Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Lindsay Harrison letter
Hey there,
I'm procrastinating, so I thought I would offer some thoughts on the college topic. Feel free to post the following to edebate if you think it would be helpful.
I think that the "Overrule Supreme Court Precedent" topic could be a fantastic topic, depending entirely on the resolution.
My first meta thought -- instead of framing the topic as either one about Government Power or Individual Rights (as in the topic paper), I would propose the following areas as ideas for possible resolutions. I'm including some of the more interesting and criticized Supreme Court cases within each area, but this is by no means exhaustive -- these are just the cases that come to mind at the moment:
Congressional Power -- this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions limiting Congressional power based on either federalism or separation of powers concerns. Cases would include: Lopez (Gun Free School Zones Act), Morrison (Violence Against Women Act), Fla. Prepaid (Federal Patent law), Garrett (Americans with Disabilities Act), Boerne (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), Kimel (Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
Equal Protection -- this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions holding that a government action or law did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Cases would include: Washington v. Davis (held that policy with disparate impact on blacks was not unconstitutional without evidence of discriminatory intent), Gratz (affirmative action), Shaw v. Reno (racial gerrymandering), Milliken v. Bradley (school desegregation), Palmer v. Thompson (holding that city's decision to close all public swimming pools rather than integrate them did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the city closed all swimming pools "equally")
First Amendment -- this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions holding that a government action or law did not violate the First Amendment. Cases would include: US v. American Library Association (law conditioning federal funding to libraries on their use of filtering technology to filter out obscene internet content was constitutional), FAIR v. Rumsfeld (forcing schools to allow military recruiting did not violate schools' right of expressive association), Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (free exercise of religion case holding that a facially neutral law that infringes on certain people's religious expression is constitutional - the case held that a drug law was ok despite adversely affecting peyote-consuming Indians), NEA v. Finley (held that language requiring the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public," did not violate the First Amendment), Zelman (school voucher program doesn't violate Establishment Clause), .
Due Process - this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions holding that a government action or law did not violate a citizen's right to sustantive due process. While you could also draft a resolution about procedural due process (the right to a hearing and/or notice before the government can deprive you of a benefit), I would think the most interesting types of cases would be the substantive due process cases, which concern fundamental rights, including the right to privacy. These cases might include Castle Rock (no fundamental right to government enforcement of restraining order), Glucksberg (no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide), and Casey (no fundamental right to abortion because restrictions that don't place "undue burden" on women are constitutional). There would be some overlap with the privacy topic from years back. Note: You could combine the equal protection and due process resolutions by making it simply about the 14th amendment.
Plenary Power -- the resolution would state that the Supreme Court should substantially limit the plenary power of the Executive or Congress in one or more areas of the law by overturning one of its decisions -- cases would include the Chinese Exclusion Cases and other immigration cases, Curtiss-Wright and other foreign affairs cases, Johnson v. McIntosh/Cherokee Nation v. Georgia/ Worcester v. Georgia and other federal Indian law cases, and Downes v. Bidwell and other cases concerning the territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam). Note: I think this topic might be the best if you wanted to avoid agent CPs -- Congress and the Executive couldn't deprive themselves of plenary power because it is a wholly judicial doctrine. You could write the topic narrowly, by requiring the Aff to overrule the decision which established plenary power in an area of the law, or more broadly, by having the Aff overturn any decision which relied at least in part on the plenary power doctrine.
My second meta thought -- I'm not sure you would need a list of cases if you defined the area of the law and the type of Supreme Court decision in a sufficiently specific way. For example, a topic about Congressional Power might simply say: "The USSC should overrule one or more of its decisions holding unconstitutional an Act of Congress on the basis that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to pass the law." You could get more specific and say "The USSC should overrule one or more of its decisions holding unconstitutional an Act of Congress on the basis that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to pass the law pursuant to either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." You could also add a temporal limitation ("one of its decisions from 1975 to the present"). Those resolutions would be adequate to establish a resolution on Congressional Power and would allow a wider variety of cases than a "list the cases" resolution but still within reasonable limits.
Those are my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Lindsay
I'm procrastinating, so I thought I would offer some thoughts on the college topic. Feel free to post the following to edebate if you think it would be helpful.
