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

As well as for the abundance of sources and work put into the discussion. In order to understand the Constitution, and therefore the Constitutionality Debate, one must understand the Ethical framework for such a document and for the government that document creates. This ethical framework is something known as Social Contract Theory "The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed. " [1] Essentially, by agreeing to participate in the benefits of the social contract (safety, social programs, residency, citizenship, etc) authority is given to various government figures. Particularly pertinent to our discussion is a theory called "Consent of the governed. " Essentially this aspect of social contract theory states that authority is only legitimate when it is given by the people it is governing. [2] This means that a foreign people cannot give a government authority over us. This was the primary frustration that our founding fathers had with the Rule of England during the American Revolution. In essence it is the opposite of "Taxation without Representation. " ==Contention 1 - Obligation to the Constitution== Now, our government is a government "For the people, by the people. " As an American citizen, we participate in the various benefits that our government affords. I drive on the road every day. That road is maintained by a government organization. Also, if someone commits a crime against me, I am afforded the services of a government organization (the police) to pursue a resolution to that crime and exact justice upon its perpetrator. The only way to be removed from my obligations to this social contract is to not participate in the benefits it affords. As one who is bound by this contract (the Constitution), I must acknowledge and submit myself to the authorities that contract identifies. To do so would be a violation of my ethical obligations to the social contract. ==Contention 2 - Consent of the Governed== One may make the argument that the Supreme Court does not have the Consent of the Governed, because they are not elected officials. However, this would be a flawed view of reality. While it is true that they are not elected directly, this does not mean that they are not derived from the people. In the US system of Judicial appointment, a Supreme Court Justice is appointed by the President. However, before that appointment becomes official, it must be confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed the Justice is seated and becomes an official member of the Supreme Court. [3] Both the President, and the Senate are elected officials and serve as representatives for the persons who elected them. They are given the Consent of the Governed and therefore are given the authority to perform this act by the Social Contract. In addition, a Justice who is shown to be negligent or criminal in their duties can be removed by the Senate via Impeachment. ==Contention 3 - Appeal to Legitimate Authority== There is a common logical fallacy that occurs in debates. It is called the Appeal or Argument to False Authority. Essentially during the course of an argument, the debater argues that some figure believes that something is true. This figure appears to be an authority, and is therefore worthy of weight in the discussion. This is a fallacy only when the figure is not an authority. An example of this would be Professional Athletes endorsing products unrelated to their sport. What does Michael Jordan know about Cologne? However, the reason that this fallacy works is that an appeal to a legitimate authority does indeed hold weight. If we were debating the best kind of shoes for playing basketball, Michael Jordan would indeed be a legitimate authority. ==Ergo== I have shown through these three contentions that we are bound by a social contract (The Constitution) to obey the authorities given power by said contract. These authorities are, broadly defined, the Executive (President), the Legislative (Congress) , and the Judicial (Courts, specifically in this debate, The Supreme Court). Through means of the Executive and Legislative branches appointment and confirmation of the Judicial Appointments we have given the Supreme Court the Consent of the Governed, and therefore have given them authority to make decisions involving the constitutionality of laws. Since authority is a legitimate appeal in a debate or discussion when the authority is legitimate, this legitimate authority over constitutionality is a legitimate appeal. My opponent's contentions all hover around one primary point. To summarize, the Supreme Court is not reliable or effective. Contention 1 - Biased Contention 2 - Self-Contradictory Contention 3 - Does not invoke the document they purport to serve While these contentions may or may not be true. They do not in any way assuage us of our obligation to the social contract of the Constitution. In that social contract we have given the Supreme Court the authority to judge things as constitutional or unconstitutional, and that authority is supreme. In order to prove that the appeal to authority that occurs when we cite a Supreme Court ruling regarding constitutionality is a false appeal, my opponent would have to show that this authority is false. The authority that they are given by us is not based on their reliability or effectiveness, it is based on the fact that we have given them that authority. Our constitution even provides a way for us to remove that authority from them, so until we have done so. .. we must acknowledge their authority. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...