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

Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for your response. Contention 0+: Social Contract theory While the Social Contract theory sounds good at first, I must point out that it is only a theory, a mere notion. It is not grounded in fact, but philosophical opinion. Philosophical opinion does not change what apiece of paperdoes and does not allow. We must also note the dichotomy of my opponent'ssourced definition. The social contractcan instead be"an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed." This would sound most like the formation of the United States of America, with thirteen previously independent countries establishing a federation among themselves, with its own federal government given specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution [2:2][1]. The individual states retianed their sovereignty, so we cannot use the first definition. Contention 1+: Obligation to the Constitution My opponent points out numerous actions of government; however, these actions were not delegated to the federal government by the Consitution, so they shouldn't be the concern of the Supreme Court at all. They are rights reserved to the states, with a different type of social contract. He then claims that he is bound by the Constitution, and must therefore respect the Consitution's authorities. However, by extension, the Supreme Court should also have to follow the rules stated in the Consitution; they have failed in almost every way imaginable. They swear that they will uphold the Constitution, yet they repeatedly do not. By disobeying the social contract, they lose whatever power was invested into them. How can they possibly be a reliable source? Contention 2+: Consent of the Governed The Supreme Court has "consent of the governed" in only the most indirect and twisted ties. As more and more indirectness is applied, the less government is working for the people and the more it is working for itself. Will the President appoint a judgewho will listen to the Consitution and stop his economic and political agendas? Would the Senate? Nope. That's what happened in FDR's case, as he threatened to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices who would swear allegiance to him rather than America; the court quickly buckled to Roosevelt's whims [2.1]. Did the people consent to this? Not at all. My opponent also points out that Justices can be impeached by the Senate. For one thing, this runs into the problem described above, as pro-government justices will be systematically favored over pro-people justices. For another, removing Justices died early in America's history with Samuel Chase [2], who was impeached for disobeying the Constitution, but escaped removal because his lawyer redefined "high crimes and misdemeanors" to no longer apply to Chase [2.1]. No Justice has been impeached since, no matter how outlandish their claims or rulings are. The people have lost power over the Supreme Court, and as such, the Supreme Court ought to have lost power over the people. Contention 3+: Appeal to Legitimate Authority My opponent seems to imply that Supreme Court justices are legitimate authorities on the Constitution. This seems odd, as they get the facts wrong so many times, and contradict themselves with just about every ruling they make. How legitimate can they really be if they fail so badly? They're illegitimate and unreliable. Conclusion +: Ergo... We may have given the Supreme Court our consent, but it was a very limited consent described in the Constitution, under Article III, Section 2. The Supreme Court was never given the power to review the constitutionality of state laws, a power that it rather quickly stole from the American people without their consent [2.1]. They lack the authority to ban state laws regarding religion, abortion, schools, or any other specifically state issue, which consists of practically all of the Supreme Court cases in the past century. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what power the Supreme Court was vested with by the Constitution if they get the Constitution wrong, as I have explained in three powerful contentions that my opponent has completely dropped. They cannot change the Constitution, written in iron pen, nor do they change the state laws. They make their flawed rulings using smoke-and-mirror tactics, ignoring the Constitution completely. They are, by any reasonable standards, illegitimate as a source for the constitutionality of a given law, given their record of being the most self-centered, contradictory, and flat-out wrong group of people in the history of the world. To conclude, in a debate, if someone cites the Supreme Court as an explanation as to why a certian act isn't allowed by the Constitution, they're basically saying that five out of nine people in black robes who contradict themselves and can't even keep their facts straight agrees with him, almost never having any actual accuracy at all, which in no sane world would actually improve their case. Good luck, ReformedArsenal. (2.1 refers to Round 2, Source 1) 1. http://www.archives.gov... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...