cedatopic
Friday, May 26, 2006
  Presidential Powers - Clarification of the reports
I have completed two reports on the possiblities of using the overrule mechanism to address presidential powers, specifically in the context of war powers. The first paper addresses a whole body of cases and provides a generally pessimistic view of finding specific solvency evidence for any case. The second report focuses on only one case, ex Parte Quiran, but provides evidentary support for its inclusion in the topic.

I would encourage anyone who is struggling with how to make a specific body of law work into the overrule angle to carefully read Galloway's inerim paper, Smelko's paper and Harrison's post on the matters. The combination has helped me realize the latititude we may enjoy in some of these approaches.
 
Comments:
I really want to reiterate that I think an area of law topic will work a lot better than a list of cases topic. Especially for the landmark cases proposal, I believe there is going to be a shocking paucity of literature advocating the overrule of a landmark decision. For sure, Brown v. Board isn't working, but the solutions normally don't involve an explicit overrule of Brown, but rather a modification of the policies that have derived from the deicision, or a call for stricter enforcement of the principles embodied therein. Of course, many conservatives advocate overruling Roe v. Wade, but I think most of the really smart literature assumes that will never happen and approaches the abortion debate from a perspective of limiting the effect of Roe rather than advocating its reversal.

With an area of the law topic, you will find better, well-supported Affirmatives. More importantly, there will be more opportunity for the Affirmative to create strategically sound Affs. With an overturn a list of decisions resolution, the Negative will have the upper hand with a huge variety of PICs. Given all the discussion about Negative bias of late, I don't see why the community would want to limit the Affirmative to overruling a list of key cases when there is very little literature to support that approach and very much literature to support a plethora of Negative PICs.
 
I'm just not sure that if the resolution requiring the Aff to "overrule" Morrison that your proposed plan would be topical.

Just because the USSC declares that Congress has the authority to enact "civil remedy provisions for victims of gender based violence" doesn't necessarily mean that it has overruled Morrison, though for all intents and purposes it has. The Supreme Court could theoretically just limit Morrison to its facts, and rule that another similar statute providing a similar remedy is constitutional. It seems to me that if you want to put "overrule" in the resolution, Affs will be required to defend the actual overruling of a decision. Of course, I've been out for a while so I'm not sure if T debates have changed....
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
a blog dedicated to writing the ceda debate topic
TOPIC PAPERS
  • 2006 Supreme Court Interim - Galloway
  • 2006 "Overrule" - Smelko
  • 2004 SC Federalism - Galloway
  • 2003 Supreme Court - Galloway

  • 2006 Abortion - Lee
  • 2006 First Amendment - Patrice
  • 2006 Right-to-Die - Moore
  • 2006 Plenary Power - Harrison
  • 2006 Ripeness - Neal
  • 2006 Aff Action - Hall
  • 2006 Pres Powers via Courts - Stables
  • 2006 Updated War Powers - Stables
  • 2006 Morrison - Galloway
  • 2006 Milliken - Mancuso
  • 2006 Religious Freedom - T. O'Donnell
  • 2006 Strike Exec on 1A - Mahoney
  • 2006 1A vs. Ntl Sec Supp - Mahoney
  • 2006 1A vs. Ntl - Day 3 - Mahoney
  • 2006 Glucksberg - Helwich
  • 2006 Hudnut - Galloway
  • 2006 Gregg - Stables
  • 2006 Fundamental Rights - Vats
  • 2006 Terry Aff evidence - Bauschard
  • 2006 Terry Neg evidence - Bauschard
  • 2006 Terry Blocks - Bauschard
  • 2006 Terry Thoughts - Zive
  • 2006 Garcetti - O'Donnell
  • 2006 - Fundamental Rights - Vats
  • 2006 Case List Survey - Mancuso
  • 2006 Executive Authority - Stables
  • 2006 Detention - Bauschard
  • 2005 Immigration - Peterson
  • 2005 Democracy Promotion - Stables

  • TOPIC RESOURCES
  • Supreme Court Website
  • Guide to US Supreme Court Research
  • Supreme Court Rules
  • FindLaw: Cases and Codes
  • FindLaw: Special Coverage: War on Terrorism
  • Jurist: Legal News and Research
  • The Curiae Project/Yale: SC Records/Briefs
  • The Supreme Court Monitor
  • The Oyez Project: Multimedia
  • C-SPAN: Judiciary Resources
  • American Constitution Society Blogs
  • ACLU: Supreme Court Page
  • The Rutherford Institute

  • 2007-08 TOPICS
  • US Policy Toward Genocide
  • US Policy Toward Latin America
  • Global Poverty and Disease
  • Military/Troop Reforms
  • Latin America

  • TOPIC PROCESS
  • Topic Process Report 2006
  • CEDA Constitution

  • COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  • Gordon Stables, At-Large Rep, Chair
  • Darren Elliott, CEDA EC Rep
  • Ryan Galloway, At-Large Rep
  • Malcolm Gordon, Student Rep
  • Ed Lee, At-Large Rep
  • Steve Mancuso, NDT Rep,
  • Joe Patrice, CEDA EC Rep
  • Dave Steinberg, CEDA EC Rep
  • Kelly Young, ADA Rep


  • ARCHIVES
    2006-05-07 / 2006-05-14 / 2006-05-21 / 2006-05-28 / 2006-06-04 /


    Powered by Blogger