Jump to content
idontlikepie

Help with answering Section 211 aff

Recommended Posts

A couple of my novice teams had trouble answering an aff with the plan text:

Thus the plan: The federal judiciary of the United States should declare Section 211 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 1999 unconstitutional.

The advantages were intellectual property and rule of law- full 1AC attached, I'm not sure how to answer it, anyone have any ideas or a pre-made case neg they're willing to trade?

Nuclear Reactor Aff.docx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems really extra topical as well. I doubt that the act applies only to Cuba.

 

You could get a lot of kritik ground to the constitution. There's a lot of literature on how it's elitist and such.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a counterplan that's not in the files--:

Text: The United States Federal Government should correct Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 such that it applies to all individuals subject to Cuban confiscation regardless of nationality.

Solves the aff

1.     Complies with WTO law and restores its legitimacy

2.     Resolves the issue, smoothes things over with other countries, complies with international IP norms.

Lehman 10

Statement of Bruce a. Lehman ¶ former assistant secretary of commerce ¶ and commissioner of patents and trademarks1¶ committee on the judiciary ¶ united states house of representatives ¶ march 3, 2010

 

It seems the reason this matter is receiving the attention of Congress is that – following the complaint by ¶ the European Union – an adjudicatory panel of the World Trade Organization found that one aspect of ¶ Section 211 is not in compliance with U.S. obligations under TRIPS. ¶ While the WTO panel found that nothing in the TRIPS Agreement prevented the United States from ¶ refusing to enforce claims of the Cuban government or its nationals to trademarks of businesses whose ¶ assets were confiscated without consent of their owners, it held that Section 211 is defective because it ¶ does not apply equally to U.S. nationals and to citizens of any country who claims ownership of ¶ trademarks based on assets that have been confiscated by the Cuban government. ¶ This inconsistency with the TRIPS Agreement is easily correctible by making a technical amendment to ¶ Section 211 making it clear that it applies to all parties claiming rights in Cuban-confiscated trademarks, ¶ regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will satisfy the WTO ruling, bring Section 211 into ¶ full compliance with the TRIPs agreement, and preclude the European Union from applying trade ¶ sanctions against the United States.

 

Repealing fails – reforming is key

Federal News Service March 3, 2010

 REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN-SHULTZ “Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Domestic and International Trademark Implications of Havana Club and Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999†LexisNexis

Some believe the time has come to fully repeal Section 211. Repeal is not the answer. Repeal would put intellectual property at much greater risk. Whether we're talking about pirated movies, music, computer software, pharmaceuticals, or yes, even rum, we must never forget that our intellectual property laws are our engine for innovation and prosperity. That's why our Founding Fathers insisted upon including intellectual property rights in our Constitution, because they knew America could never become the world leader in technology we are today without it.  I believe that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property from individuals or companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. It's hard to understand how anyone could think otherwise.  Foreign confiscatory measures have never been given effect on properties situated in the United States, and they must never be.

Edited by Milkdelish
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a counterplan that's not in the files--:

Text: The United States Federal Government should correct Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 such that it applies to all individuals subject to Cuban confiscation regardless of nationality.

Solves the aff

1.     Complies with WTO law and restores its legitimacy

2.     Resolves the issue, smoothes things over with other countries, complies with international IP norms.

Lehman 10

Statement of Bruce a. Lehman ¶ former assistant secretary of commerce ¶ and commissioner of patents and trademarks1¶ committee on the judiciary ¶ united states house of representatives ¶ march 3, 2010

 

It seems the reason this matter is receiving the attention of Congress is that – following the complaint by ¶ the European Union – an adjudicatory panel of the World Trade Organization found that one aspect of ¶ Section 211 is not in compliance with U.S. obligations under TRIPS. ¶ While the WTO panel found that nothing in the TRIPS Agreement prevented the United States from ¶ refusing to enforce claims of the Cuban government or its nationals to trademarks of businesses whose ¶ assets were confiscated without consent of their owners, it held that Section 211 is defective because it ¶ does not apply equally to U.S. nationals and to citizens of any country who claims ownership of ¶ trademarks based on assets that have been confiscated by the Cuban government. ¶ This inconsistency with the TRIPS Agreement is easily correctible by making a technical amendment to ¶ Section 211 making it clear that it applies to all parties claiming rights in Cuban-confiscated trademarks, ¶ regardless of nationality. Such a technical correction will satisfy the WTO ruling, bring Section 211 into ¶ full compliance with the TRIPs agreement, and preclude the European Union from applying trade ¶ sanctions against the United States.

 

Repealing fails – reforming is key

Federal News Service March 3, 2010

 REPRESENTATIVE WASSERMAN-SHULTZ “Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Domestic and International Trademark Implications of Havana Club and Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1999†LexisNexis

Some believe the time has come to fully repeal Section 211. Repeal is not the answer. Repeal would put intellectual property at much greater risk. Whether we're talking about pirated movies, music, computer software, pharmaceuticals, or yes, even rum, we must never forget that our intellectual property laws are our engine for innovation and prosperity. That's why our Founding Fathers insisted upon including intellectual property rights in our Constitution, because they knew America could never become the world leader in technology we are today without it.  I believe that property rights must be respected and that it is wrong for governments to take property from individuals or companies, whether nationals or foreigners, without payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. It's hard to understand how anyone could think otherwise.  Foreign confiscatory measures have never been given effect on properties situated in the United States, and they must never be.

Why can't perm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't perm?

Perm change section 211 and then declare it unconstitutional?

Edited by Milkdelish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes of T, 1 minute of CP, 2 minutes of on-case.

 

Seriously, there are strong violations for substantially, increase, EE, and FX and ExtraT. Especially substantially, which is the word included explicitly to cut out these tiny plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add D(ecision)-spec.  A court-decision aff should specify what case its ruling this law unconstitutional on, and on what basis its reaching that decision.  There's good evidence the second of those matter, and the first gets to timeframe.  Courts can't just arbitrarily convene hearings over laws, they have to have a case where that law is in dispute in a way that challenges its constitutionality, which means someone has to have standing to challenge it.  Without a specific case, aff might not happen for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add D(ecision)-spec.  A court-decision aff should specify what case its ruling this law unconstitutional on, and on what basis its reaching that decision.  There's good evidence the second of those matter, and the first gets to timeframe.  Courts can't just arbitrarily convene hearings over laws, they have to have a case where that law is in dispute in a way that challenges its constitutionality, which means someone has to have standing to challenge it.  Without a specific case, aff might not happen for decades.

The second spec literally could not be more important because the decision's reasoning is what sets precedent. Decision-basis-spec is actually why present United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Roe v Wade's holding as anti-feminist, despite striking down abortion prohibitions; it did so on privacy grounds (abortion is a private decision, penumbras of the bill of rights) rather than sex equality grounds (14th amendment). Why a court does something sets the future of what a court can do, so the why is insanely important.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...