CreateDebate


Debate Info

7
6
SCOTUS (Supreme Court) The People (Pure-Democracy)
Debate Score:13
Arguments:16
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 SCOTUS (Supreme Court) (7)
 
 The People (Pure-Democracy) (6)

Debate Creator

GenericName(3430) pic



Final Arbiter of Constitutionality: Supreme Court or the People?

With the issue of same-sex marriage all but over as more and more states are recognizing it legally, many people have questioned whether it is right that the will of the people (in some states, not all) is being overruled by our judicial system.  Others say that it is the role of the courts in this situation to protect a minority from the majority, especially on constitutional issues.

So who do you believe should be the final arbiter of Constitionality in this Constitutional Republic of ours: The Supreme Court of the United States (Judicial Branch), or the people at large, via a pure-democratic method (such as a referendum)? 

SCOTUS (Supreme Court)

Side Score: 7
VS.

The People (Pure-Democracy)

Side Score: 6
1 point

It is for the people, through representation, to determine the content the Constitution. It is for the Supreme Court to interpret how that content applies to society. SCOTUS can set precedent, people can hold Constitutional conventions. This relationship doesn't have any finality.

Side: SCOTUS (Supreme Court)
1 point

The 10th amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution NOR prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states. Gay marriage clearly falls under this 10th amendment constitutional right. The states have the right to decide if gay marriage is good for their state.

Now, gay marriage proponents argue that they have a 14th amendment right under the equal protection clause. Lets take a closer look at the 14th amendment, shall we.

The 14th amendment was proposed and ratified for one narrow reason. To deal with the freed slaves and the reintegration of the southern states. The 14th amendment dealt with the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The drafters of the 14th amendment focused on only 1 of 3 rights.

The 3 are social, political, and civil. The 14th focused on your CIVIL rights, not your social and political rights. To further strengthen my point, the framers specifically left out the right to vote under the 14th amendment. That was later dealt with under the 15th amendment. (political)

The 14th amendment was framed and passed to deal with only a person's CIVIL rights. The framers never intended to use the 14th amendment for your political or social rights. Gay marriage is CLEARLY a SOCIAL right. Therefore, gay marriage does not fall under the 14th amendment. It is reserved for the 10th amendment.

Finally, and let me be very clear here. The framers of the constitution never intended for the 14th amendment to overrule the 10th amendment. They were very specific when drafting the 14th amendment. Gay marriage is NOT a constitutional right under the 14th amendment. Each state has the right to decide if they want gay marriage, as the constitution has given to the states that right.

Side: The People (Pure-Democracy)
1 point

"The 14th amendment was proposed and ratified for one narrow reason. To deal with the freed slaves and the reintegration of the southern states. The 14th amendment dealt with the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The drafters of the 14th amendment focused on only 1 of 3 rights." Original intent is pretty flimsy, as essentially every amendment has been applied in more ways than intended. Heck, the Constitution wasn't intended to apply to women or slaves, and the right to vote wasn't intended for those without land. Additionally, marriage was ruled to be a civil right by the Supreme Court under Loving v. Virginia, which is why the 14th amendment would apply to it (Due Process and Equal Protections).

Regardless, this thread was not meant to be a same-sex marriage argument or a "living doccument" vs "original intent" argument, it was meant to be an argument on the final arbiter of the Constitution. So aside from a specific issue, do you think that a pure-democratic vote should be the final say on issues of constitutionality, or the Supreme Court? Aside from Congress and the States passing an amendment, of course.

Side: SCOTUS (Supreme Court)
zico20(345) Disputed
1 point

I will answer your question in a moment. You did bring up gay marriage in your original post. If the supreme court rightly rejects gay marriage as a constitutional right, only 14 states and the DC will have legal gay marriage. So it is far from becoming the norm.

I believe the people have the final right in all circumstances where the rights are not clearly defined in the constitution. The supreme court should only decide cases where lower courts have split in their rulings or where a constitutional breach has occurred. An example is the 2nd amendment.

Side: The People (Pure-Democracy)
1 point

The original framers of our Constitution and its "Bill of Rights" took great care to be as clear as possible by rewriting as often as needed to capture their intent accurately. It follows that a direct interpretation is most likely to contain their intent. The SCOTUS should be interpreting with only this in mind.

When a question of rights is at issue, it is reasonable to conclude that the framers intended what they wrote to be directly interpreted.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The SCOTUS was intended to rule only where the Constitution applied. This then established the limits on the power of the SCOTUS.

The people were left to be the final deciders of all States rights.

Side: The People (Pure-Democracy)
1 point

You and Zico both made the mistake of posting arguments on a different issue entirely. This argument was not about differing schools of thought on Constitutional law or the merits of strict original intent (a problem I have addressed with Zico already).

Side: SCOTUS (Supreme Court)
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

do you think that a pure-democratic vote should be the final say on issues of constitutionality, or the Supreme Court? Aside from Congress and the States passing an amendment, of course.

The Supreme Court

Side: SCOTUS (Supreme Court)