Judicial review

My opponent did an excellent job of coming against me with the best possible arguments. Unfortunately, even those are not enough. To begin, it makes a huge difference whether the Founding Fathers intended judicial review or not. Saying, "But wtf are you talking about, of course the founding fathers would have wanted it" is not enough to refute the point. My opponent brought up no evidence stating that the Founding Fathers would have wanted it. The burden pf proof was his. "Why would the founding fathers write the constitution if they were okay with allowing legislation to be passed that allows for a national religion, or an Orwellian society come to life, that just does not fit, of course they would not want to allow any legislation in direct violation of the constitution." The answer to that is that they had faith in Congress, as we should also. ""With judicial review, the supreme court has the power to strike down laws as it sees fit." No no no, it gives them the power to examine it and say, no, this directly violates the constitution in that place where it says a national religion could not be established, sorry this shall not be passed. Again how is this too much power? It checks for constitutional validity, that is just what judicial review is." The saddening fact is that the Supreme Court does have the power to strike down laws as it sees fit. http://nationalparalegal.edu... has compiled a brief list of cases that were all impacted by judicial review. "It is difficult to overstate the effect that Marbury and its progeny have had on the American legal system. A comprehensive list of important cases that have struck down federal or state statutes would easily reach four digits. But a recap of some of the most important historical Court decisions should serve to demonstrate the impact of judicial review. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court struck down state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students on the grounds that they violated the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Supreme Court forced states to provide counsel in criminal cases for indigent defendants who were being tried for commission of a felony and could not afford their own counsel. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriage, also on equal protection grounds. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that state criminal laws that punished people for incitement could not be applied unless the speech in question was intended to and likely to, cause people to engage in imminent lawless action. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court temporarily halted the death penalty in the United States by ruling that state death penalty statutes were not applied consistently or fairly enough to pass muster under the Eighth Amendment. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that made abortion illegal. Though Roe and many later cases have walked a tight line in determining exactly how far the right to choose an abortion extends, the basic idea that the right to choose an abortion is protected as part of the right to privacy still stands as the law of the land. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court struck down spending limits on individuals or groups who wished to use their own money to promote a political candidate or message (though it upheld limitations on how much could be contributed directly to a campaign) on First Amendment grounds. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Supreme Court struck down certain types of race-based preferences in state college admissions as violating the equal protection clause. In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in fourteen states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court struck down a federal election law that restricted spending on election advertising by corporations and other associations. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (the "Obamacare" decision) was famous for upholding most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, it also struck down an element of that law that threatened to withhold Medicaid funding from states that did not cooperate with the law, on the grounds that this was an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty." Moving on, SocialDemocrat said, "Okay guys critical thinking what does that say "legislative powers" but what are legislative powers? Dictionary definition-the power to MAKE laws. http://www.dictionary.com...... That is completely separate from striking down laws that violate the constitution, the judicial branch cannot MAKE laws, very different from judicial review. You blatantly misunderstood your definitions here. Yes the judicial branch can not make laws, very different thing." The actual definition that would apply here said, "of or relating to the enactment of laws:" I'm sure we can all agree that judicial review certainly relates to the enactment of laws in a very big way. Therefore SocialDemocrat did not effectively refute my point in any way. All the points point to judicial review being abolished. Judges, please use discretion when voting.