The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Alain.Ginger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Judicial review

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SocialDemocrat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 356 times Debate No: 88545
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

SocialDemocrat

Pro

We know what judicial review is. I have no clue if he will accept, but if he wants to debate I wanted the upper hand in setting the terms. As in not requiring vote comments.

no plagarizing
try not to use strongman arguments
Alain.Ginger

Con

My opponent, of course, would want the upper hand in everything. Vote comments would obviously put anyone who is not on reason's side at a disadvantage.

I have a few guidelines of my own to put forth.

No logical fallacies. No invalid arguments. No forfeits.

Judges, carefully take note of both sides' sources, grammar and style before voting.

Best of Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Pro

I do not like forcing vote comments since having to give a play by play of a probably lengthy debate without getting that voted waived by whoever it is against or any moderator, or anyone at all, is actively discouraging people from voting on debates.

Now let me say that judicial review is, in fact, a good and necessary thing. If a piece of legislation violates the Constitution, it can be overturned based on that. Not having judicial review is dangerous, let me explain why. No sources are needed for this, at least yet for me.

For example, 1st amendment freedom of religion, 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, 7th amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. These, at least in the U.S, are human rights. Without judicial review, if any legislation saying that Christianity is the national religion, or that saying something against the government is punishable through prison. If that legislation could get the votes, then that could be passed. I think we see how dangerous this is. So judicial review is necessary for that reason alone. Because if legislation is in direct violation of the U.S constitution, then that legislation should not be able to be passed, and should be reviewed.

Yes, I do agree with this, laws are subject to change over time, with progress. However, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, can we agree these are not subject to change?
Alain.Ginger

Con

I will be arguing to abolish judicial review. I have twp points on this.

1. The Founding Fathers did not intend judicial review

2. It gives the judicial branch too much power

Judicial review was established in a case called Marbury v. Madison (http://teachingamericanhistory.org...) in 1803, 16 years after the Constitution was ratified in 1787 (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov...). Nothing about judicial review was in the Constitution and the Founding Fathers would never have allowed it. But why? This brings me to my second point.

It gives the judicial branch too much power.

With judicial review, the supreme court has the power to strike down laws as it sees fit. The problem with this, however, is that lawmaking is the legislative branch's job as clearly defined in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 1http://www.archives.gov...).
Therefore, it is not the judiciary's place to strike down laws.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"The founding fathers did not intend judicial review."

This is near meaningless, the founding fathers were in my opinion brilliant and innovative for their time. Yes, but the laws are subject to change with the times. However the constitution is a staple in the U.S you can not say it should not be allowed because the founding fathers could not specifically establish it.

But wtf are you talking about, of course the founding fathers would have wanted it, that is why they made the constitution. The constitution is essentially a base set of rights given to U.S citizens on the grounds of secularism and democracy primarily. Judicial review is essentially saying that you can not make laws that violate the U.S constitution, but you can add to it. Of course the founding fathers would believe that the constitution would play as a supreme set of rights/laws. Your first point just makes no sense. Why would the founding fathers write the constitution if they were okay with allowing legislation to be passed that allows for a national religion, or an Orwellian society come to life, that just does not fit, of course they would not want to allow any legislation in direct violation of the constitution.

"Nothing about judicial review was in the Constitution." Maybe, however the constitution in not this document that served the purpose of being the only policy, no it was a collect set of laws on the grounds of secularism with its purpose being giving individual freedom to people to do as they see fit as long as no one else is harmed, and preventing tyranny. There can be other laws and policies of course unless you can show me where they specifically went against this, but that does not exist. But they cannot violate the simple rules of the constitution such as, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment. That is the importance of judicial review, to PREVENT tyranny.

"With judicial review, the supreme court has the power to strike down laws as it sees fit." No no no, it gives them the power to examine it and say, no, this directly violates the constitution in that place where it says a national religion could not be established, sorry this shall not be passed. Again how is this too much power? It checks for constitutional validity, that is just what judicial review is.

