The Instigator
Mr.Cotton-Balls
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamadragon
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Is the Supreme Court Constitutional?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,614 times Debate No: 7112
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

Mr.Cotton-Balls

Pro

I will let the con side go first on this debate. because of this you will not be able to post in your final round except just to say good debate vote for me. thats its.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Cotton-Balls

Pro

well since my apponet only gave a source and I'm not sure if he got the meaning of the question at hand let me elaborate.
well basically my inspiration came from the Colbert report. I know not the most reliable source.
but none the less he striked my imagination and I did find one source to back my claims up to a certain extent this is for fun u guys so lets have some!

The delegates, who went to Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to make the Articles of Confederation more workable, eventually drafted a document that replaced the Articles with a new and more powerful central government. The Constitution, which was the basis for this new order of government, separated the legislative, judicial, and executive powers, without fully spelling out the powers of each branch, especially those of the Supreme Court. Many of the founding fathers, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, believed that each of the branches of government should be "supreme" within their own spheres. Much of American history since 1788 is about how these three branches have exercised their individual supremacy subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which assumed early in the Nineteenth century the authority for reviewing all government actions and laws in the context of their constitutionality. This means that the Court has functioned over time as the principal interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution.
http://www.law.umkc.edu...

yes the principal interpreter of the meaning of the constitution never in the constitution does it state that this is within the supreme courts power, accualy I cant find eny kind of righten document on the supreme courts powers and what not dating to or near 1787, which is when the constitutional convention took place. so what's up with that!?! IdK im more seeing if eny body has the answer to my question than debating.
iamadragon

Con

OK, I thought I was going to be saying "Yes, the Supreme Court is constitutional." Then, I saw that I took the CON side without realizing it, and I was going to try to claim that the PRO and CON positions haven't really been defined yet. Anyway, you seem to want to argue that it's unconstitutional, so I'll go against that.

My first was simply Article III of the United States Constitution. It specifically outlines the formation of the judicial branch of government, and the Supreme Court–therefore, by definition, it's clearly constitutional.

These kinds of powers are given to the judicial branch in Article III, and, to a lesser extent, Article XI. The reason the Supreme Court has a strong say over the other branches is the fundamental concept of checks and balances within the government.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Cotton-Balls

Pro

These kinds of powers are given to the judicial branch in Article III, and, to a lesser extent, Article XI. The reason the Supreme Court has a strong say over the other branches is the fundamental concept of checks and balances within the government.

Well I know about the checks and balances and I think its awesome and great and all sorts off other complementary words but I'm clearly talking about the way the judicial branch got such a power over the other to systems.

1.)The Constitution, which was the basis for this new order of government, separated the legislative, judicial, and executive powers, without fully spelling out the powers of each branch, especially those of the Supreme Court. Many of the founding fathers, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, believed that each of the branches of government should be "supreme" within their own spheres.

These are just 2 of the men at the Constitutional convention in 1787 many others also believed this was the way the Virginia plan would work also, but the current system, which the contender pointed out came to being. my question is since this was not in the Virginia plan does this make the powers the judicial branch have constitutional?
iamadragon

Con

The Virginia Plan is irrelevant. The Supreme Court is in the Constitution; therefore, it is constitutional.

"Well I know about the checks and balances and I think its awesome and great and all sorts off other complementary words but I'm clearly talking about the way the judicial branch got such a power over the other to systems."

This is the first time I've actually grasped that. What do you even mean, though? Where is the evidence of the Supreme Court having too much power? I actually don't know, especially considering how much the Courts can shift in terms of ideology.

This could have been pretty interesting, but, I mean, I didn't even understand what you were arguing until the 3rd Round, and I don't even think that was any fault of mine. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court is obviously constitutional, as it was created by the Constitution. The way it operates is constitutional because that's how it was made to work in the Constitution, and it also fits in with the Founding Fathers' idea of checks and balances in government.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Cotton-Balls

Pro

Mr.Cotton-Balls forfeited this round.
iamadragon

Con

I'm not supposed to present an argument for this round, but it doesn't appear that I'd need to, anyway.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 7 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
Brendan ill inform u of the constitutional convention of 1787 at practice 2 maro! and I need your # send it to me in a message
Posted by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
The Supreme Court is perfectly Constitutional since it is actually in the Constitution. Its actions aren't always Constitutional, but the body itself is.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"

First, let us define Judicial Review (having researched a textbook of mean, it would appear I wasn't using the meaning in terms of constitutional law): Refers to the power of the courts to declare government actions invalid if they are determined to be contrary to constitutional principles.

In other words, not the mere ability to interpret the law."

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The constitution omits any reference to the laws of the United States NOT made in pursuance thereof-- therefore, they aren't binding. Finding out what laws bind you as a court is part of interpreting the law.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Yeah, I unintentionally underestimated you there. Was hoping you'd go "Ah, that's quite an authority. I'd better not question the authority of a legal university" or something along those lines. :D

Anyways, my response to your argument is the following:

First, let us define Judicial Review (having researched a textbook of mean, it would appear I wasn't using the meaning in terms of constitutional law): Refers to the power of the courts to declare government actions invalid if they are determined to be contrary to constitutional principles.

In other words, not the mere ability to interpret the law. Nowhere in your citing of Article Three do we explicitly see this power confirmed, thus I'm inclined to agree with my previous assertions for the time being.
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 7 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
The delegates, who went to Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to make the Articles of Confederation more workable, eventually drafted a document that replaced the Articles with a new and more powerful central government. The Constitution, which was the basis for this new order of government, separated the legislative, judicial, and executive powers, without fully spelling out the powers of each branch, especially those of the Supreme Court. Many of the founding fathers, such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, believed that each of the branches of government should be "supreme" within their own spheres. Much of American history since 1788 is about how these three branches have exercised their individual supremacy subject to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which assumed early in the Nineteenth century the authority for reviewing all government actions and laws in the context of their constitutionality. This means that the Court has functioned over time as the principal interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution.

this is what my Queastion is about ok they never told the suprem court what its powers were they just steped up and took the power early on?
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 7 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
lol ok I'm confused what side do u want and what are your terms!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Hehehe LM... quoting the constitution on the constitution, fortunately, beats out even a university source :).
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Does taking a PRO position to the question "Is the Supreme Court Constitutional?" necessarily entail an answer of "Yes?"

I will argue that it doesn't. That's my only hope.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
LKSDFJLKASFAVLASVKLASJFLKSAJFLKASJFLKAF

I thought I was PRO.

Wow.

I have completely shamed myself.

LFKJASKLGSLKGHASLKFJASLF
Posted by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
Uh actually there was this cool thing called the Constitutional Convention that decided there should be a Supreme Court, whose justices would be appointed by the president.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Mr.Cotton-BallsiamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
Mr.Cotton-BallsiamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
Mr.Cotton-BallsiamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
Mr.Cotton-BallsiamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
Mr.Cotton-BallsiamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07