Judicial activism necessary protect rights of American citiz

The Constitution itself secures individual rights against oppression. All that is necessary to protect individual rights is for the court to do the job it was designed to do: Decide cases or controversies arising under the Constitution. That is NOT judicial activism.

Thanks but the resolved is about Judicial activism

Give some examples of your argument, perhaps that will give us an idea of what you're looking for.

Topic:

"Judicial activism is necessary to protect the rights of American citizens."

Your topic is a conclusion.

In order to reach the conclusion set forth in your topic, you must start with the faulty premise that the Constitution itself fails to protect individual life, liberty, or property interests before you may conclude that "judicial activism" is necessary to protect individual life, liberty, or property interests.

Inasmuch as your premise is false, your conclusion is false.

Sounds like the topic of a debating competition.

That's not even the issue..I just debated this topic. Post your case and we can look at it.

Pardon me?

Do your own legwork!

The whole point of taking classes is to learn to how work and think For Yourself! harumpht.

wow your nice

This is certainly going down the tubes fast. Civility is apparently dead.

Big&Soft&Furry
Perhaps if you defined your concept of judicial activism you would get a betterr response to your question. That instead of "harumpht."

Civility is dead when you have nasty people posting

Judicial activism resolution
Hey. I too am doing this resolution. If you want some ideas for possible contentions, I could give you an overview of several points that I am working at and have heard in the past as well and you could do the same--I'm in need of a second point of view and some possible refutes to work on. I'm not gonna include EVERYTHING, just the tagline of my contentions and a short explaination (I don't wanna do the work for you, L/D is for your own thinkin good!) You'll have to expand on these arguments your own way.

Here's for AFFIRMATIVE (watch out for definitions of necessary on this side):
--JA is allowed through the 14th amendment Due Process law because it includes not just 'procedural rights' but 'substantive' or inalienable, inherent rights as well, in which is somethign that not even the legislative majority can violate.
--JA is allowed through an evolving, living constitution, backed by Framer's Intent.
--JA is necessary because it protects unpopular minorities and rights inherently given to them--not in need of majoritarian supports makes this the one unique tool to be able to do this.
--amendment process cannot provide certain things/takes too long (iffy--this is very debatable, so watch out b/c S Cts. can also take a long time, etc.)
--JA acts as catalyst for change.

NEGATIVE:
--JA judges intrude into policy making and disrupts the balance of powers, giving legislative powers central to the courts.
--JA allows judges own preference to get in the way--violates a judge's obligation to INTERPRET the constitution, and can both provide and take away american rights--no guarentee.
--Doesn't allow people's participation in its decisions/ is not needed, and can create policies irrelevant to their values.
--Federalism is a better alternative
--cannot presuppose outcomes of its decisions/ more erroneous than Leg. branch
--blah blah blah blah...so on so forth

So gimme some possible rebuttals and such or things about each argument that is highly debatable. I hope I gave you a general idea of several arguments each side can make, and what this resolution is really about. I'll check back in a couple of days.

concept of it all
The concept of Judicial activism is that the Courts are making policies from broadly interpreting the Constitution, as in, instead of interpreting it word for word by strict cognitive meanings, it is going by the 'spirit' of the law at hand, instead. Such as Roe V. Wade---which legalized abortion rights. It took the meaning of citizens' 'right to privacy' to include childbearing, although it doesn't specify in the constitution, but did so anyway, and therefore created the policy of the right to abortion. The AFF is saying that this is necessary to protect rights violation, and the NEG is saying that this is illegitimate, that there are better alternatives, etc. and that judicial activism is wrong because it is not said in the Constitution, etc.

Personally, I think the negative side is more easy to debate. The affirmative seems to always lose in rounds. Hope this helps you guys understand.

Though I know she doesn't need my defending her, I am going to do it anyway. Flushd happens to be a very nice person. She may have strong opinions and passions, but she IS NICE! Trust me, you haven't met not nice on these threads yet.

Im sure you are right Oh and thanks for the info LD Gator it has really given me some good ideas

hope i can help
i'm on lincoln douglas right now too. i'm actually righting my neg case as i type this, so i can only contribute my aff's ideas ^__^

i'm running the living constitution idea,
i use the ninth amendment
Lawrence v. Texas (concerning gay rights) plus Bowers v. Hardwick
somehow i tosed in the second amendment about ou right to bear arms...
i don't know if this is a good point or not, but supreme court judges have no political future worries. they have the seats for life. blah blah

although, you can run that same last point on neg also... debate is quite confusting in that manner!

a brief summary of my neg so far, the amendment process. a lot. only good way, yadda yadda.
the amendment process: it doesn't matter if it takes long. it weeds out the bad, dumb ideas. yeah.

hop i could help!

Well right now i'm doing LD and Policy debate. if any of you peps need cases just write to me. i have cases and evidence from policy that u can use and no one will be able to answer it. I'm from Kelly HS and we won 1st place on our first LD tourny. So If you help me i'll help you.

Thanks Vega Our team won 1st in our last debate and I do have so good ideas for this debate so we can help each other out