This is the new debate resolution and I thought I'd see where my fellow AD debaters stood. The question on the poll is the resolution I want to know your opinions and see what others think about the issue.

So:

Judicial activism is necessary to protect the rights of american citizens.
Agree or Disagree? Why or Why not?

I'm the first No vote you see up there. I say no, because protection of our rights is quite well provided for in the Constitution itself. There's no need to add anything to the text. And on top of that, if worse comes to worst we have the ability to relocate to another town or state if we find that the restrictions it imposes are not to our own liking. This response may seem a bit short, but it's rather hard to prove a negative. So all I can say is that I honestly cannot think of a single right that would be in danger if judicial activism were done away with.

Ah but that is exactly my point... Many people think like you and fail to remember that there are several things that would not have happened had an activist court not been around. Roe v. Wade, Plessey v. Furgeson, the Miranda case, and Brown v. The Board of Education. All of these critical landmark cases would have never made it through the system without the aid of an activist court. Desegregation of schools, womens rights, gun control, reproductive rights; all of these things would not have been possible. There are many things that the constitution does'nt directly protect. Including almost all of the ones I listed above. There are just too many differences in todays society to rely on something written based on society almost 200 years ago.