Skip to content
October 26, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Is supreme court overturn a legitimate disadvantage or solvency argument?

Does the affirmative get to mandate or guarantee total USFG compliance? I say NOPE.

I wouldn’t doubt that Ross is a better debater than I ever was….but I’m going to differ with him on this one. And to be fair…he seems to be pointing out the argument more than advocating…..

I think this is something you can or rather should clarify in cross examination before you run the argument?

For instance:
1. What is your interpretation of USFG? Congress?
2. What is your interpretation of normal means? (assuming they have normal means)
3. So I can’t run my court acts disads, right?

I think I have 4 to 5 arguments, besides the cross-ex lock in of the argument….

Also, minimally sufficient interpretation of normal means provides a different way to evaluate the argument.

“Guaranteeing compliance” is fiat abuse. Congress never acts with the ability to secure the Supreme Courts compliance–except by remaining constitutional. If it did, my guess is those Court justices would be out of a job…..they are supposed to remain above the political fray in order to achieve legitimacy, credibility, and compliance with their decisions.

This would allow affirmatives to ensure that the various sub-branches would comply and cooperate 100% even if their cultures were fundamentally different–because they were:
1. a part of the USFG
2. that was a cultural mindset issue.

Not to mention the ways in which this type of fiat insurance plan removes debate from literature. Two ways:
1. It also mutes the comity disad–interbranch strife–which is a core part of the public policy literature & a predictable part of debate.
2. This interp would probably dissolve the politics link too.
3. Marbury vs. Madison is one of the 5 to 10 most important Supreme Court decisions…this mutes that part of the policy literature which derives from checks and balances and SOP.

Overturn is a real part of the literature…for instance the health care debate & the Supreme Court was critical to health care & potentially to the 2012 election. Their interpretation creates a massive vacuum around the policy process–some of the most interesting & useful parts of the debate to learn about–and the people in a democratic society need to learn more about.


Why do you get durable fiat on all other agents? You just get durable fiat on your agent.

Durable fiat also shouldn’t mean frozen in freaking carbonite…..never to change ever–from now until the end of time.

Also, minimally sufficient–durable fiat solves. Ergo, you don’t get 100% compliance from every agent of government.

For instance, if on the military topic–if the evidence indicates we would re-invade one of the countries after we left……that seems like a pretty legitimate argument on EVERY level.

Thats not the best example….but post-fiat paradoxes in the policy context deserve to be debated out….particularly given the lack of legitimate neg. policy positions on most resolutions. It checks cheating with kritiques.

Empirically solves & real world–Any people in the policy literature still have these discussions…….without the idea of durable fiat.

The aff & neg ground is founded on re-action to policy action–this mutes part of that discussion.

The inherency debate that you say durable fiat solves was always bad debate–that just lead to poor & boring debates.

And cross-apply above.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: