homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:22 pm
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  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:41 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Professor Christopher Slobogin from Vanderbilt has done a lot of writing on the Fourth Amendment, and he suggests technological advancements have left it far behind. Quick reminder, the Fourth Amendment is what governs search and seizure law, but it has only been legally interpreted to govern physical search and seizure, not virtual (i.e. surveillance, data mining, etc). What Slobogin recommends is an amendment to the Fourth Amendment to allow for more specified Constitutional regulation of government surveillance.

There's plenty of significance/justification evidence you can find about the dangerous precedent current Constitutional interpretation has on search and seizure and privacy law.

This artcile is a good place to start, but he's written quite a bit on the subject.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:34 am
Posts: 9
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: You'll never know
Even though this post was made over 3 months ago I'm still going to reply to it because Stoa needs more activity HSD. :)

Now on to the case. Even though this might be a good idea the only way to pass the plan would be through a constitutional amendment, and a constitutional amendment must be ratified by the states which the affirmative team doesn't have fiat over. So either the affirmative team is overstepping the bounds of the USFG by trying to force the states to pass a constitutional amendment (which wouldn't work) or their plan would rely on the fact that the states would ratify the amendment (which probably wouldn't work.)

_________________
Jacob Shelton, region VIII
NCFCA
2013/14 - Oliver/Shelton (NCfCA) --2013/14 -Shelton/Taylor (Stoa)
2014/15 - Seidel/Shelton (NCFCA)--2014/15 - Hayes/Shelton (Stoa)
2015/16 - Seidel/Shelton (NCFCA)--2015/16 - Hayes/Shelton (Stoa)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 11:14 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
Thanks Jacob! I agree stoa is not big hsd XD.

I also agree that the federal government cannot simply amend the constitution. A different plan text that aff can utilize would be to have the Supreme Court interpret the constitution, setting judicial precedent. This obviously requires a current pending case that SCOTUS could actually make a ruling on. If there were, however, I think you could simply interpret the constitution using the updates that this dude argues.

_________________
Stoa: Veritas -Kendrick/Kendrick


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:34 am
Posts: 9
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: You'll never know
That plan might work but some negative teams would probably argue you can't pass a plan through the supreme because their decisions are literally just the opinions of the current supreme court. I'm not saying I would run that but I've heard other teams run similar arguments, but it's debatable what do you think?

_________________
Jacob Shelton, region VIII
NCFCA
2013/14 - Oliver/Shelton (NCfCA) --2013/14 -Shelton/Taylor (Stoa)
2014/15 - Seidel/Shelton (NCFCA)--2014/15 - Hayes/Shelton (Stoa)
2015/16 - Seidel/Shelton (NCFCA)--2015/16 - Hayes/Shelton (Stoa)


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 11:14 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
I personally would never run a case like that simply for that reason. The impacts for disads would be sooo incredible crazy. To make a ruling as the Supreme Court, you would have to present the reasoning. If that reasoning is flawed in anyway, it opens the door for so many potential future abuses. The reason jurisprudence is kind of messed up now is because of faulty reasoning. The ruling might be right, but some future judges take advantages of bad reasoning and exploit it to fit their personal agenda. So simply being the Supreme Court is just a BAD idea in general. All neg has to do is present a scenario which could lead to the next Roe v Wade and they'd be right!

_________________
Stoa: Veritas -Kendrick/Kendrick


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
From what I saw of the article (and I only scanned it SUPER briefly) Professor Slobogin is referring to a rational challenge that could, in the real world have an individual court case work its way to the supreme court where the Supreme Court would then issue its opinion. He is advocating the change via the supreme court because that is the most rational plan in the real world.
In the debater world, you don't have to deal with that (unless it's different for STOA, I don't know why it would be). You can reform the constitution through both houses of congress supporting a constitutional amendment to overhaul the 4th. I know that happens with many cases in NCFCA (e.g., last year there were election law cases that would reform the constitution and allow felons to vote, and also repealing the 17th amendment).
Also, the Supreme court doesn't dictate the laws of the land. Judicial activism is a bad thing and shouldn't be encouraged (but that is my opinionated claim).

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2887
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
jnshelton wrote:
That plan might work but some negative teams would probably argue you can't pass a plan through the supreme because their decisions are literally just the opinions of the current supreme court. I'm not saying I would run that but I've heard other teams run similar arguments, but it's debatable what do you think?

Legislation in Congress is literally just opinions from 495 representatives and 100 senators. SCOTUS is still an institution, which is the key thing.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:34 am
Posts: 9
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: You'll never know
Sharkfin wrote:
jnshelton wrote:
That plan might work but some negative teams would probably argue you can't pass a plan through the supreme because their decisions are literally just the opinions of the current supreme court. I'm not saying I would run that but I've heard other teams run similar arguments, but it's debatable what do you think?

Legislation in Congress is literally just opinions from 495 representatives and 100 senators. SCOTUS is still an institution, which is the key thing.

