The U.S. Constitution Should be Amended to Limit Judicial Activism

". Con equates democracy with mob rule. Thus, for example, France, the United kingdom, and Japan, which have no imperial Supreme Courts, are all ruled by mobs. Presumably, Con should be able to show that the mobs have trashed all human rights in those countries, yet Con provided no evidence that has happened." Japan is a police state, with insanely strict prisons (http://www.amnesty.org...), including for victimless crimes. France is well known to have neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion. The UK has more surveillance per capita than anywhere else in the world, which wouldn't be the case if there weren't a lot of things to keep track of. All three have taxes, which proves they have no respect for the rights of liberty, or property. "The alternative to "mob rule" is imperial rule, wherein the despot is immune to the will of the claimed "mob." Thus, we should look to North Korea and Zimbabwe as bastions of human rights." No, because the Supreme Court is not an omnipotent despot. It is a very weak despot which serves as a barrier to democracies. It can be compared to only itself- sadly, the freest country of the world, the United States. The United States, not North Korea or Zimbabwe, is the result of this particular sort of weak despot. Furthermore, Zimbabwe holds elections. and North Korea has such extensive control over it's civlilization the mob is brainwashed to the extent that elections would be redundant. " The U.S. works with a system of checks and balances design to keep any one branch of government from ruling without limits. The defect in the system is that the Supreme Court has acquired, through tradition, power that is substantially unchecked." How exactly is it unchecked, when the other branches of government ignore what it says half the time anyway, and appoint it? "Most democracies resolve human rights issues with a simple majority of the legislature, and that works adequately" No, because no human right that the majority wants is what needs protection. It's only the ones that the majority doesn't want that are threatened. A "simple majority" does absolutely nothing to protect rights that a despot wouldn't have to anyway. " 2. Con argues that men make laws so therefore there is no difference between rule of law and rule by men. Rule by law is in fact distinguished by the laws being debated publicly, revealed so that citizens know what the laws are, and applied by judges while "rule by men" means that what is legal and illegal is not subject to democratic debate and may be revealed at any time without warning without check." Democracy means that the majority can reveal whatever it wants to it's slaves the minority without warning without check, as proved by the massive amounts of tax laws it imposes on those slaves every year in every nation. "Con's argument applies to imperial rule in that having the monarch or dictator make and reveal is the same as a democracy because the monarch is a "man" and the legislators are also "men." The distinction is not at that level, the distinction is in the process of deliberation, codification, and judicial application of the laws." Deliberation, codification, and judicial application are all human functions, undertaken by despots just as much as legislatures, the difference is of course that the deliberations are smaller so you can hear something other than a screaming mob. " 3. Con argues that abortion rights are clearly specified in the Constitution by the requirement for "due process" in taking property and under the prohibition of "forced quartering of soldiers." "Due process" simply means that the taking of property must be done in accordance with some law." No, because due process contradicts several laws and overturns them. It refers to a specific procedure to find what people are guilty of. "The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to seize a person's home for the purpose of reselling it to a developer to increase the tax base" This is because it is a weak check, appointed by those (the majority) who wanted it to be constitutional to do so. Making it weaker won't help matters. "Therefore, the property rights guarantee in the constitution is extremely weak and clearly does not apply to abortion. " Just because the Supreme Court is too weak to uphold the rule of logic is not sufficient to establish the truth of it's statements, further, the womb is presumably MORE fundamental property than a house. "Con must prove that (a) the fetus is a soldier, and (b) the government forced the fetus into the womb without the consent of the mother." The soldier is one of the types of things that is among the highest in compelling government interests-- if the government interest isn't enough to forcibly house a soldier, how can it be for a fetus? Further, it would be rather silly to say that inviting a soldier into your living room for tea removed the forcible quality of government mandates for housing him at night... likewise with the distinction between genital penetration and pregnancy. " The Supreme court is already on record as refuting Con's arguments, having ruled that the basis of Roe v. Wade was an unarticulated right of privacy, not seizure of property or quartering soldiers. Con claims that the Courts ruling ought to unchallengeable" i never said it should be unchallengable. Simply that it did more good than harm. Bad reasoning in support of justice is superior to the unjust enslavement of women (ah yes, I forgot the forced labor clause of the constitution, which is far more unequivocal!), which would result without it (at the time of Roe V wade, it is highly doubtful that 2/3 could not be summoned up for anti-abortion laws) Further, I think you missed the ninth amendment, that means enumeration of some rights is not a disparagement of others- likewise, justification of abortion by some rights is not a disparagement of justification by others. "However, if the unchecked supremacy or the Court is allowed, it would be a trivial matter for a new Court to make such a ruling based upon the explicit language and past precedent, and there is nothing to stop them from doing that." There is nothing to stop Congress from doing it either on your model... "What Con desires is precisely unchecked rule. He supposes that the court having unchecked power to invent anything it wishes and make it law is good because he relies upon the Court to always rule as Con thinks appropriate." You didn't notice the source of the Court's appointment. That's an important check. "Con is implying by his logic that a Hitler would be okay provided he ruled through a court rather than through the Executive branch" not really. But Hitler tossing aside a few legislature's verdicts, without the power to make new ones, would be rather helpful :D. Judges do not have the power to impose and enforce new laws, all they can do is prevent the government from doing certain things, according to the constitution. They are a roadblock, not a tyrant in themselves. "The dichotomy is false because there is ample evidence that democracies will oppose evil" No, there is not ample evidence that any country has tossed aside taxation, sorry. "The claim is false, because the Constitution explicitly requires democratic elections." No, it requires elections by an electoral college, which was meant to be a state legislature. Convoluted math, meant to frustrate demagogues. "That system has been undermined by the Supreme Court seizing the ability to legislate, with no effective check on that power. " Please show me a LAW made by the Supreme court, a law not about what the government can do, but about what private individuals can do. Can't, the Supreme Court has no power except that to get in "Con pointed out the efficiency of despotic rule in comparison to th