[eDebate] potential wording paper: first amendment vs national security

Pacedebate at aol.com Pacedebate
Fri May 12 01:08:31 CDT 2006


 
In a message dated 5/11/2006 11:32:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
jtedebate at yahoo.com writes:

...right now I'm just looking for some feedback on the area and the  
structure.... 
Resolved: that the United States Supreme Court should rule an act of the  
executive branch/congress unconstitutional specifically holding that the  first 
amendment should take precedence over national security  concerns.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM:  good  luck on finding SOLVENCY ADVOCATES for these 
rulings......EVEN SO, I am  willing to bet those advocates do not cover the full 
extent of A) SC should  rule, B) that ruling be on an exec/congressional act, C) 
That's the problem with  including too many actions in the text....so the 
wording will have to change  substantially.



See attached document it includes solvency advocates for several of the  
affirmatives I listed. This is just the tip of the iceberg. All of these were  
found in less than 2 hours doing a search only of lexis law reviews "conclusion  
w/100 first amendment w/40 national security" so by no means should this be  
considered an exhaustive list. 
I do think JT raises a good issue: does this resolution include too many  
actions and I'd like to hear from others on this point after they have  either 
read the attached document or done some research on their own.
 
 

Executive/Congressional acts  should be within the flexibility of AFF 
ground...many rulings will affect  these acts anyway...
"National Security" is a subset  of "law enforcement"....to support a topic 
for the entire year, it would be  HOMELAND SECURITY...no areas outside of 
that...the 1st amendment rights being  sacrificed are FROM homeland security 
initiatives....makes the HS topic an  inevitable repeat! (see Tim's list below as 
evidence for this)...at best, they  would be different internal links (1st not 
4th amendment) to all the same  args

 
 
Some rehash is  inevitable. Terrorism DA, Foucault, Agamben, Presidential 
Power, SOP, agent cp  (sc, congress, exec). I'd say well over 80% of the hs 
debates featured one or  more of these arguments - good luck finding a topic that 
avoids those  debates. 
That said the aff  ground on my proposed topic is vastly different than the 
high school topic  which, as a colleague pointed out to me early in the year, 
was really a topic  about authority hence the dominance of the agent cp and the 
presidential  power/sop arguments. 
The biggest  overlap is potentially the NSA wiretapping affs which weren't 
broken  until late December. Although there are certainly topical versions of 
those affs  under my proposed resolution I'm not sure how strategic they will be 
in light of  the 4th amendment grounds counterplan. If those debates do 
happen I think that's  good. It seems to be that this debate would be at the heart 
of one facet of what  a courts topic should be about. Should the courts use 
first amendment or fourth  amendment analysis to determine something 
unconstitutional. There is literature  on both sides and there is a good debate to be 
had. 
 




This overly restricts the scope  of "1st Amendment" within Supreme Court 
literature...again...only homeland  security!  How about prayer in school, flag 
burning, excitable speech,  student freedom of the press, etc?  The supreme 
Court has discussed all  of these over the last few years.

I say just "increase 1st  Amendment protections"...allows for aff 
flexibility, limited because there's  only so many 1st amendment rights (among other 
ways), and will bring up issues  we don't debate and hear ALL THE FRICKIN' TIME!
This is probably just an unresolvable issue of how limited a topic should  
be. No chance I'd sign onto an "increase first amendment protections"  
resolution. That would be my rez times a thousand. 





Potential aff areas:
 
computers (carnivore/pen register, cryptography, website regulation,  shutter 
control) I just  fell asleep!
each to their own.




terrorism/terror talk/securitization (patriot act library/terrorist  
organization provisions, wiretapping, open trials/media access, use of  secret 
evidence)...I just  died a little bit
another area where we probably just disagree. I think this is the most  
timely literature and is ripe for debate. If you are just restating that this is  a 
high school rehash well so is the heg da but it isn't going anywhere and I  
suspect the terrorism DA will be with us for a long while. 
and btw, you wrote:
Yes, we should probably talk about the war on terror 
(_http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200605/0072.html_ (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200605/0072.html) 
)






immigration (creppy directive, use of secret evidence)  this is overly  
restrictive....if you want to talk about immigration....and that would be a  good 
thing....there are SC decisions that could be  overturned...
sure add a bunch of immigration cases to the first amendment ones you want.  
Why not just 
Resolved: the USSC should rule an act of congress unconstitutional.




Freedom of Information Act ...ahh more privacy args...please  no!
why do you think this is a privacy issue? This is essentially about what  the 
government can keep classified. 





Negative: agent counterplans, different grounds counterplans,  national 
security DA's, rights triv, all the bad court da's are unique in this  context, 

All  of this is true of a non-national security version...
Actually, given the recent Randolph decision limiting police power to  
conduct searches your law enforcement idea won't give the neg much uniqueness to  
their court DA's.
There is also the possibility that the Court's upcoming ruling on Hamdan  
will hamper the uniqueness for presidental power DA's. 
 





EVEN IF YOU THINK OL' JT IS  JUST WRONG....these issues could be discussed 
under the "Law Enforcement"  topic I've suggested elsewhere...it could be 
combined with Harrison's "plenary  power" suggestion as well.... 
I suspect i think 'ol JT just wants a topic MUCH bigger than one I'd feel  
comfortable with.
 
 
T
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060512/e8ef14ef/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: first amendment vs national security wording	paper.29430DEFANGED-doc
Type: application/defanged
Size: 51712 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060512/e8ef14ef/attachment.bin 



More information about the Mailman mailing list