I've never run this as Neg so I can't really go into details on this argument but there is a difference between the opinions of supreme court members and congress members so just because congress votes based of their opinions doesn't make it the same, But this argument could be debated for hours with no clear conclusions since it's just debate theory. Also what kkendrick said is another reason using the supreme court is a bad idea
kkendrick wrote:
The impacts for disads would be sooo incredible crazy. To make a ruling as the Supreme Court, you would have to present the reasoning. If that reasoning is flawed in anyway, it opens the door for so many potential future abuses. The reason jurisprudence is kind of messed up now is because of faulty reasoning. The ruling might be right, but some future judges take advantages of bad reasoning and exploit it to fit their personal agenda. So simply being the Supreme Court is just a BAD idea in general.

JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
last year there were election law cases that would reform the constitution and allow felons to vote, and also repealing the 17th amendment

This year and last the resolutions for NCFCA have been worded "The United States Should...." The resolutions for Stoa have been worded "The United States Federal Government should..." The reason you could pass constitutional amendments last year in NCFCA is because the "United States" includes the USFG as well as the states. However, with the Stoa resolution you have no fiat over the states. (Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying here)

_________________
Jacob Shelton, region VIII
NCFCA
2013/14 - Oliver/Shelton (NCfCA) --2013/14 -Shelton/Taylor (Stoa)
2014/15 - Seidel/Shelton (NCFCA)--2014/15 - Hayes/Shelton (Stoa)
2015/16 - Seidel/Shelton (NCFCA)--2015/16 - Hayes/Shelton (Stoa)


Last edited by jnshelton on Fri Jan 30, 2015 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
jnshelton wrote:
This year and last the resolutions for NCFCA have been worded "The United States Should...." The resolutions for Stoa have been worded "The United States Federal Government should..." The reason you could pass constitutional amendments last year in NCFCA is because the "United States" includes the USFG as well as the states. However, with the Stoa resolution you have no fiat over the states. (Sorry if I misunderstood what you were here)

No, you're right, I just needed to freshen up on my constitutional-amendment-process knowledge :D.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:57 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1370
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
jnshelton wrote:
This year and last the resolutions for NCFCA have been worded "The United States Should...." The resolutions for Stoa have been worded "The United States Federal Government should..." The reason you could pass constitutional amendments last year in NCFCA is because the "United States" includes the USFG as well as the states. However, with the Stoa resolution you have no fiat over the states. (Sorry if I misunderstood what you were here)

No, you're right, I just needed to freshen up on my constitutional-amendment-process knowledge :D.

Jacob is right on the money. However, AFF could get out of the whole fiat discussion by stipulating Congress pass the constitutional amendment, and then produce evidence stating a solid majority of the states or state legislatures would want to pass it. I doubt this substantiation exists, however, and thus, the case would still have fiat issues. If the mandate also mandates the states...well, easy Topicality.

A much easier way to "modernize the Fourth amendment," IMO, is to take a look into passing the Email Privacy Act in the House and the ECPA Amendments Act in the Senate.

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2887
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Quote:
I've never run this as Neg so I can't really go into details on this argument but there is a difference between the opinions of supreme court members and congress members so just because congress votes based of their opinions doesn't make it the same, But this argument could be debated for hours with no clear conclusions since it's just debate theory. Also what kkendrick said is another reason using the supreme court is a bad idea

I don't think it's the same because Congress votes based on their opinions - I think it's the same because SCOTUS and Congress are both Constitutionally-established - both are entities or institutions in and of themselves. Just like you can fiat the President - which is literally one person - to issue a complex executive order doing something, I suggest that you can fiat SCOTUS to write a complex opinion.

All of that said, I think fiating the Court is (typically) a terrible idea - but not really for these reasons. 99% of the time when people fiat the Court, they just make a blanket statement saying the "Court will overturn XYZ" or "issue an opinion stating ZYX."

But that's wrong: in order for SCOTUS to act, it must have a test case - a case where the appellant has standing to sue the Federal government over the application of a set of laws based on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, in order to fiat SCOTUS to make a decision on XYZ, you must also fiat an individual or something which is not the federal government to bring suit against the government. (The federal government can't sue itself - Congress cannot sue the President (insert legal citation which I've since forgotten here).)

That's the real problem with fiating SCOTUS. The only way it will work is if there is a presently pending case to which SCOTUS can grant cert/has granted cert.

kkendrick wrote:
I personally would never run a case like that simply for that reason. The impacts for disads would be sooo incredible crazy. To make a ruling as the Supreme Court, you would have to present the reasoning.

Your plan doesn't have to explicitly outline how a law will be written in Congress - thanks to fiat power, we sort of just assume that the law is well-written because we want to test whether or not the concept of the policy will be a good thing. I suggest fiat power extends the same privilege to court decisions.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Sharkfin wrote:
All of that said, I think fiating the Court is (typically) a terrible idea - but not really for these reasons. 99% of the time when people fiat the Court, they just make a blanket statement saying the "Court will overturn XYZ" or "issue an opinion stating ZYX."