I think that the "Overrule Supreme Court Precedent" topic could be a fantastic topic, depending entirely on the resolution.
My first meta thought -- instead of framing the topic as either one about Government Power or Individual Rights (as in the topic paper), I would propose the following areas as ideas for possible resolutions. I'm including some of the more interesting and criticized Supreme Court cases within each area, but this is by no means exhaustive -- these are just the cases that come to mind at the moment:
Congressional Power -- this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions limiting Congressional power based on either federalism or separation of powers concerns. Cases would include: Lopez (Gun Free School Zones Act), Morrison (Violence Against Women Act), Fla. Prepaid (Federal Patent law), Garrett (Americans with Disabilities Act), Boerne (Religious Freedom Restoration Act), Kimel (Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
Equal Protection -- this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions holding that a government action or law did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Cases would include: Washington v. Davis (held that policy with disparate impact on blacks was not unconstitutional without evidence of discriminatory intent), Gratz (affirmative action), Shaw v. Reno (racial gerrymandering), Milliken v. Bradley (school desegregation), Palmer v. Thompson (holding that city's decision to close all public swimming pools rather than integrate them did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the city closed all swimming pools "equally")
First Amendment -- this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions holding that a government action or law did not violate the First Amendment. Cases would include: US v. American Library Association (law conditioning federal funding to libraries on their use of filtering technology to filter out obscene internet content was constitutional), FAIR v. Rumsfeld (forcing schools to allow military recruiting did not violate schools' right of expressive association), Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (free exercise of religion case holding that a facially neutral law that infringes on certain people's religious expression is constitutional - the case held that a drug law was ok despite adversely affecting peyote-consuming Indians), NEA v. Finley (held that language requiring the Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts to ensure that "artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public," did not violate the First Amendment), Zelman (school voucher program doesn't violate Establishment Clause), .
Due Process - this resolution would state that the Supreme Court should overrule one of its decisions holding that a government action or law did not violate a citizen's right to sustantive due process. While you could also draft a resolution about procedural due process (the right to a hearing and/or notice before the government can deprive you of a benefit), I would think the most interesting types of cases would be the substantive due process cases, which concern fundamental rights, including the right to privacy. These cases might include Castle Rock (no fundamental right to government enforcement of restraining order), Glucksberg (no fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide), and Casey (no fundamental right to abortion because restrictions that don't place "undue burden" on women are constitutional). There would be some overlap with the privacy topic from years back. Note: You could combine the equal protection and due process resolutions by making it simply about the 14th amendment.
Plenary Power -- the resolution would state that the Supreme Court should substantially limit the plenary power of the Executive or Congress in one or more areas of the law by overturning one of its decisions -- cases would include the Chinese Exclusion Cases and other immigration cases, Curtiss-Wright and other foreign affairs cases, Johnson v. McIntosh/Cherokee Nation v. Georgia/ Worcester v. Georgia and other federal Indian law cases, and Downes v. Bidwell and other cases concerning the territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam). Note: I think this topic might be the best if you wanted to avoid agent CPs -- Congress and the Executive couldn't deprive themselves of plenary power because it is a wholly judicial doctrine. You could write the topic narrowly, by requiring the Aff to overrule the decision which established plenary power in an area of the law, or more broadly, by having the Aff overturn any decision which relied at least in part on the plenary power doctrine.
My second meta thought -- I'm not sure you would need a list of cases if you defined the area of the law and the type of Supreme Court decision in a sufficiently specific way. For example, a topic about Congressional Power might simply say: "The USSC should overrule one or more of its decisions holding unconstitutional an Act of Congress on the basis that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to pass the law." You could get more specific and say "The USSC should overrule one or more of its decisions holding unconstitutional an Act of Congress on the basis that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to pass the law pursuant to either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." You could also add a temporal limitation ("one of its decisions from 1975 to the present"). Those resolutions would be adequate to establish a resolution on Congressional Power and would allow a wider variety of cases than a "list the cases" resolution but still within reasonable limits.
Those are my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Lindsay
posted by Steve Mancuso at 5/09/2006 02:47:00 PM
¶ 
