Legislative override of SCOTUS

Again following my opponent's organization. First, let us talk about Wickard. My opponent argues that because the court voted to not strike down a law, they are not intruding into legislative power. By saying this he is forgetting that my plan not only balances power between the three branches of the federal government, but between the federal and state governments. This case is an example of unbalance between federal and state. The court, as my opponent agreed, twisted the constitution in order to give state power to the federal government. This is a serious problem which would be solved by the states using the override. My opponent has highlighted a huge advantage of the plan. It not only returns legislative power to legislators, it returns it to the correct legislators. In the case of Wickard, this plan would have allowed the states to reclaim their rightful power. Next we have the case of Cooper V Aaron. My opponent is speaking about the details of the case. If he had read the evidence in the 1AC he would understand that I was not saying the outcome of the decision is an example of judicial supremacy. The part that has caused this nation endless trouble is a passage in the majority opinion which states that the court's interpretation of the constitution is the supreme law of the land. As the constitution clearly states, ALL legislative power is granted to CONGRESS. In this opinion, the court claimed not only the power to make law, but the power to have the last word on all matters of law. This case alone should demonstrate the desperate need of a change in the system. As far as Roper, my opponent seems to agree with the obvious statement that using international law to interpret the constitution is illegal and wrong. His argument is that in this case, that was not done. Here we see a simple conflict of facts. In cases like this we must look to experts to determine the truth of the matter. I presented legal analysis by the Heritage foundation, which is considered, even by those who disagree with it to be a credible and trustworthy source of information. My opponent, to combat this, has presented his own analysis, and stated that the Heritage foundation is wrong. I would like to see his credentials that make him more credible on legal matter than the Heritage foundation. In case there is any doubt in your mind as to which source to believe, let me give you another who is even more clear, and cites the opinion. James Dobson, founder of the conservative think tank Family Research Council, 2005: "The Supreme Court struck down laws duly passed in 18 states permitting the execution of minors. While we can debate the wisdom of executing minors, the important issue is how the law came to be struck down. It was nullified by judicial decree. Even those who are opposed to the idea of capital punishment for minors should be gravely concerned about the criteria by which the Supreme Court arrived at its decision. In writing for the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, boldly claim[ed] "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international public opinion against the juvenile death penalty." Kennedy further promised that the Supreme Court of the United States would "continue to look to the laws of other countries and to international authorities" in re-interpreting the Constitution. It is outrageous that we, the people of the United States, find ourselves governed unwillingly by a judicial oligarchy who increasingly base its rulings not on our Constitution, but on something they call "world opinion." This is what we call "judicial tyranny" and for good reason." I hope this leaves no doubt in your mind that, not only did they commit this illegality, they promised to continue. Yes, I can agree that expanding legislative power could also expand executive power. However, my plan does NOT expand legislative power. It only makes sure that the people to whom it was given are the only ones who exercise it. In other words, we are not increasing legislative power, but moving it. Back to his third main problem with my case. He said the time limit is arbitrary, and that I provided no support for it. In my last speech I provided the support he asked for. He did not give a reason the time limit was a bad one, so I had nothing to refute. Here is the reason for the limit. Mark Levin, in The Liberty Amendments: "override attempts would be time-limited. Consequently, a party or faction out of power that suddenly wins a broad mandate cannot go back over several years and override long-settled issues. The time limit also means that issues on which the override is invoked must be genuinely problematic, and not merely pursued as a political expedient." Next let's cover the argument that constitutional amendments can solve the problem. In my last speech I explained that the amendment process if for very seldom systemic reforms, not just quick fixes whenever we have a problem. I also presented a piece of evidence stating that the amendment process is not the right solution. All of this went unrefuted, and my opponent merely restated his unsupported claim. Beyond this, another argument against solving the problem through constant amendments is that many of these cases could not be solved by amendment. For example, try writing an amendment to overturn Wickard. "Interstate commerce must be both interstate, and commerce." That would be ridiculous. Furthermore, as I showed a justice himself saying in my last speech, "The constitution is whatever the judges say it is." They could trample these new amendments with the same ease that they trample the old ones. My opponent said that I have not shown evidence of the judges using legislative power. If you look at my past speeches, you will see that this claim is utterly false. For good measure, I will present more. Attorney William Stanmeyer, in A Blueprint for Judicial Reform: The litany of important policy decisions that unelected, life-tenured federal judges have taken out of the hands of citizens and their elected representatives and transferred to themselves is too long to detail. The Supreme Court has substituted its notions of good policy for those of state legislatures or Congress in such nuanced, complicated, and important areas as: apportioning legislatures, using the death penalty, regulating abortion, decriminalizing pornography, outlawing prayer in public schools, and protecting the nation"s internal security. These and many other policy decisions have effectively made judges the rulers of society. Contrary to the tenets of the American Revolution, an "imperial judiciary" provides legislation without representation." He also said I have not presented examples of constitutional violations. Again, I have. cannot stress enough the importance of a supreme court justice admitting that he has ultimate power over the constitution. If, after all of this, you still want more examples, I have more than I could ever use. Here are a few more. In the case of Korematsu v. United States the court flat out ignored the IV amendment, depriving U.S. citizens of liberty without due process. Here is evidence about a group of cases where the court turned words on their heads. Constitutional historian David Barton: "Relying on the phrase "separation of church and state" rather than the First Amendment, the court began striking down religious activities and expressions that had long been Constitutional. The result has been a series of unprecedented decisions that defy common sense and mystify average citizens " Under the Court"s new First Amendment: "Congress" now means a "student, citizen, teacher, soldier, school, community, etc. "Make no law" now means "cannot express one"s faith in a public arena." "Establish religion" means "allow religion." Finally, here is a horrible example of constitution mangling called Kelo v. City of New London Attorney Mark Levin: "This case in particular underscores the spectacular arrogance and lawlessness of the Supreme Court. The Court gutted a part of the Bill of Rights called the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court made seemingly small, subtle changes to the clear meaning of the words " in this case, the words "public use." According to the court"s activists, "public use" really means "public purpose," which means whatever government wants it to mean." Those are just a few trees in a forest, but I hope they will be enough to convince you that there is a problem. If not, I have plenty more for later speeches. It is clear that there is a significant problem in the system, this problem is not being solved by any check in place today and this plan is a careful, well crafted method of solving that problem.