[eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area

Richard A. Garner richardgarner
Fri May 8 07:37:25 CDT 2009


"a Constitutional States rights issue": While this is theoretically true, it
is empirically much less so. The federal government is heavily involved in
all these areas of life, and a simple abstract reference to the states
(FIAT) obscures that relation. I don't think people so much think that the
question of states vs. federal action is illegitimate, just that the
mechanism of activating that discussion is a poor one (thus, Dylan proposes:
block grants CP or a non-uniform conception of state action (or maybe
someone else proposed the last one...)).

Also, additional considerations:
1. Less important: the federal government "does a bad" in this situation,
and if a plan can stop that, then there's an advantage somewhere. Much of
this also spills over into areas of international concern, such as
development policy, international human rights campaigns, etc.

2. More important: in many ways, these questions are extremely well-suited
to the courts. The advantages to court action in many of these areas would
be intrinsic to the principles concerned as much as the particular policies.
Also, some areas are more imbricated in federal law than we might think. For
example, and I don't know the current status of this debate/issure per se
but it will do as a representative, what about a mother's ability to breast
feed/pump breast milk at work?

RG

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:48 AM, <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

> On Ag subsdies, yes, on issues such as marriage, this is clearly a
> Constitutional States rights issues, except for the Full Faith and
> Credit Clause. State c-plan is only illegit when people use it outside
> fo its proper constitutional scope.
>
>
> Quoting ed lee <bamadebate at yahoo.com>:
>
> > Which part of the topic is this not a concern?  "War on Drugs" seems
> > to be the only thing is insulated from the states cp.  THere is
> > actually decent ev on the need for a federal signal for gay marriage
> > but that seems to be it.  Some would argue that the threat of the
> > states cp should not deter us from exploring a new body of
> > literature.  My good friend, Dylan Keenan, would argue that the fact
> > we consider the risk of the states cp to decide this which topic we
> > will spend the next year investigating is one of the major reason
> > the cp is illegitimate.
> > e
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
> > To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:32:49 PM
> > Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area
> >
> > Not a lengthy discussion. But I do want to raise an issue(s).
> >
> > Gay marriage--there is not much of a debate on its merits (at least
> > within the debate community). My issue is that (a) at least five
> > states as of this post have legalized it and (b) the Supreme Court is
> > likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit
> > Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws.
> >
> > It seems as if this sub-area is prone to two bad outcomes:
> >
> > (a) Most rounds become a state c-plan and/or a Supreme Court C-plan
> debate or
> > (b) Affirmatives have all the ground to debate.
> >
> > Is there going to be a major issue in terms of inherency/uniqueness
> debates?
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/206ab050/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list