Legislative override of SCOTUS

Rebuttal 1: Power over law No, never stated that the Supreme Court has power over law. What I am saying is that the Supreme Court does have the jurisdiction to decide cases which does indirectly influence law. However, the Supreme Court has never made law. Rebuttal 2: Interpretation This entire debate we have been quarrelling over whether the constitution is a living document or a strict guideline. My opponent has decided that the quote I mentioned was entirely misrepresented. I concede. This is because it shows what I have been showing my opponent all along. Regardless of the reading comprehension of myself, what we need to realize is that it is quite possible to interpret the constitution in different ways. My opponent has stated that the constitution is a strict guideline that only is interpreted through amendments and does not change with time. This is clearly shown as false with our own clashing opinions of how the constitution should be interpreted and seen as. Not only this, but simply because you and I disagree that the constitution does not warrant some decisions made by the Supreme Court means nothing due to “false’ understanding of the constitution also points toward this as well, as I have already show. This is because of the fact that the constitution is vague for a reason, so that it can be interpreted in the modern sense. With this, I suppose I will say that I am not for living constitutionalism. Living constitutionalism is completely looking at the constitution from scratch. However, my point is that the constitution is outdated and that a strict interpretation means regarding the constitution as a perfect legal document. It is not due to the time period being different and the inherent differences in today’s US as opposed from the last generation’s US. Rebuttal 3: Constitutional amendment I was meaning to get to this in my last rebuttal, but the plan is not a constitutional amendment. My opponent has grilled me on my reading comprehension, however let us look toward the argument that he has proposed a constitutional amendment. He has not. Under the constitution it is not 3/5 of states or a 3/5 vote of congress. “Congress will propose, and the states will adopt an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a legislative override of a Supreme Court decision by either a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress, or by a three-fifths vote of the State Legislatures.” The constitution has specified a 3/4 vote to determine a constitutional amendment of the states. With this, the entire plan is void. http://www.usconstitution.net... Rebuttal 4: Quotes I specifically did this to show, yet again, the importance of interpretation. Remember, simply because in the past the founding fathers disagreed with the constitution means nothing. Let us look toward the progress made by the Supreme Court in the status quo. The Supreme Court has propelled social progress despite a conservative majority. Not only this, but we ended segregation with the Supreme Court as well. This would definitely not be supported by the slave-owning founding fathers. Regardless, the majority of the people in the US do support this. Rebuttal 5: Legislative v. judicial Yes, the Supreme Court does have the power for judicial law by interpreting the constitution and striking down bad law, or as I should have stated unconstitutional law. Remember, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. This will inevitably influence law, but does not mean it make the law. It only interprets the constitution in the best way possible to come up with a decision about a piece of legislation. Yes, the Supreme Court does influence law indirectly, but the key difference is the fact that not a single piece of legislation is made or put into power by the Supreme Court. Not only this, but the Supreme Court also only decides a case when it comes to the Supreme Court through appeals. This means that the Supreme Court does not simply decide laws, it acts as an appeals court for decisions of national interest. Ergo, limiting the power of the Supreme Court is a problem. Rebuttal 6: Opinions Yet again, my opponent has twisted my words. I said that legal opinions are not the best source to cite since they are simply opinions. I continued to counter this point by showing you a differing opinion from another legal expert, which comes from Harvard. I thought the quote to be self-explanatory, however, allow me to explain. The Supreme Court does not just decide law; it acts as an appellate court to the inferior courts while also only deciding cases that become popular that people want a decision about. Rebuttal 7: Plan My opponent has decided to show his plan once again, which gives me the chance the reexamine the points made once more to show you why I clearly won. First let us look toward the original plan he had proposed. “Congress will propose, and the states will adopt an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a legislative override of a Supreme Court decision by either a three-fifths vote of both houses of Congress, or by a three-fifths vote of the State Legislatures. The override must be exercised within two years of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is not subject to a presidential veto or to litigation or review in any federal or state court.” There is an inherent power balance issue at hand. First, I will show why the executive branch’s power is usurped. This is because there is no review from the president of the United States, while also we see that state’s rights are usurped due to not having a say in what the Supreme Court’s decision means. This leads to an unfair power balance toward Congress. This could also potentially lead to corruption on the legislative branch’s part. This is due to the lack of oversight in this potential plan. Conclusion Clearly, the con side wins as I show that the plan my opponent proposes is faulty.