Jump to content
NickRobillard

Topic Analysis

Recommended Posts

I'm not denying, of course, that the courts play a substantial role in protecting civill liberties. I'm just saying that their role is generally limited to review of Congressional and executive action, and does not include taking action on their own. The courts could hold that detaining prisoners at Guantanamo violates the fourteenth (or actually, in this instance, probably the fifth) amendment, and could order the prisoners released. But a system of protecting those rights would probably require Congressional action. There are some notable exceptions, such as when courts have essentially taken over school districts for purposes of desegregation. But I don't see anything like that as likely for next year's topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its going to be pretty hard to link anything to nuke war on the aff. we are going to hear a lot of affs linking to civil war as the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean most cases that have inherency will say something is flawed in the SQ - ie that some law is currently in effect that prevents people from having the right to know their charge or right to privacy without probably cause to search and seizure, which would make courts a sweet counterplan for affs that try to do congressional action. I mean, it was the same on the mental health topic - mostly every aff that did not have courts as their actor could have the courts rule for it.

 

 

Also, about the g-bay - the courts would have to rule under the 14th amendment, too, because the prisoners aren't held to a standard for rights. the courts would have to give them their rights first. It woudl be under the 14th amendment that they woudl be granted their 5th amendment rights. or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be the Fifth Amendment. It contains the due process clause, which has been read to limit dentention of prisioners. The Fourteenth applies the Fifth (and others) to the states. But I think all of the prisioners at Guantanamo are Federal prisoners. Query whether changes to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would be topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you think federalism will be a big disad next year?

 

I don't think federalism will be big next year. When was the last time an individual state had control over Civil Liberties. And there's no precedent for states deciding issues relating to our national security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think federalism will be big next year. When was the last time an individual state had control over Civil Liberties. And there's no precedent for states deciding issues relating to our national security.

 

well if you think about 99% of the cases where there search w/out cause, its on the state level. Shitty cops who check people's bags, cars, or whatever when they don't have "probable cause" for example. Yes, these more "important" breaches of civil liberties will be more common cases, but the more common situations are on the state level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it will be the Fifth Amendment. It contains the due process clause, which has been read to limit dentention of prisioners. The Fourteenth applies the Fifth (and others) to the states. But I think all of the prisioners at Guantanamo are Federal prisoners. Query whether changes to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would be topical.

 

 

the only way the guantanamo bay people would be able to get their charges brought is through the 14th amendment, which is why i think that part will be big. i agree that the fifth amendment will be used quite frequently, but only for other cases. Detainees, who are foreigners, and who are held without their rights, and who are "enemy combatants," most likely would HAVE to go under the 14th amendment to get their right to 5th amendment protections.

 

Also, I think that federalism will be an issue next year. But it can also be made very specific about federal courts vs. state courts, if there is an lit on that. thats if you run a courts aff, clearly.

States fight over the rights of search and seizure. bringing it to the federal level means the federal government has to get a lot more involved in the way things are handled in states, which changes federal/state relationships.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guantanomo bay prisoners dont get any constitutional rights, they arent american citizens therefore the constitution doesnt apply to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This resolution is CRAP. LD sucks, let's face it. Policy is not about morals and values, it's about POLITICS, and we KNOW politics doesn't have either of those (HAHAH) damn, maybe I can do PF....JK, but still. All the AFFS will link hardcore to Normativity. AND kritik debate is going to skyrocket. CP debate will increase but not as much as the big K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If the Court, for example, ruled that all kids had to wear school uniforms, who would enforce that policy? The police."

 

I agree with much of what Baumz says, but the statement quoted above illustrates a problem I have with court action/court counterplans. The court cannot rule that all kids have to wear school uniforms. That is a legislative, not a judicial, action. The court can invalidate legislative action if it feels the action is unconstitutional: it could for example, say that the requirement that students have to wear school uniforms is unenforceable. The court can also interpret statutes. If there were a statute saying all students must wear school uniforms, a court could carve out exceptions to the general rule.

