[eDebate] Coalition of the list-supporter

[Tripp Rebrovick]

To those who think they are voting for a "list" topic by voting for the 
non-first amendment resolution, I would caution you to think more 
carefully. Joe got it exactly right: just because only four or so /court 
cases/ are listed, it is not true that there are only four possible 
affirmatives. It seems to me the term "list" is a misnomer. I just want 
to elaborate on a few of the problems that he mentioned:

(1) Not only are their multiple ways to overrule a decision (I'm not 
talking about bidirectionality, although that is certainly a VERY LARGE 
issue -- I'm talking about the fact each of the four decisions can be 
overruled on multiple different grounds), but also there is no 
specification of whether the decision has to be overruled in whole, in 
part, in holding, in judgement, or anything of that nature. Take US v 
Morrison: the supreme court could hold that that ALL civil remedies 
against the states are valid, or only those in gender discrimination, or 
the court could strike down the entirety of VAWA (which was partially 
upheld by the decision) by extending the logic of Lopez or the original 
decision.

(2) The "list" topics only focus on the action of overrule, not what 
REPLACES the old decision/holding/reasoning/judgement. Arguably the NEW 
tests put in place by the court are the most important. While "overrule" 
creates a limit on the /mechanism /for the INITIAL action, make no 
mistake that tricky affirmatives will be able to come up with many 
different and new /outcomes/, that might even be nearly irrelevant to 
the original case. The perceived "limit" of the "lists", in my mind, 
don't seem that limiting.

While I personally would like to debate an area other than the first 
amendment, the problems with the "lists" resolutions just seem far too 
great in my mind despite the benefit of accessing many different areas 
of jurisprudence and potential problems with the "area" choice.

Tripp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060603/bc17428b/attachment.html