of my opponent's examples fall directly in line with my arguments today. Refutation Contention 1: The Elastic Clause My opponent states it himself: "the original intent of the Elastic Clause was to allow congress the power to make laws that fulfilled the enumerated powers listed before. " The Constitution was written with the idea in mind of keeping the government limited. The problem is that people are power hungry. Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. " Fred Woodworth said, "If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also. " The reason that the USFG can do "anything it wants" is because of flaws in interpretation, not in the flaws of the Constitution. If these so-called "flaws" were to be changed today, the government would eventually find some way around them. Contention 2: Wartime Exceptions and Suspension of Habeas Corpus My opponent again so clearly puts my own argument: flaws in interpretation of the Constitution is the problem. "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. " My opponent then says, "This has been interpreted to mean that anyone opposing the government in war time can be arrested. " True. But what does it actually *say* ? Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended *unless* in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. Yes, Lincoln claimed that the "public safety" meant censoring free speech, but was that actually the case? Speculation and interpretation are most certainly not the same thing as original intent. Contention 3: The General Welfare Clause The government's duty should be to promote (not necessarily provide) the general welfare of the United States–aka, the American citizens. Whether the clause means funds should be spent only in the peoples' direct benefit, or whether it means that the government's actions should benefit the majority of the people, the fact remains that the government "justifying" subsidies, social security and welfare are not in the "general interest" of the people. While these programs may help some, the focus should be on the majority–hence the word "general," not "the few that you the government can get the favor of. " General–not individual–welfare may be promoted by the government. Contention 4: The Supreme Court Going back to my original argument, the way that the government can be limited is by the people keeping it accountable. The Constitution also allows for Congress to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2) "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction … with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. " So the ultimate power of interpreting the Constitution is not entirely within the Judicial Branch. And once again, if the Constitution is to be upheld, the people must work to keep the government accountable for doing what is right and thus being limited. Conclusion: While my opponent rightfully says that the USFG is not sufficiently limited, my opponent makes the faulty assertion that the lack of limitation comes from flaws in the Constitution. The true flaws lie in bad interpretation, not "weaknesses" of the Constitution itself. In order for government to truly be limited, the people must hold the government accountable–America was built with the ultimate power to be vested in the people, and for the government to be limited and lawful, the people must not give away that right.