homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:54 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 203
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region II Oregon
We hit this team going aff, and they said that our plan wouldn't come about because we could only use congress, because we were reforming a law. However what we were contending was a constitutional violation which must go before the Supreme Court. In reality we never specified congress, we said the USFG.
Essentially I have two questions:

1. Are you required to specify the certain agency that is making the reform?
2. Can congress make a change to a constitutional violation within the context of debate?

_________________
I am ninja!
Best/Tähtinen|Rainmakers|2010-2011
Mckenzie/Tähtinen|Rainmakers|2011-2012
Miu/Tahtinen|Rainmakers|2012-2013


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:36 am 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
::Requesting this by moved to debate theory::

Highlander wrote:
1. Are you required to specify the certain agency that is making the reform?
You should specify how reform will be brought about to be able to prove solvency.
Highlander wrote:
2. Can congress make a change to a constitutional violation within the context of debate?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, since you're in Rainmakers, I'm going to make an educated guess that you were running civil asset forfeiture and neg argued that congress can't interpret the constitution. I would respond to that by saying an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it. Furthermore, congress can repeal any law it wants for whatever reason it wants.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 203
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region II Oregon
Dr_Pepper wrote:
::Requesting this by moved to debate theory::

Highlander wrote:
1. Are you required to specify the certain agency that is making the reform?
You should specify how reform will be brought about to be able to prove solvency.
Highlander wrote:
2. Can congress make a change to a constitutional violation within the context of debate?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, since you're in Rainmakers, I'm going to make an educated guess that you were running civil asset forfeiture and neg argued that congress can't interpret the constitution. I would respond to that by saying an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it. Furthermore, congress can repeal any law it wants for whatever reason it wants.


haha ok thanks. No Actually I was running PLRA. You answered my question perfectly thank you.

_________________
I am ninja!
Best/Tähtinen|Rainmakers|2010-2011
Mckenzie/Tähtinen|Rainmakers|2011-2012
Miu/Tahtinen|Rainmakers|2012-2013


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 2:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 978
Home Schooled: Yes
Not entirely correct.

1) You don't need to specify an actor/agency unless it's for some reason complicated. If you are amending law/policy it is implied that you have a joint legislative/executive actor, because those are the only agencies capable of that and because you can't fiat the Supreme Court anyway. Specing "Congress will pass" has literally nothing to do with proving solvency.

2) Congress can repeal an unconstitutional law if it wants, but the important thing to remember is that it is viewed is a completely pragmatic policy decision. The ruling would have no effect of setting precedent, because congress has no forum or mechanism for ruling on constitutional issues. So if your harm depends on something related to precedent (like amending the NDAA, for example), you have no ability to solve for other contributing factors.
- For example, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act Reform case has problems because the statutory changes to Habeas Corpus are found in other laws, like the Controlled Substances Act. So just amending the AEDPA through congress won't solve universally like a SCOTUS ruling does.

The implication being that if your justification for change is constitutional in nature, you need to make sure that the only source of violation is in that single law you are amending. Because often our laws are more complex than that. That's why I generally favor more comprehensive plans like the Due Process Guarantee Act, because you can get more universal solvency in the form a SCOTUS ruling would provide.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited