Legislative override of SCOTUS

Judges, imagine you had a flock of goats. Goats are very useful animals! They cut the grass give milk etc. They are a necessary and important part of your farm as long as they are inside their fence.If they get out they are very destructive. They will eat the tires off you car. The supreme court is very similar. They have necessary and proper functions laid out in the constitution. However, if they get outside that constitutional fence, they begin to eat the siding off of our republic. Now, as is the case with any plan to shift the balance of power, the most important argument is whether the balance of power is currently off. Now, let me remind you of the X amendment. This states that ALL powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and people. This means that if any branch of government has power not specifically granted in the constitution, that power is illegitimate and illegal. My opponent has stated several times that the court was given the power to override Congress in the 1803 case of Marbury Vs. Madison. He clearly understands that they did not have this power before. In other words, they illegally took it for themselves.My opponent says that we are reducing the court's judicial power. That brings up a very important point about my plan. It is carefully designed to return legislative power to congress without so much as touching any of the courts proper judicial power. Think about how it will work under the plan. The court decides a case which has an effect on the litigants, and strikes down a law. Congress overrides that decision. What congress has done is make it so the case legally never happened. The decision remains in place as far as the litigants, but the cases impact on the law, in other words, it's LEGISLATIVE effect, is gone. Remember, Legislative power is power to make law, judicial power is the power to apply that law as written. This case in no way limits the court's ability to apply law. It destroys the courts power to make, change and strike down law. This case restores the balance of power intended by the framers.My opponent dismisses the opinion of Jefferson, but let me remind you that I also quoted Madison who is called the "father of the constitution." Let me remind you. “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.”This clearly makes my case. I don't think I need to say any more about the intended balance of power.Next, my opponent argues that the judicial branch SHOULD have power to change law, whatever the framers intended. If you wish your laws to be made by an unelected judicial oligarchy, work to amend the constitution. If you think they are a better institution for making law, give them that power. The fact remains that we live in a democratic republic where our laws are made by elected representatives. Our constitution clearly states that all legislative power is given to congress. It is your job judge to uphold the law. If you think we should change our form of government, work to do so. For now, please preserve our currant form of government.On to rebuttal 2. My opponent argues that the constitution can be read many different ways and changes with time. This is called "living constitutionalism." My opponent argues that the court is within it's rights when it changes the obvious meaning of the text. I would like to bring up a couple of experts on that topic. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1804: “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” Constitutional historian David Barton: “It was – and typically still is – a fundamental maxim of law to determine the intent of the authors of a statute before attempting to apply it. Therefore, to discover the legitimate scope of protections and prohibitions intended, investigate the records from that era rather than relying on an interpretation concocted by the Court 200 years ex post facto.”This is called "originalism." It has the disadvantage of not allowing you to twist the constitution however you want, but it has the advantage of making sense.Rebuttal 3. You never said the court should have all legislative power. However, you did say it should have ultimate legislative power. Think about it. If they can tell us what the constitution means, and the constitution is "the supreme law of the land," they have the highest legislative power. See Cooper Vs. Arron.Rebuttal 4. Here my opponent is arguing that we should solve the problem of illegality, by doing something illegal. Seriously? This case is an attempt to restore the rule of law. Therefore, an illegal solution in the status quo obviously does not solve the problem.Rebuttal 5 is just restating what he said in rebuttal 1 and 2. As I said in those two points respectively, interpreting the constitution "figuratively" destroys the rule of law, and whether or not congress would abuse their power, the power belongs to them. I am not giving congress new power, but restoring the power they had from the beginning. Sure congress can be corrupt too, but that is no excuse for giving legislative power to a non-legislative body. Also, if you don't like congress, you can do lots of thing to work on fixing it. On the other hand, if you don't like the supreme court, there is nothing you can do.My opponent insists on continuing to run his counter plan. Miriam-Webster is a bad source for this, because that it's definition will have nothing to do with debate. If you read any source about debate, you will see that this counter plan cannot be used against this case. Without getting into debate theory, let me give you an example. If my plan was to establish a flat tax, a good counter plan would be to establish a fair tax instead. Then we would debate the merits of two mutually exclusive plans to solve the same problem. However, you could not run gun control as a counter plan to establishing a flat tax. Do you see the difference? I like the idea of term limits. In fact, it and my plan can work together well. If my opponent convinces you that we need term limits, he has not convinced you that we don't need legislative override. For this reason, I ask you to ignore this argument.I don't like using debate theory quotes, but this time it is necessary. The bellow is listed as a way to defeat a counter plan. Most debate resources will agree on this point."you can argue that the counter plan is not a competitive alternative to the affirmative’s plan – that both could and should be done."http://millennialsd.com...Rebuttal 7. Because my opponent has no legal experts on his side, he is stating that the opinion of legal experts should have nothing to do with the round. This sounds more like sour grapes than logic.No, we are not limiting the power of the supreme court to do it's job. We are limiting it's power to do somebody else's job. Namely, Congress. That is the only precedent we are setting. The rule of law, the balance of power and the constitution. Not bad precedent if you ask me.Citing experts is good because it gives us credibility. Why would you trust the opinion of two 16-year-olds on legal issues? You should not. I cite them to show that older, wiser people who have studied the topic all their lives agree with my side of the issue. However, I have not leaned on quotes and neglected to refute my opponent's arguments. I have explained my logic, and then given you the opinion of an expert to back it up. Even if you think, as does my opponent, that quotes are not important, there are still 2 point given out on the basis of sources. They are clearly worthwhile. My opponent simply does not have the evidence on his side.Most of what my opponent said in his conclusion was false. I did not say the court has supreme power over the legislative branch, rather, I said it has supreme legislative power. I backed that up with much evidence. He says that I "gives expert opinions that only point to the fact that the constitution is a living document which is not specific enough," when really some of my pieces have said the opposite. The reality is that I have presented pieces that back up all of my points. I am not putting words in his mouth. I am taking his words to their logical conclusion. He has said many times that the court should be able to "interpret" the constitution however they want with no checks. The constitution is law. If they change the understood meaning of law, they are exercising legislative power. We have been through this.Judges, I ask that you stand for the constitution, for the rule of law and for our democratic republic! Vote for whichever side upholds those principals.