[eDebate] potential wording paper: first amendment vs national security

[Pacedebate at aol.com]

I'm contemplating writing a wording paper. 
Here is the rough breakdown....this is a very off the cuff, rough outlining  
of what I'm thinking....right now I'm just looking for some feedback on the 
area  and the structure. 
 
Resolved: that the United States Supreme Court should rule an act of the  
executive branch/congress unconstitutional specifically holding that the  first 
amendment should take precedence over national security  concerns.
 
Potential aff areas:
 
computers (carnivore/pen register, cryptography, website regulation,  shutter 
control)
terrorism/terror talk/securitization (patriot act library/terrorist  
organization provisions, wiretapping, open trials/media access, use of  secret 
evidence)
religion (in the military)
immigration (creppy directive, use of secret evidence)
dissent good the first amendment makes it possible, national security  
quelches it
 
academic freedom
Freedom of Information Act
 

Negative: agent counterplans, different grounds counterplans, national  
security DA's, rights triv, all the bad court da's are unique in this context, 
 
 
Here are some things someone posting to the blog said might be  important:
 
Narrow topics
Five years ago I would have never supported a topic that gave the aff this  
much wiggle room. But the neg is doing just fine these days despite the fact  
that for some teams/squads the resolution is just a way for them to win debates 
 because T is genocide.
where was i...oh yeah, this resolution gives the aff a LOT of flexibility  
but the neg has some pretty good options. The rights triv argument might be  
worse than the court DA's BUT coupled with an equal protection counterplan or  
privacy cp or just have congress/the executive branch do the plan the neg  
doesn't need a good DA to win. Aff teams that stray too far from core first  
amendment justifications will/should often lose to these counterplans. A nice  bonus 
is that the grounds counterplans have a good literature base. 
If there is a massive uproar that this topic is too big I could produce a  
narrow version but I don't think it would win.
 
Uniqueness 
even the marginally competent neg should be able to win uniqueness that the  
courts consistently ignore the first amendment whenever the government 
whispers  national security. 
 
Liberal bias
the aff gets to say the government is jacking our civil liberties in the  
name of a phantom quest to create national security.
 
timely
see aff list above - if the aff wants to engage material from the front  page 
of today's newspaper they can.
 
T
 
P.S. The blog has some good stuff on it. It helped me clarify what I  thought 
my wording should look like and I suspect anything you like about the  
resolution I've created really came from something stolen from the blog. 
 
P.S. #2 The plenary power literature referenced in Lindsay Harrison's post  
could make for a sweet topic - if someone isn't working on a paper in that area 
 they should be.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060511/de153ebd/attachment.html