The Constitution is flawed...(full resolution below)

==The negative case== While in my contentions I have and will continue to outline that the Constitution was vague in its vision for limiting government, my opponent has insisted that it is the flaw of interpretation. He may only demonstrate that on the individual case level. Every flaw I've identified was a flaw in the Constitution itself, and each individual case was conceded by my opponent in round 2. My opponent also frequently points out the intent of the founding fathers. Their intent is irrelevant in regard to what they produced, a limitless government. "The Constitution was designed so that people would have ultimate control" is untrue in many senses. First, the founding fathers went to great lengths to limit direct democracy, so that "the people" would not have ultimate control. Ben Franklin equated democracy to "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch [1]". In fact, the power of "the people," if left unchecked by a working constitution, will gradually erode individual liberty, as it has in the United States. Second, "the people" do not have ultimate control. Ultimate control lies with an oligarchy in the form of an appointed Supreme Court whose membership cannot be checked by any group, including "the people" (see my fourth contention). Now, to the affirmative case. ==Elastic Clause== My opponent concedes here that the Elastic Clause allows Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, as deemed by Congress, to regulate Interstate Commerce, in any way Congress sees fit. My opponent's only objection is that "the people" are ultimately in control of said Congress. It has been demonstrated that the people have full authority under the literal meaning of the Constitution to infringe on individual liberty. My opponent also mentions the ability of a group of people to stage a coup and overthrow their government. I would now like to point out the sheer unlikeliness of such an operation being successful, given the size and strength of the modern United States military in comparison to the common man. I also question any benefit that might arise as a result. ==Wartime Exceptions, Suspension of Habeas Corpus, Public Safety== My opponent provides no refutation to my case regarding the problem with the clause enabling the suspension of habeas corpus, but instead brings up popular sovereignty. This is addressed above and below. I contend my opponent's statement, that "the *people* not the government decide what is best for themselves" under the United States Constitution. Congress (the government) gets to decide what is best for the population through its possession of legislative power [2]. The people may elect the government once every so many years, but the government makes the decisions. My opponent gives an individual sovereignty metaphor (waiter, customer) to demonstrate popular sovereignty that is easily debunked. I counter it with another metaphor: A man walks into a bar. Who knows better what he wants to drink: himself, or everyone else there? Unchecked power infringes upon individual liberty. The Constitution fails to prevent this. I also question my opponent's opinion on the case in which the majority wishes that the government enslave a portion of the population for military duty. ==General Welfare Clause== My opponent, again, concedes that the general welfare clause is open for interpretation and so serves to allow the government whatever will it wants. This is a flaw in the Constitution that prevents the protection of the individual. My opponent again defaults to popular sovereignty. This has been addressed above. ==Supreme Court== The point was brought up earlier during my refutation of the negative case, but I shall reiterate that nobody can hold the Supreme Court accountable. My opponent makes a final argument, stating that any government can fail. However, I have demonstrated that the reason our government is constitutionally unchecked is because of flaws in the Constitution itself. ==Conclusion== While my opponent insists that the flaws are issues of improper interpretation, I have demonstrated that the Founding Fathers are to blame, for they have left a number of holes in the protection of our individual rights. The lack of effective limits on the United States Federal Government is due, therefore, to flaws in the Constitution itself. The resolution is affirmed. Thank you. ==Sources== [1] . http://www.cancertutor.com... [2] . http://www.usconstitution.net...