| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,27 @@ |
|
1 |
+====A Interpretation: The Aff must defend that legislative branches of the United States limit qualified immunity – they may not defend courts do it==== |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+====‘Resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law==== |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition “Resolved.”. 1964 |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+Definition of the |
|
8 |
+AND |
|
9 |
+establish by law”. |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+====B Violation==== |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+====C Net Benefits==== |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+====1 Object fiat – the 1AC assumes courts would just change their mind, and revert previous decisions – not how the process works. They fiat a change in their mindsets, which is both utopian and multi-actor. Legislature solves – it’s explicitly proposed and passed, but doesn’t rely on specific actors changing their minds.==== |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+====2 Topic lit – the core controversy of the topic is how to galvanize the public through legislative changes, which protests can influence.==== |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+Keffer and Barnhart: Bradley Keffer and Scott Barnhart Partners, Keffer Barnhart LLP “INBOX: Lawyers question use of qualified immunity for police.” The Indiana Lawyer. December 2014. RP |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+However, if qualified |
|
22 |
+AND |
|
23 |
+limited by law. |
|
24 |
+ |
|
25 |
+====3 Extra T – to strike down a ruling requires a case be brought before the Courts – they wouldn’t just randomly rule – that means the fiat of the Aff requires a lawsuit, which is obviously ridiculous.==== |
|
26 |
+ |
|
27 |
+====D T is a voting issue==== |