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

==Negative Contention: The issue lies in the flaws of interpretation and a lack of accountability== My opponent claims that it's only possible to "demonstrate [flaw of interpretation] on an individual case level." Not the case. As I showed throughout my previous speeches, all the so-called "flaws of the Constitution" are not truly the flaws of the document itself, but a failure to interpret it's meaning correctly, and a lack of accountability to interpret it properly. My opponent said that "the intent of the founding fathers…is irrelevant." Why? Because "they produced a limitless government." But did they produce it? Or did the previous generations of officials? Once again, the intent of the founding fathers was absolutely clear. The real problem doesn't lie in the Constitution being flawed, but rather a failure to respect two important doctrines that America was founded upon–protection of rights and adherence to popular sovereignty–and flaws of interpretation. As for the concept of popular sovereignty that my opponent says doesn't exist, it was one of the very reasons America became her own nation–not because of taxation, but taxation without representation! Now, there is not near as much popular sovereignty as before, but that's not to say that the Constitution is at fault. The government–whether the Constitution had been written one way or another–would still find a way to use it's power unlimitedly, and the existing problems would still be here. ==Elastic Clause== When, in the occasion that the elastic clause is misused, it is up to the people to repeal the law. I did not and am not advocating a coup or a revolution as did, say, the French. I am, however, simply saying that it is within the rights and duty of American citizens to choose for themselves what laws they want and don't want. For example, Arizona wants to implement a law to help prevent illegal immigration. The Washington Post states that: "One unifying immigration concern is the widespread perception that the federal government is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country. Overall, 75 percent of those polled fault border enforcement, and 83 percent support using National Guard troops to patrol the U.S.-Mexico line." [1] These polls show that the majority of the people don't think that the border enforcement is as efficient as it could be–and it is not. The government, however, is not doing anything about it. The flaws don't lie in the interpretation–the Constitution clearly states that the government's job is to protect the borders: to protect states from invasion (Constitution, Article 4, Section 4). In this instance, the government is being unconstitutional–a problem lying in a lack of action, flaws in interpretation, and most certainly not flaws of the Constitution itself. One again, returning to the founding fathers' original intent: James Madison says, ""When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…" [2] ==Wartime Exceptions== My opponent says he contends the fact that the people, rather than the government, decide what is best for the people. Not only is this statement illogical, but it appears to be contrary to my opponent's entire case. If he is opposed to unlimited government–as am I–why does he persist in saying that the government should decide what is best for the people? This blatant contradiction just goes to show that the people do decide what is best for themselves, not the government. While the government does have necessary power granted by the Constitution, it is up to the people to ensure that the government adheres to that Constitution–officials may be impeached for violations of the Constitution. Not only this, but the supreme court doesn't (Constitutionally) hold all power as my opponent seems to believe. This is seen in Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction … with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Constitution gives Congress the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court–the court is not all powerful due to flaws of the Constitution, but a lack of accountability from both Congress and the people–who elect Congress. I am not saying that majority rule defines what one person gets. Everyone has inherent individual rights that should never be taken away. However, when it comes to discussing the limits to the powers of government, that power ought to come from the people and that is why America was founded. Obviously popular sovereignty should work within the bounds of rights, but we aren't debating over that. The military analogy is not only theoretical, but, once again, not relating to our debate. That would obviously be unconstitutional, since the Constitution forbids slavery. The Constitution provides limitation to the government. If the government weasels a way around those based on semantics and bribery, it is then up to the people to put government back in line. ==General Welfare== My opponent's assertion is false. As I said earlier, the people–not the government–decide what is best for themselves. It's simply illogical for the government to be able to decide what the people want. Saying the people want something is different than what they really want. ==Supreme Court== The Constitution does hold the court accountable: through Congress, which is elected by the people. Take a look at Article 3, Section 2. ==Conclusion== My opponent's arguments have been, at best, misguided, such as the claim that "nobody can hold the Supreme Court accountable." While an unlimited government is certainly a problem, it stems not from the so-called "flaws of the Constitution," but a lack of accountability and respect for the rights and will of the American people. As seen through logic, history, quotes of the founding fathers themselves, and more powerfully, the Constitution, we see that it is not flawed. The way to stop the unlimited power of government is to take legal action and force the government to step back into line. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.constitutionparty.com...