"The problem with this is the legislative branch's job as clearly defined in the Constitution." Yeah I read it, and by definition you are laws. Lets see what you are referring to. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Okay guys critical thinking what does that say "legislative powers" but what are legislative powers? Dictionary definition-the power to MAKE laws. http://www.dictionary.com...
That is completely separate from striking down laws that violate the constitution, the judicial branch cannot MAKE laws, very different from judicial review. You blatantly misunderstood your definitions here. Yes the judicial branch can not make laws, very different thing.

So there you go, if you vote, please do not count the sources and use that for the sources point. Only award sources point if some one used sources as evidence rather than explanation, please. In summary, judicial review is necessary.
Alain.Ginger

Con

My opponent did an excellent job of coming against me with the best possible arguments. Unfortunately, even those are not enough.

To begin, it makes a huge difference whether the Founding Fathers intended judicial review or not. Saying, "But wtf are you talking about, of course the founding fathers would have wanted it" is not enough to refute the point. My opponent brought up no evidence stating that the Founding Fathers would have wanted it. The burden pf proof was his.

"Why would the founding fathers write the constitution if they were okay with allowing legislation to be passed that allows for a national religion, or an Orwellian society come to life, that just does not fit, of course they would not want to allow any legislation in direct violation of the constitution." The answer to that is that they had faith in Congress, as we should also.

""With judicial review, the supreme court has the power to strike down laws as it sees fit." No no no, it gives them the power to examine it and say, no, this directly violates the constitution in that place where it says a national religion could not be established, sorry this shall not be passed. Again how is this too much power? It checks for constitutional validity, that is just what judicial review is."

The saddening fact is that the Supreme Court does have the power to strike down laws as it sees fit. http://nationalparalegal.edu... has compiled a brief list of cases that were all impacted by judicial review.

"It is difficult to overstate the effect that Marbury and its progeny have had on the American legal system. A comprehensive list of important cases that have struck down federal or state statutes would easily reach four digits. But a recap of some of the most important historical Court decisions should serve to demonstrate the impact of judicial review.

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court struck down state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students on the grounds that they violated the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Supreme Court forced states to provide counsel in criminal cases for indigent defendants who were being tried for commission of a felony and could not afford their own counsel.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriage, also on equal protection grounds.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that state criminal laws that punished people for incitement could not be applied unless the speech in question was intended to and likely to, cause people to engage in imminent lawless action.

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court temporarily halted the death penalty in the United States by ruling that state death penalty statutes were not applied consistently or fairly enough to pass muster under the Eighth Amendment.

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that made abortion illegal. Though Roe and many later cases have walked a tight line in determining exactly how far the right to choose an abortion extends, the basic idea that the right to choose an abortion is protected as part of the right to privacy still stands as the law of the land.

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court struck down spending limits on individuals or groups who wished to use their own money to promote a political candidate or message (though it upheld limitations on how much could be contributed directly to a campaign) on First Amendment grounds.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Supreme Court struck down certain types of race-based preferences in state college admissions as violating the equal protection clause.

In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in fourteen states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court struck down a federal election law that restricted spending on election advertising by corporations and other associations.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (the "Obamacare" decision) was famous for upholding most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, it also struck down an element of that law that threatened to withhold Medicaid funding from states that did not cooperate with the law, on the grounds that this was an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty."

Moving on, SocialDemocrat said,

"Okay guys critical thinking what does that say "legislative powers" but what are legislative powers? Dictionary definition-the power to MAKE laws. http://www.dictionary.com......
That is completely separate from striking down laws that violate the constitution, the judicial branch cannot MAKE laws, very different from judicial review. You blatantly misunderstood your definitions here. Yes the judicial branch can not make laws, very different thing."

The actual definition that would apply here said, "of or relating to the enactment of laws:" I'm sure we can all agree that judicial review certainly relates to the enactment of laws in a very big way. Therefore SocialDemocrat did not effectively refute my point in any way.

All the points point to judicial review being abolished. Judges, please use discretion when voting.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 11 months ago
SocialDemocrat
You used the wrong definition, that one would not apply there.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 11 months ago
SocialDemocrat
How are any of the examples you stated an overuse of judicial review? Striking down making abortion illegal because of privacy reasons is perfectly reasonable.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
SocialDemocratAlain.GingerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30