Pacedebate at aol.com
Thu Jun 1 22:32:44 CDT 2006
Ha?ha?ha?Zive busted me or, more to the point, Gordon hit the nail on the
head when he said that I was only responding to the ?bizarre? (his word not
mine) procedures of the topic committee. I think the original wording paper I
wrote was pretty good and I mangled it trying to make it conform to the ?
overrule? requirement. To adjust to the ?overrule? issue I created wordings that
got away from the original which means I started to get away from the
solvency advocates and when you start to get away from the literature the topic is
going to suffer.
On May 11 I posted a rough draft of the wording and specifically asked for ?
feedback on the area and the structure.? At that time I received minimal
feedback ? 3 or 4 brief but positive backchannels and one post of
negative/constructive criticism from JT. JT argued that my version of a first amendment
topic was too narrow (I just agreed to disagree with JT on what constitutes
appropriate limits) and he expressed skepticism that I would be able to find
solvency advocates. I couldn?t agree more with this sentiment. Any resolution that
appears on the final ballot ought to have a carded basis for affirmatives
that includes people who would advocate the affirmative as worded on the
ballot. So, I did the work, found some solvency advocates and posted the final
wording paper. Then, 18 days after I published my rough version which turned out
to be almost identical to my final wording I get an email from Steve Mancuso
>I think it's a great legal area. I'm concerned that it does not stay
faithful to the notion of "SC >overrule" which was the wording of the ballot area
and also the way the topic was presented to >the community prior to the
To quote Adam Sandler ?Something you could have told me YESTERDAY.? Excuse
my caps but this is like losing a debate on T 18 days later. If I?d known
this I could have scrapped this idea or spent more time on specific court cases.
This shouldn?t be interpreted as a swipe at Mancuso he was just expressing
what he perceived to be the feeling of the topic committee. The TC spent an
hour or so discussing my wordings and the supplemental wordings and that?s more
than fair given their limited time.
I still don?t get this overrule idea and where it came from. I know the TC
has focused almost exclusively on that but where did this come from. Here is
what was posted on edebate about the ballot
Jeff Jarman wrote on April 8
>The new ballot is now available. Each member school may vote.
>There are three items to vote one:
>topic area (Court, War on Terror, IPR)
>amendment to the constitution (eligibility--text online)
>regional rep (for Southeast & East schools only)
On May 9 Jeff Jarman wrote
>79 Ballots were cast.
> winning topic are is: COURTS.
>Courts had 52 first place votes.
>War on terror had 22 first place votes.
>IPR had 5 first place votes.
I just don?t think the community thought when they voted for this area they
were voting for wordings that were exclusively ?The United States Supreme
Court should overrule??
Plus, I think the updated wordings I created prove my original wording fits
within the spirit of what the community was voting for. It?s a courts topic
with the Supreme Court as the agent. And, the holding would fly in the face of
most, if not all, of the recent precedents the Supreme Court has set in terms
of deference to national security.
There have been a few other issues raised about the viability of the
original wording and I?ll address those in other posts that I will put on both
edebate and the blog but I feel like my wording is being excluded not primarily
because of concerns about it?s viability as a good debate topic but on
topicality overrule and I hope that doesn?t happen.
Josh Zive says:
I am not sure there any SC dec's that actually say that national secuirty is
a higher priority than the 1st amnedment. What they say is that there is no
1st amendment protection because of the balance of interests (individual
speech versus the interests of the polis) inherent in the first amendment. I
think a strong argument can be made that the cases Tim cites do not "prioritize"
national security over the 1st amendmnet. They say there is no 1st amendment
right because of the forum within which it is asserted (the military) in
combination with the type of speech in question (the severity of the restriction).
I think this is important because it may mean the topic is both too narrow
and overbroad. Too narrow because no case will have langauge meeting the
literal interpreation of the topic, and too broad because once you are not tied to
the language and holdings of a decision the literature could take you to
nearly any case involving police powers at the state or national level.
8:11 PM, June 01, 2006
This is an argument that makes some sense to me. I am not scared by the
"people will run away from the 1st amendment" or "crappy CP du jour" will allow
that or even the broad part given my belief in community choice on this issue.
Your discussion though actually thinks through the implications of the lit.
and that I can appreciate. Maybe Tim can answer this.
8:23 PM, June 01, 2006
_JZive_ (http://www.blogger.com/profile/25349735) said...
nahhh, Tim can't answer it.
He's always been scared of me. With good reason, I can't stand folks from
8:27 PM, June 01, 2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman