Legislative override of SCOTUS

I will begin with contention 1: " Violates Marbury vs. Madison. " On face value, this argument has no meaning. The court has no power to make law, so a congressional action cannot "violate" a court decision. The fact that people would think about it in those terms proves my point that the court has been overstepping its power and has started to try to make law. you farther say that a court decision dictated the job of the court. Think about that judges. Do we let congress dictate its own job? What about the president? NO! The fact that the court has dictated its job is perfect proof of my point that the court is out of line. My opponent argues that under my plan law would be made by one branch alone. I say yes. That is exactly right. Under my plan, all legislative power will be given to congress. My opponent argues that my plan has been done. This is a simple misunderstanding. First of all, why would all the experts I quoted in my first speech support the idea if it was already done? Let me clear this up by giving you a real world example of congress trying stop supreme court overreach. The case of Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, two American Indians ingested a traditional hallucinogenic drug as part of religious ceremonies with the Native American Church. The Supreme Court refused their First Amendment claim for religious exemption. Members of Congress don’t agree on much, but Congress unanimously agreed that the Court had gotten the First Amendment spectacularly wrong. They responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or RFRA). With its Employment Division v. Smith decision, the Supreme Court had curtailed religious liberty protection. By passing RFRA, Congress was saying “No, religious liberty protection is broader than that. ” This was one of the few time congress has tried to actually override a court decision. It should have been an ideal case. Congress was unanimous. Sadly, the court decided that not only do they have legislative power, they have more legislative power than congress. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court sent Congress and its legislative response to the dustbin. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, June 25, 1997: “When the political branches of the Government act against the background of a judicial interpretation of the Constitution already issued, it must be understood that in later cases it is this Court’s precedent, not RFRA, which must control. "This ridiculous belief that the court has supreme legislative power is based on a case I brought up in my first speech. Cooper V. Aaron. This is the case where the court decided that they can speak for the constitution, making their decisions the supreme law of the land. My opponent has brought up examples where congress limited the effects of a court case, but they never can erase them. Also, as I have shown with the example of RFRA, if congress does try to take back their legislative power, the court can always ignore or strike down congress's acts. This is not enough. Congress needs to have all legislative power. As far as my opponent's argument that the states can ignore the court, that is not exactly true either. In the case he cited the state did, indeed ignore the court. The problem with this is that it is arguably illegal. They are disobeying what the court claims is the supreme law of the land. There needs to be a way that the states can take back lawful power in an unarguably legal way. It is debatable whether the court has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws. I can't find that power in the constitution. The fact remains. Whether or not the court made good decisions, it made legislative decisions. This is wrong. Now I would like to pile on a bit more proof that the court can and does disregard the constitution. First lets hear from Former Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. ”Need I say more to prove my point? ? The judges themselves admit that they have ultimate power over the constitution itself! Can am American who believes in our constitutional form of government ignore such a problem? No! Something MUST be done when the judges gloat about their final triumph over the supreme law of the land. My opponent argues that the judges always quote from the constitution in deciding a case. That is true most of the time, but when it is clear, as my opponent admitted in his first rebuttal, that much of the time they are not basing the decision on the constitution, but on their own policy preferences, they are unquestionably stepping outside their authority. My opponent argues that the Obergafel decision was, indeed, based on the constitution. I will leave it to you judge to find anything that in any way relates t gay marriage in the constitution. If you do agree with that decision, there are even worse out there. My opponent did not even try to defend the constitutionality of Wickard V Filburn! They turned the words of our constitution on their heads! Take the case of Korematsu v. United States. In that case, they simply ignored the V amendment. My opponent argues that my plan changes the separation of powers. The reality is that I am returning it to what the founders wanted. The status quo, not my plan, has a flawed balance. Here is a quote from the "father of the constitution" about what the supreme court quickly became. James Madison: “As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the judiciary department paramount in fact to the legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper. ”For good measure, here is Thomas Jefferson's opinion. “The Constitution meant that its branches should be checks on each other. But the right to decide what laws are Constitutional would make the judiciary a despotic branch. ”Under my plan, the legislature will make law, the courts will apply that law. It does not matter who would use the power better, what matters is that the power belongs to the legislature. Now I will address the counter plan. First of all, I don't think a counter plan is a legitimate argument in this round. We are deciding whether my plan is a good idea, not whether it is a better idea than some other idea. Also, even if a counter plan would be legitimate, that counter plan would not be. A counter plan must be mutually exclusive, and it must solve all the harms I presented to justify the plan. My opponent's counter plan is not mutually exclusive. Both plans could be done. In fact, Mark Levin who advocates my plan thinks that not only should there be a legislative override, there should also be term limits. I myself think that term limits may be a good idea, but that is no reason to vote against my plan. The second problem with this counter plan is that it does not solve the problems I presented. The problem I presented was that the court has too much power. Changing how long each justice can have that power does not in any way lessen that power. If there is an imbalance of power, the solution is not to check all three branches evenly. My final problem with the counter plan is that it is not clear. Who will conduct these audits? Are you saying that we should put in place another body which will make sure party representation is equal? That would create a whole host of problems, but until you clarify the plan, we can't argue about it intelligently. Now on to my opponent's rebuttals. He argues that the constitution is not disregarded because the job of the court is to strike down unconstitutional laws and whatever crap they pull out of their behinds should be respected as law because they have the power to tell us what the constitution means. Both of those statements are dead wrong. As I pointed out earlier, the power to strike down law was not specifically granted to them in the constitution. According to amendment X, all powers not granted to government are reserved to the states. The only legitimate power granted to the court is the power to APPLY the laws to specific cases. They don't have legislative power, so they can't make, change or strike down law. Furthermore, nowhere in the constitution does it say that the supreme court has the power to tell us what it says. To "interpret" it. The document is in ENGLISH. It is written quite clearly thank you very much, we don't need the court to interpret it for us. The idea that the court can do whatever they want, provided they can come up with some shed of reasoning about some twisted passage in the constitution was not intended my the framers! I have given examples of some instances when they had to work extremely hard to cram their own views into the constitution, but they did. Jefferson understood the danger of "interpretation. " He said the court could reduce the constitution into “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. ”I have already responded to the idea that the legislatures can get around court decisions. From the evidence I have presented, does the supreme court sound "weak" to you? ?My opponent seems to misunderstand what I meant by "abusive rulings deterred. " As my evidence under that point said, if the court knows they can be overturned be the legislature, they will be careful about issuing ridiculous rulings. In conclusion, think about what you have heard. You have seen that the court has, indeed trampled both the constitution and the balance of power. That the legislative branch is almost powerless to stop them, and that this plan will solve the problem. Furthermore, I have supported all my claims with the opinions of experts. Do you want to live in a country where the laws are made by courts? I don't.