But that's wrong: in order for SCOTUS to act, it must have a test case - a case where the appellant has standing to sue the Federal government over the application of a set of laws based on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, in order to fiat SCOTUS to make a decision on XYZ, you must also fiat an individual or something which is not the federal government to bring suit against the government.

Well, technically the Supreme court isn't limited when issuing their opinion and could make this opinion in just about any case (I'm not saying that that's a good thing). Maybe I'm wrong or am misunderstanding that. Mark Levin's Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America is an excellent resource on the subject.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2887
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
JohnMarkPorter1 wrote:
Sharkfin wrote:
All of that said, I think fiating the Court is (typically) a terrible idea - but not really for these reasons. 99% of the time when people fiat the Court, they just make a blanket statement saying the "Court will overturn XYZ" or "issue an opinion stating ZYX."

But that's wrong: in order for SCOTUS to act, it must have a test case - a case where the appellant has standing to sue the Federal government over the application of a set of laws based on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, in order to fiat SCOTUS to make a decision on XYZ, you must also fiat an individual or something which is not the federal government to bring suit against the government.

Well, technically the Supreme court isn't limited when issuing their opinion and could make this opinion in just about any case (I'm not saying that that's a good thing). Maybe I'm wrong or am misunderstanding that. Mark Levin's Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America is an excellent resource on the subject.

(1) Unless I'm misunderstanding you: no, SCOTUS constitutionally cannot just make opinions about any case. There must be a specific person or organization that has been harmed by the policy in question. Check out the Case and Controversy Clause of Article III.

This is why Congress can't just call up the Court and say "hey, would you strike this down if we pass it?" Our judicial system is based around a concept of adversarial controversy - that is, there must be two parties (at least) in any case. That's the only way common law is made in the United States and it cannot be made any other way.

Isaiah explains this in a slightly different way here: http://www.ethosdebate.com/2009/12/fiat ... t-against/

(2) It's worth noting that Levin's work is not a serious scholarly endeavor and has no credibility in the legal field. (One review I found said that "If you read it, don't regard it as a primer on how the SCOTUS works or how it's supposed to work." - I agree.)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 651
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Sharkfin wrote:
(1) Unless I'm misunderstanding you: no, SCOTUS constitutionally cannot just make opinions about any case. There must be a specific person or organization that has been harmed by the policy in question. Check out the Case and Controversy Clause of Article III.

This is why Congress can't just call up the Court and say "hey, would you strike this down if we pass it?" Our judicial system is based around a concept of adversarial controversy - that is, there must be two parties (at least) in any case. That's the only way common law is made in the United States and it cannot be made any other way.
Alright, that clarifies some things. The idea that I was communicating was that justices would use the ability to write the opinion to "create precedent" so to speak by basing their decision on some new-found logic or point (which could be the Aff's new policy) and it would gradually work itself into general acceptance. That said, I may have taken Levin's statement out of context. As far as Levin's legitimacy, he is an attorney, worked in the Reagan Administration, and heads a legal foundation, but you are right.

To me, the case involves the problem that the Fourth Amendment hasn't been interpreted in a modern setting.
lookingforangels wrote:
it has only been legally interpreted to govern physical search and seizure, not virtual (i.e. surveillance, data mining, etc).
Therefore, if the Affirmative team could mandate a solvent change in my opinion by affecting a court decision (now, whether that could actually happen in a debate world or is a good thing are different).

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 11:14 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
kkendrick wrote:
I personally would never run a case like that simply for that reason. The impacts for disads would be sooo incredible crazy. To make a ruling as the Supreme Court, you would have to present the reasoning.

Sharkfin wrote:
Your plan doesn't have to explicitly outline how a law will be written in Congress - thanks to fiat power, we sort of just assume that the law is well-written because we want to test whether or not the concept of the policy will be a good thing. I suggest fiat power extends the same privilege to court decisions.


I disagree. A ruling without reasoning, would be tantamount to passing a mandate, without funding, agency/enforcement, or a timeline. Now who would do that? ;) You're assuming guaranteed solvency, which is an abusive argument. You have to know the plan mechanism for your case. You can't simply sign a peace treaty with North Korea, without explaining the workability of the plan. Fiat power only gives the power to pass their plan through the bounds of the resolution. Fiat power does not cover the feasibility or solvency of that plan. In the area of the federal courts, a team CAN pass a ruling, which would essentially in terms of regular policy debate, be the mandate. The agency/ enforcement, or the plan mechanism for that ruling, would be the federal court and their reasoning behind the ruling. Simply assuming that the federal government or the Supreme Court would have "good" judgment is flawed. For instance, let's say aff passes a plan to regulate the NSA, but is also enforced by the NSA. If the NSA is corrupt and has broken laws in the past, would they follow through with that law? who knows. Either way, we cannot just assume that the law is well written or properly enforced. Also, like I said earlier, because the reasoning is so integral to the plan itself, I think there's huge grounds for disads. If the aff tries to de-link with "fiat", that's abusive. Thoughts? (maybe we do things differently in stoa hahaha)

_________________
Stoa: Veritas -Kendrick/Kendrick


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited