Ex Parte Merryman

[CPDebater]

Could someone please explain to me what the Ex Parte Merryman CP is and what it does

[heggo]

If the affs are overturning a supreme court decision, you can run this. It basically says that the president will refuse to enforce the ruling instead. It is non topical and monopolies on the fact that the courts cann't enforce anything. It also has a "preventing judicial tyranny" net benefit. It works well on korematsu and on bell v wolfish.

[Curios]

Would it work on a case where they will overturn a court case if people oppose a law they make?

[teenydude8]

whats the difference between executive order and ex parte merryman?

[heggo]

Originally Posted by Curios

Would it work on a case where they will overturn a court case if people oppose a law they make?

It works on anything in which a court ruling is overturned.

[heggo]

Originally Posted by teenydude8

whats the difference between executive order and ex parte merryman?

XO the pres is doing something.
Ex Parte Merryman the pres is refusing to do something.

[Ilike2DB8]

The problem with exparte merryman is that by refusing to enforce a court decision that remains on the books opens up the possibility that another admin will enforce the decision, or the CP fiats in perpetuity no administration will EVER enforce it.

i think its hard to win that you can fiat presidents 100 years in the future...even before they're born.


It really isn't that great at solving a lot of cases either, koramatzu isn't enforced much in the SQ, well im not sure post 911 it may be more, but before then a lot of the cases read evidence about the symbolic value---a classic courts good answer. the cp wouldn't solve that at all. it turns into a courts/bad debate plus we solve your case sorta kinda...better to go with what your courts bad authors advocate and run a little congressional action (morgan powers, though with the exception of that one carter dude nobody really thinks much about that either in the courts bad lit)

[heggo]

FIAT
FIAT
FIAT

[Ilike2DB8]

fiat abuse fiat abuse fiat abuse still. can't fiat a president if they dont exist yet. the decision not to enforce the decision has to be continually imposed upon every president until the end of time, according to that interpretation of fiat. fiating a future president is mean.

the arguement you must make in response to this arguement however is that you dont fiat future presidents you fiat the executive branch's lack of enforcement and the particular person doesn't matter. the executive branch is constant and so cp only fiats one time...otherwise every time elections came up people would argue that plans would get overturned..fiat would be unenforcable.

i guess the question is, is it possible to fiat the policy of a branch of govt or are you fiating the current administration? enforcement seems like something you should be able to argue will be rolled back by other admins. fiating through this would allow people to fiat timedelays all they want. if fiat is fiat sometime not fiat now, and fiating the future isnt' abusive then whats to stop someone from only fiating future action in a time-delay style arg...i know you can defend time delay good but it the theory is a uphill battle against most mainstream debate judges...

[heggo]

Affs fiat future courts, laws, and presidents etc. It's not very different from having the courts rule or a law passed etc. You can fiat them not overruling it. there is very little difference

[chic_magnets0921]

Yeah I have to think that you can fiat into the future, whether you're neg or aff. Nobody argues that the aff. Plan will be turned over once more when the next test case rolls around. Fiat has to pertain to the future, otherwise it would be limited, and pointless. Ex Parte Merryman abuses fiat no more than the Aff Plan would anyway.

[heggo]

Originally Posted by chic_magnets0921

Yeah I have to think that you can fiat into the future, whether you're neg or aff. Nobody argues that the aff. Plan will be turned over once more when the next test case rolls around. Fiat has to pertain to the future, otherwise it would be limited, and pointless. Ex Parte Merryman abuses fiat no more than the Aff Plan would anyway.

seconded and confirmed

[zetazeroes]

the evidence that the executive overturn is just as effective and long lasting as the SC acting is pretty amazing. paulsen in 99 or soemthing i think. does anyone have any ex parte files however, i will trade the ones i have plus the one i cut. pm me if you have any ideas or files.

[Ilike2DB8]

i was under the assumption that exparte merryman required that each president also make that declaration not to enforce a decision. if bush made the declaration would the next president have to also declare it or would it be everlasting? the difference is that a sc decision is permanent and so is a bill enacted by congress or an xo you just have to fiat enforcement, but if the declaration expires when the president (enforcer of laws) leaves office, then does the decision to enforce also leave with him. seems unique to me, im in now way suggesting we do away with fiating enforcement or shouldvwould or anything...could be wrong about the way the cp works though will someone with more experience with this weigh in because i've not read the merryman literature very much i'll admit.

[nonunique]

Isn't that how XOs work too? Every incoming President has the choice whether to extend or eliminate previos Presidents' XOs...so an XO is fiating future Presidents as well.

[chic_magnets0921]

so what? fiating one Supreme Court now also leads you to fiat the SC twenty years from now so that they DON'T re-overturn the ruling on another test case. Fiat doesn't apply to your weak concepts of time.

[nonunique]

Are you so-whating me? We agree.

[Ilike2DB8]

exparte merryman permits lack of action; all those other examples are government action followed by enforcement, im not suggesting we stop enforcing fiat, but when a pres says 'hey im the executive and we wont enforce this decision' its a declaration that expires every time the presidency changes, xo's are permanent until repealed, same with bills and court decisions, this ruling ONLY exists if it is continued by the next president in not enforcing the decision. so there is no policy to enforce because the action of the counterplan is not to enforce an already existing policy, or so the arguement goes...you guys are arguing in circles you cant say that 'its not fiat abuse because we enforce it through fiat', because there is nothing to enforce, its not an xo, its not a bill, its a decision whether to enforce and the current president can only speak for himself, you can use their text against them, if they dont specify other presidents continuing it, then they have no agent to enforce it though. the decision would be made by each and every upcoming pres.

[Ilike2DB8]

there is a difference between this and a bill being enforced through fiat and the difference is enforcement says 'they wont overrule the decision' if we leave the bill alone in a vaccuum it will continue forever and nobody overturns it by passing another bill, if we let this sit alone the decision expires when bush leaves office and then HAS to be made again. its a subtle but meaningful difference.