Legislative override of SCOTUS

My opponent has been pretty well organised, so I will respond to his arguments in the order he made them. First, he argued that the problem is already solved because we can amend the constitution. There are a few problems with that argument. If the problem is already solved, why do I have so much evidence that there is a problem? Why are people advocating this plan? The answer is that the amendment process cannot solve the problem. The amendment process is a process that should be used rarely and should be used to address systemic problems. That is what our case does. Rather than attacking every incident of abuse with a separate Constitutional amendment, our plan uses a single amendment to restore the balance of power intended by the framers. William Stanmeyer, in A Blueprint for Judicial Reform, in 1981: "The people can reverse the judiciary"s independent frolic only by the cumbersome amendment process: push an amendment through both houses of Congress and then persuade 38 states to ratify. What we must do is develop a structural, institutional way to make it as hard for the Court to amend the Constitution as it is for the people, because one should not tinker often with a document of such profundity. To make it hard for the Court to amend the Constitution, we must make it far less difficult for the people to overrule the Court. We must develop a way for the people to reverse the Court when it has overstepped its bounds, when it has "acted unconstitutionally." As this plan is not making a new way to amend the constitution, but only to override the court, it cannot "deviate from article V." The second argument is the balance of power. Let me simplify the issue for you. The Legislative branch is given "all legislative power" (Power to make, change and strike down law). The judicial branch was to apply law to cases. As my evidence said, the court has begun to strike down, change, and even go so far as to make law. To restore the balance of power, we must return all legislative power to congress. This is what my plan does. It does not change the outcome for the litigants of a case, but it strikes down the decision, in other words, the legislative impact of the case. This is the only way to return the power that belongs to congress, without tipping the balance of power in the other direction. True, the court must not be subject to the people. Judicial decisions should not be influenced by popular opinion. However, LEGISLAIVE decisions MUST be subject to the people's will. As for Marshal, he merely said that he needed more power. Most people would say that. As for founding fathers, here is what some of them had to say. Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the right to decide what laws are Constitutional and what not, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." James Madison: "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." As for the idea that our plan gives power to the executive branch, that is clearly a misunderstanding. We take the legislative power the courts usurped, and give it back to the legislature. The only branch that gets more power is congress. The third argument can be easily cleared up. He argues that the time limit is arbitrary, and that I provided no support for it. The plan is copied verbatim from Mark Levin's book "The Liberty Amendments." In closing, I would like to offer one more piece of evidence to make clear that there really is a very significant problem in the status quo. Former Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Judges, if you are red blooded Americans who love the constitution, this quote should make that red blood boil!! Even the judges themselves are willing to admit that they have absolute power over our constitution. If you don't think that is a problem, by all means vote for my opponent. It is time to give legislative power back to legislatures!