[eDebate] "overrule"?

[Pacedebate at aol.com]

Ha…ha…ha…Zive busted me or, more to the point, Gordon hit the nail on the  
head when he said that I was only responding to the “bizarre” (his word not  
mine) procedures of the topic committee. I think the original wording paper I  
wrote was pretty good and I mangled it trying to make it conform to the  “
overrule” requirement. To adjust to the “overrule” issue I created wordings  that 
got away from the original which means I started to get away from the  
solvency advocates and when you start to get away from the literature the topic  is 
going to suffer. 
On May 11 I posted a rough draft of the wording and specifically asked  for “
feedback on the area and the structure.” At that time I received minimal  
feedback – 3 or 4 brief but positive backchannels and one post of  
negative/constructive criticism from JT. JT argued that my version of a first  amendment 
topic was too narrow (I just agreed to disagree with JT on what  constitutes 
appropriate limits) and he expressed skepticism that I would be able  to find 
solvency advocates. I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. Any  resolution that 
appears on the final ballot ought to have a carded basis for  affirmatives 
that includes people who would advocate the affirmative as worded  on the 
ballot. So, I did the work, found some solvency advocates and posted the  final 
wording paper. Then, 18 days after I published my rough version which  turned out 
to be almost identical to my final wording I get an email from Steve  Mancuso 
indicating: 


>I think it's a great  legal area.   I'm concerned that it does not stay 

faithful to the  notion of "SC >overrule" which was the wording of the ballot area 
and also  the way the topic was presented to >the community prior to the  
vote. 
To quote Adam Sandler “Something you could have told me YESTERDAY.”  Excuse 
my caps but this is like losing a debate on T 18 days later. If I’d known  
this I could have scrapped this idea or spent more time on specific court  cases. 
CAVEAT 
This shouldn’t be interpreted as a swipe at Mancuso he was just  expressing 
what he perceived to be the feeling of the topic committee. The TC  spent an 
hour or so discussing my wordings and the supplemental wordings and  that’s more 
than fair given their limited time. 
But…. 
I still don’t get this overrule idea and where it came from. I know the  TC 
has focused almost exclusively on that but where did this come from. Here is  
what was posted on edebate about the ballot 
Jeff Jarman wrote on April 8  
(http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200604/0106.html) 

>The new  ballot is now available. Each member school may vote. 

>There are three  items to vote one:  

>topic  area (Court, War on Terror, IPR) 

>amendment to the constitution  (eligibility--text online) 

>regional rep (for Southeast & East  schools only)  

On May 9 Jeff Jarman wrote  
(http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200605/0069.html): 

>79  Ballots were cast.  

> winning  topic are is: COURTS.  

>Courts  had 52 first place votes. 

>War on terror had 22 first place votes.  

>IPR had 5 first place votes.  

I just don’t think the community thought when they voted for this area  they 
were voting for wordings that were exclusively “The United States Supreme  
Court should overrule…” 
Plus, I think the updated wordings I created prove my original wording  fits 
within the spirit of what the community was voting for. It’s a courts topic  
with the Supreme Court as the agent. And, the holding would fly in the face of  
most, if not all, of the recent precedents the Supreme Court has set in terms 
of  deference to national security. 
There have been a few other issues raised about the viability of the  
original wording and I’ll address those in other posts that I will put on both  
edebate and the blog but I feel like my wording is being excluded not primarily  
because of concerns about it’s viability as a good debate topic but on  
topicality overrule and I hope that doesn’t happen. 
Respectfully, 
T 
 
Josh Zive  says:

I am not sure there any SC dec's that actually say that national  secuirty is 
a higher priority than the 1st amnedment. What they say is that  there is no 
1st amendment protection because of the balance of interests  (individual 
speech versus the interests of the polis) inherent in the first  amendment. I 
think a strong argument can be made that the cases Tim cites do not  "prioritize" 
national security over the 1st amendmnet. They say there is no 1st  amendment 
right because of the forum within which it is asserted (the military)  in 
combination with the type of speech in question (the severity of the  restriction).

I think this is important because it may mean the topic is  both too narrow 
and overbroad. Too narrow because no case will have langauge  meeting the 
literal interpreation of the topic, and too broad because once you  are not tied to 
the language and holdings of a decision the literature could  take you to 
nearly any case involving police powers at the state or national  level.  
8:11 PM,  June 01, 2006 
 
Anonymous said...  
 
This is an  argument that makes some sense to me. I am not scared by the 
"people will run  away from the 1st amendment" or "crappy CP du jour" will allow 
that or even the  broad part given my belief in community choice on this issue. 
Your discussion  though actually thinks through the implications of the lit. 
and that I can  appreciate. Maybe Tim can answer this.
--chief  
8:23 PM,  June 01, 2006 
 
_JZive_ (http://www.blogger.com/profile/25349735)  said... 
 
nahhh, Tim  can't answer it. 

He's always been scared of me. With good reason, I  can't stand folks from 
Battle Mountain.  
8:27 PM,  June 01, 2006 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060601/687e49d4/attachment.html