The United States Supreme Court is a reliable source in debate regarding constitutionality.

Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for your argument. This is the last round, so Ihope that you don't make any brand-new arguments in response to this one. Contention 0+ : Social Contract Theory Just because our laws are based off of the Social Contract theory, doesn't mean that the Social Contract theory is true. I feel a slight sense of duty to my local government, and slightly less duty to my state government, and no duty at all to Washington, so I'm obviously not required to obey the Supreme Court by duty. A rule based on fear can't be a just rule. My opponent claims that the theory is true because we are participating in it, but we are only truly participating in it if it is true, making for a nice bit of circular reasoning. He claims that we are bound by the Constitution, but I'm not actually bound by it, and the federal government most certainly isn't, as it's been ignoring the Constitution for centuries [1], so this isn't evidence for the theory either. The Supreme Court was given authority by the Constitution, but not authority over the Constitution. Notice how "United States" is capitalized, meaning the federal government as opposed to the entire federation itself. The Supreme Court deals with the federal government's matters, but not matters of individual sattes. Section 2 of Article III specifically lists the Supreme Court's jurisdiction [2], which excludes cases between entities of the same state, which actually comprises most of the Supreme Court's modern cases. Contention 1+: Obligation to the Constitution My opponent claims that I have an obligation to the Constitution because I enjoy it's benefits. However, how does one not enjoy the benefit of free speech? It's impossible. An inescapable benefit, as most of these benefits are, cannot be a sane justification for a government's rule. Just because it won't kill me for speaking my mind doesn't mean it can regulate me in every other action of my life. One of the most important American principles is that rights are derived not from government, but from God or nature; acknowledging this freedom is the neutral state of things, and is not a "benefit" graciously given to me by the federal government. My opponent continues that I have an obligation to uphold the social contract, yet I must have the freedom to absolve the contract voluntarily for it to continually have my consent, and I have never given my consent, ever, in my entire life. Contention 2+: Consent of the Governed My opponent claims that we have the power to remove officials from government, but I can't vote. If I could vote, I would vote against any administration that enforced the Constitution in the way the Supreme Court does, expressing my dissent and giving no consent to their actions. Ironically, my opponent would probably claim that by voting, I give my consent, even if I vote against the winning government, and that if I don't vote, I'm not fighting to change government, and therefore don't get to changeg government. It's quite the trauma twofer. My opponent calls FDR's case "unique," but doesn't explain how. FDR, did, in fact, have the ability to pack the courts, because Congress was controlled by his party, and would obey his every beck and call if he asked for it. My opponent claims that the people can stop participating in the benefits of the social contract (impossible in modern society, where government controls practically everything around me, especially if excersizing my right to breathe is considered a "benefit"), so if I follow this to the furthest extend possible, I can nullify my obligations to the Supreme Court's authority and point out how unreliable they really are. Although, why do I have to even be independent of the federal government to disagree with them in the first place? Isn't this a free country? Just because the Supreme Court says that something is true, and that a considerable portion of the government agrees with them, doesn't mean that it is true. Contention 3+: Appeal to Legitimate Authority My opponent again cites an obligation to the Constitution, but I contend that this obligation is a nonexistant illusion imposed upon us by government. I have no obligation to any government. He also claims that I must respect the Supreme Court's authority even in debate, but why is this? They have no jurisdiction over this debate at all. If I can dissent from them, then I have proven the ability to do so. Ergo... My opponent uses an anonymous quote to justify judicial review, so I shall counter with a quote by Thomas Jefferson that shatters the idea that the Supreme Court is the end-all of the Constitution [3]: "Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories." He logically points out that the federal government cannot be trusted to limit its own power, and that this power is inherent in the people of the states. We have no obligation to blindly listen to the Supreme Court as if their word is the word of God. They are not right just because they say they are right. Without an explanation for their decisions, they're nothing. My opponent claims that it would be up to the refuter to explain that a ruling wasn't within the Court's jurisdiction. However, given that most cases are actually outside their jurisdiction (especially landmark cases like Roe vs. Wade, Brown, Miranda vs. Arizona, and Tinker vs. Des Moines, and all cases that I have already cited in this debate except Fletcher), it should the one who sources the Supreme Court to explain why, for once, they actually obeyed their own jurisdiction. Conclusion My opponent says that I have failed to prove that the social contract is void, yet the burden should belong with him; he should show why the social contract is justified, which it is not. The Supreme Court may be sometimes a legitimate authority at times, but their inclination towards bias, contradiction, and epic failures in trying to understand history make them one of the most unreliable sources in the modern age, making their reasoning more important than their robes. Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for this debate. You put up a considerable challenge for a first debate on this site. I think you'll do well here. 1. Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush by Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R. C. Gutzman 2. http://www.usconstitution.net... 3. http://www.lewrockwell.com...