[eDebate] Fwd: Re: Ede's plan and extra-T

Ede Warner ewarner
Mon Jun 5 15:36:22 CDT 2006


As usual, you miss the Louisville answer to the argument.  It was a debate story.  Louisville answers the argument by saying you can specify.  I'm not sure anything I've ever said has been more taken out of context...And my post certainly doesn't justify YOUR conclusion...

>>> Stefan Bauschard <SBauschard at planetdebate.com> 6/5/2006 1:22 PM >>>
Ede's Plan<!--[if !supportLists]-->?      <!--[endif]-->Extra-topicality: You can't specify what content is permissible. You 
can only overrule the decisionTwo points:<!--[if !supportLists]-->(1)   <!--[endif]-->This generally isn't how the Court works/how new law is made * See Joe's post, arguments by many others<!--[if !supportLists]-->(2)   <!--[endif]-->I don't even know how this works in debate.Plan:  O-T the U.S. v. Morrison decisionResult: The judgment is now in favor of allowing the VAWA.No reason given.  If the aff gives a reason, they are X-T.What?The Morrison decision said (at least) that neither the 14A nor the Commerce Clause protected Congress' authority to legislate the VAWA on the states.Does the plan (the new precedent) mean that the Court was wrong about both the 14A and the CC arguments?  Was it just wrong about one of them?  Which one? Was it wrong in Lopez originally about the impact of guns near schools on interstate commerce, or was it just wrong that this law, and not the gun control law at stake in Lopez ,"substantially" impacting interstate commerce?  Was it wrong in Lopez originally that the "substantial affects" test is flawed?  Did Morrison lack standing to make a claim in the first place? Was it wrong about everything it said in the decision * anything that is explicitly stated by the Court reporter as a holding or could be interpreted as a holding? If that is the case, can the negative PIC out of all of these things, with the affirmative having to overturn the judgment and all potential holdings?  Or is the affirmative limited to a basesless reversal of the judgment, leaving them with no legal precedent advantage potential and an apparently weird new decision?  Is the "substantial affects" standard too weak?  Should a practice have to "massively" impact interestate commerce before Congress can legislate in that area?  Does messing around with the test OT Morrison, Lopez, or both?
If your plan can't state the content, how do you claim a real advantage? I guess in this instance you could claim that the VAWA is now law (assuming you can win that this Congress will re-instate it).  I have no idea how you can claim a legal precedent advantage, since you don't even know what the new standard is.   The neg is in trouble as well. Their federalism DA links pretty well if the aff says that the "substantial affects" test is too strong, but it is relatively weak if it the new precedent just now says that domestic violence but not guns near schools substantially impacts interstate commerce.  These are just a few examples. Tripp posted a whole bunch of other ways to overrule this decision.  All rationales have extensive implications for disadvantage links that the negative needs.
 So, yes, this topic can be reigned-in by not allowing the affirmative to specify, but I'm not sure why that makes any sense, is very educational, or produces quality debates about legal precedent.The alternative is to let the aff specify * let them overturn it for just about any reason they can come up with, and let the negative get prepared to debate all of these plans times X number of decisions that are voted for, plus intersections.  Getting ready for Morrison seems easy compared to Roe or Quirnan!  The problems Lindsay identifies in her blog post with the Casey example are readily apparent.   And some of the topics have all of these decisions in them.
Of course, the neg does have the "don't overrule" * distinguish, just have a somewhat different precedent that captures that case without explicitly overruling * CP that seems to be awfully strong given that the SC rarely overrules and that is what people seem to support in the literature as a way of dealing with most "bad" decisions.  Those debates could get kind of dull though.What's different about now than 92?I think we have a better understanding of how this all works.The alternative?Vote for the 1A or a SMALL list.  I'm sure these Morrison debates could be very interesting.  I'm not bashing Morrison's inclusion * this would be a good debate topic, or at least half of one if you can defend the need to "overrule it" * whatever it is.  Ditto for every other decision listed.The neg's alternatives against the larger lists include winning an X-T argument that doesn't make any sense and could even hurt their links, or B) running Distinguish, Foucault, or CLS in every debate.Of course, the flip side of this is that if it is very hard to defend "overruling" any of these decisions, the more options the affirmative has the better*.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060605/0b8a5210/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list