 

As applied to next year's topic, a court could overturn a prior decision; I see no problem with that as affirmative ground. I would be amenable to an argument that the Supreme Court should find all or part of the Patriot Act (or some other act) unconstitutional, which would have the effect of invalidating that act (or the unconstitutional part). I could even see an argument that the Supreme Court should interpret the Patriot Act so as to mean X. I guess if the affirmative uses congressional action, the courts could be a legitimate counterplan on those issues.

 

I don't think a plan or counterplan, however, can take steps requiring action, unless there is underlying legislation that already requires executive administrative action.

 

I disagree - a courts CP could do that (it has been done - Brown vs The Board) but it would open itself up to seperation of power and court activism disads.

~Matt

 

edit: yes it would require a constitutional basis + possibly a test case, but those arent that hard to create / find / justify.

 

i never liked the courts debate though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mod note: merging with topic analysis

 

I'm brainstorming ideas for next year's topic, and I'm struck by how incredibly vague this topic is -- especially the "detain without charge" part.

 

Detain is derived from the Latin term detinere, which means "to hold down or off, to keep back."

 

According to my handy Websters, it has three definitions:

 

1. to keep back or from; to withold

 

2. to keep or restrain from proceeding; to delay

 

3. in law, to hold in custody; to confine

 

And charge has 16 deifinitions as a noun and 14 as a verb. These range from indictments to jury instructions to military commands to electricity and principles of physics.

 

My mind is starting to boggle with possibilities. For instance, when I read the first definition of detain, my mind immediately thinks taxes or Social Security. It could also refer to restrictions placed on access to entitlement assistance, such as family-size requirements for qualifying for public housing assistance.

 

The second could refer to education or damming rivers or sanctions on foreign countries or trade embargos or Senate fillibusters or gun permit waiting periods or deforestation or traffic stops or even a repeal of Roe v. Wade.

 

The third, especially the second part of the third, could apply to the meaning of words themselves -- that T arguments based on specific definitions confines dialogue and meaning. I haven't started digging yet, but I know there's a whole lot of literature about the control of language and its social and political implications.

 

And the Latin definition -- that's got racism and sexism and classism written all over it.

 

Am I nuts for thinking this kind of stuff? If we pursue some of this stuff, will we lose on T all year?

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe you would have to set it as the legal definition of detain without charge, rather than personal definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guantanomo bay prisoners dont get any constitutional rights, they arent american citizens therefore the constitution doesnt apply to them

 

 

Currently, they are the Black Hole in the constitution... That is why I said that the Courts should gaurentee them rights. However, the 'not american citizen' is why I back the 14th amendment for this case, for that is the amendment that applies the bill of rights to all PEOPLE, not just Citizens. There is careful wording in the amendments for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, I see the same problem as you, but in a different way. I think that teams will accept that the words "probable," "cause," "detain" and "charge" must be packaged as phrases. The situation is almost like the PKO definitions this year: rarely do I hear "operation" defined by itself.

 

The problem I forsee is the lack of a modifier or object to the phrases "search without probable cause" or "detain without charge." For instance, some clever kids have already mentioned that animals are "detained without charge" for purposes of animal testing.

Similarly, what prevents a foreign policy plan? For instance, the US invaded Iraq on the pretense that we were "searching" for weapons of mass destruction. As the Bush Administration admitted later, they knowingly presented faulty data to the UN. Thus, the US illegally "searched" Iraq without probable cause (also a potential violation of international law, but that's a whole other story). According to the papers, we plan to "search" Iran on the theory that they harbor weapons of mass destruction. Thus, why can't an aff decrease the USFG's authority to search without probable cause by restricting the President's war powers?

 

The overall point is that there's absolutely no restriction to this topic. Most of time, the government doesn't NEED to search with probable cause (maybe there should be a thread that explains the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion). Therefore, you don't need to restrict your topical inquiries to the criminal context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe, I see the same problem as you, but in a different way. I think that teams will accept that the words "probable," "cause," "detain" and "charge" must be packaged as phrases. The situation is almost like the PKO definitions this year: rarely do I hear "operation" defined by itself.

 

The problem I forsee is the lack of a modifier or object to the phrases "search without probable cause" or "detain without charge." For instance, some clever kids have already mentioned that animals are "detained without charge" for purposes of animal testing.

Similarly, what prevents a foreign policy plan? For instance, the US invaded Iraq on the pretense that we were "searching" for weapons of mass destruction. As the Bush Administration admitted later, they knowingly presented faulty data to the UN. Thus, the US illegally "searched" Iraq without probable cause (also a potential violation of international law, but that's a whole other story). According to the papers, we plan to "search" Iran on the theory that they harbor weapons of mass destruction. Thus, why can't an aff decrease the USFG's authority to search without probable cause by restricting the President's war powers?

 

The overall point is that there's absolutely no restriction to this topic. Most of time, the government doesn't NEED to search with probable cause (maybe there should be a thread that explains the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion). Therefore, you don't need to restrict your topical inquiries to the criminal context.

 

Thanks for the insight. I thought about the phrase angle, and I've found no specific definition of the phrase at any of the numerous online dictionaries I've checked. On the other hand, I did some database searches and didn't find the phrase used in any context other than imprisonment. So I feel confident that alternative interpretations are defendable, but still unsure if the inevitible T arguments can be cut off with just a few cards -- some dictionary definitions and a couple critical ones with, say, "thought control" impacts. Like, if the essense of the case is freedom, would judges buy it if we offer evidence to suggest that the T arguments are really just more evidence to support the case? Or will all of our speeches after the 1AC be nothing but dictionary debates?

 

Still: :confused: (unsure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrasal defs won't be in dictionaries.

 

Get ready to cite some supreme court opinions, and get ready to cut 'T updates' as they release new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering doesnt the 4th amendment already prevent unlawful search and seizure and detainment w/o charge?

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They leave out establish a ___ policy for every domestic resolution

 

The other option: The United States federal government should substantially change its federal election system.

 

MHC: The United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States.

 

It doesn't uniquely allow for performance and whole rez affs because the resolution never said that debaters should propose a policy, it said the United States federal government should establish the policy, thus never actually calling for the debaters to propose a plan.

 

And the intent of the resolution probably was to allow for guantanamo bay cases.

 

Actually, you're only partially right. For MOST domestic topics in recent memory, there has been policy verbage. Check the records...a brief list:

 

  • Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources.
     
  • Resolved: that the federal government should establish an education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools in the United States.
     
  • Resolved: That the Federal Government Should Establish a Policy to Substantially Increase Renewable Energy Use in the United States.
     
  • Resolved: That the federal government should establish a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States.

 

The notable exceptions are the mental health topic and the PREVIOUS privacy topic. Here is how they were worded:

 

  • Resolved: That the U.S. federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States.
     
  • Resolved: That the U.S. federal government should significantly increase protection of privacy in the United States in one or more of the following areas: employment, medical records, consumer information, search and seizure.

 

Three things here:

 

  1. There seems to be a trend of sorts for which topics get policy wording and which don't.
  2. There wasn't excessive "LD" debating in the past when there wasn't policy wording.
  3. Agent CPs were arguably largest on the last "non-policy" privacy topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my first year really to be into CX - so I'm just going to ask a couple of questions to clear up some things in my head.

 

1. In the past, what has been the trend for the types of affs that were ran when the 'policy' part of the resolution has been left out?

2. What could be expected on the neg, if for instance, the aff were to be run without a plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past, (at least in Texas/Oklahoma), teams just ran policies anyway. I wouldn't expect most teams to use the lack of "policy/program" (for one thing, it isn't to their benefit).

 

Regardless, they will still affirm the resolution. So, if they don't run a policy, that just removes your policy specific responses. That means your generics that most affs claim are so bad are now perfectly legit. For instance, generic perception links (like "privacy is popular") are still good and kritik ground is largely unchanged. The major thing you lose is CPs (because there is nothing to counter). Also, they will still likely highlight a particular harms area...so your "advantage" responses still apply.

 

Topicality is changed also since there isn't a policy to check against the topic. Instead, you get something more like the LD version of T. You are going to argue that the things they justify/support would not be topical. For instance, they argue that we are need to decrease our authority in Iraq and you argue that is the COALITION, not the USFG. Bad example, but its on short notice ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...