Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[49]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[45]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[49]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-02 04:32:05.55
	1	+2016-12-02 04:32:05.0

Caselist.CitesClass[45]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,16 @@
	1	+There’s a growing trend to kill Trump – google searches prove. Faulkner 11/11
	2	+Faulkner, Trisha. "'Donald Trump Dead' Has Started Trending On Google ~-~- Is Trump’s Life In Danger?" The Inquisitr News. November 11, 2016. Accessed November 23, 2016. http://www.inquisitr.com/3707209/donald-trump-dead-has-started-trending/. JD
	3	+“Donald Trump dead” is one of the top-searched Google queries following Election Day. The question remains: Why are so many people asking Google whether or not Donald Trump is dead? The Mirror reports that a new study of Google search data conducted by a digital marketing agency called Search Laboratory revealed that the question of whether or not Donald Trump is dead is one of the top-searched Google queries for the month of November. The Mirror points out that what some people may find more shocking is that this popular search query is not limited to the United States. Data reveals that whether Donald Trump is dead is also a popular search query in Europe this month. For anyone who has been following the 2016 election, it is not too surprising to see a query such as “is Donald Trump dead” trending on Google. The Mirror believes the trending query goes back to a hoax that was making the rounds last month. The hoax claimed that Donald Trump had suffered a cardiac arrest during one of his campaign rallies. In addition to “is Donald Trump dead,” other trending search queries for the month of November include “is Hillary Clinton Jewish,” “are Bill and Hillary Clinton still married,” and “how many times has Donald Trump gone bankrupt?” The search data acquired during the study determined that from the very beginning of the 2016 election, search volume for information and answers about Donald Trump has been consistently higher than that of Clinton across five European countries, including Germany, Italy, France, the U.K., and Spain. Considering a recent discovery by fans of The Walking Dead, it is possible the fact that “Donald Trump dead” is trending has little to do with the actual life of the president-elect of the United States. According to the Huffington Post, fans of The Walking Dead recently started reporting that they had spotted a Donald Trump zombie. Check out the Twitter posts below to see whether or not you agree with The Walking Dead fans about the Donald Trump zombie. Comic Book even made an attempt to reach out to AMC and ask if the zombie fans had spotted was actually a Donald Trump zombie. Unfortunately, AMC denied that fans had spotted a dead Donald Trump in The Walking Dead. AMC claimed it was “just a walker” and that Walking Dead fans were drawing their own conclusions. It is, however, just as possible that “Donald Trump dead” is trending on Google because his life is in danger. According to Western Journalism, the Secret Service has advised Donald Trump to wear a bulletproof vest any time he is in public because of the number of death threats he has already received. Both Donald Trump and his vice president-elect, Mike Pence, have received multiple death threats every day.
	4	+
	5	+QI lets the secret service take precautions to protect the President. Hudson 14
	6	+Hudson, David L., Jr. "Qualified Immunity Protects Secret Service Agents." First Amendment Center. June 3, 2014. Accessed November 23, 2016. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/qualified-immunity-protects-secret-service-agents. JD
	7	+A recent unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of two Secret Service agents shows the power of the qualified-immunity doctrine. The high court ruled in Wood v. Moss that the agents were entitled to qualified immunity when they moved protesters an additional block further away than supporters of former President George W. Bush were allowed to gather in Jacksonville, Ore., in October 2004. The protesters contended that the actions of the agents violated the most fundamental free-speech principle – that the government may not discriminate against different private speakers on the basis of their viewpoints. In other words, government officials generally may not engage in viewpoint discrimination. The protesters said the Secret Service agents evinced such discrimination when they moved them further away from the president than his supporters when he stopped at a local inn to dine. While the concept of viewpoint discrimination is important in First Amendment law, the qualified-immunity doctrine trumped it in this context of protecting the president. The qualified-immunity doctrine provides that government officials are not liable unless they violate clearly established constitutional or statutory law of which reasonable officials should be aware. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned that it was not clearly established to the Secret Service agents when they had to make an on-the-spot security determination that they had to keep supporters and protesters equidistant from the president. Two other principles support the Court’s ruling that granted qualified immunity. The first is the importance of protecting the president and the second is the idea that speakers often don’t get to speak wherever they want. Concerning the president, Justice Ginsburg said his protection was of “overwhelming importance in our constitutional system. Regarding the location of speech, she declared that “the fundamental right to speak secured by the First Amendment does not leave people at liberty to publicize their views whenever and however and wherever they please.” In a constitutional democracy, government officials must respect the right of dissent. But Secret Service agents are entrusted with a most difficult task – protecting the leader of the Free World. They are entitled to a healthy dose of leeway when they make security-based decisions.
	8	+If Trump dies, Pence is president not sure it’s needed, but idk takes 2 secs CNN 13
	9	+CNN Library. "Succession: Presidential and Vice Presidential Fast Facts." CNN. August 27, 2013. Accessed November 26, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/us/succession-presidential-and-vice-presidential-fast-facts/. JD
	10	+Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6, Constitution of the United States: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. In the case that the president can no longer serve, the vice president would serve as president.
	11	+Pence is Trump plus – super anti-abortion and LGBT rights. Mastick 10/7
	12	+Mastick, William. "Mike Pence: As Bad or Worse than Trump." Watching America. October 07, 2016. Accessed November 26, 2016. http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2016/10/07/mike-pence-as-bad-or-worse-than-trump/. JD
	13	+Throughout U.S. history, nine vice presidents have reached the White House because the president died or resigned. If, by an unfortunate turn of events, Donald Trump wins the November election, we better say a prayer that nothing happens to him over the next four years. If Trump was unable to serve, automatically by law, Mike Pence would take over the presidency and things could be even worse. He is a regressive, ultra-conservative politician, a radical figure without any charisma, idolized by right-wingers, who hates immigrants, refugees and homosexuals. Pence fully supports building the infamous border wall and deporting all those who are undocumented. On the surface, it would seem that he adds nothing to the Republican nominee, gives the impression of being an empty suit, and only exists to defend the man at the top of the ticket. However, it is because of Pence that Trump now has many evangelical conservatives on his side who at first opposed him for having been married three times, his pro-choice stance, and referring to the communion wafer as "my little cracker." Chosen by Trump to potentially be second-in-command of the most powerful nation in the world, Pence is 57 years old, currently serves as governor of Indiana and previously spent 12 inglorious, yet embarrassing years in Washington as his state’s congressman, proposing 90 amendments and new regulations to Congress without a single one of them being passed into law. Every single one was ignored or rejected. Among them was his 2007 proposal to make English the official and sole language of the United States. In matters of immigration, Trump undoubtedly found his soulmate. For years, Pence insisted, also unsuccessfully, on implementing a law that would prohibit federal funds from going to hospitals and emergency medical centers that provide service to undocumented immigrants and tried to allow both public and private health facilities to deny care, turn them in and if possible, send them back to their country to be seen by a doctor there. He is against a path to citizenship in all cases for young people brought to the U.S. as children who know no other country as well as for those parents who gave birth to and raised children in the United States. Just this Monday, a federal court stopped him from denying public funds to help Syrian refugees in his state. Pence maintains that marriage is and should only be between a man and woman. As governor, he unsuccessfully attempted to block same-sex marriage in Indiana or from recognizing such marriage performed in other states. In 2015, he garnered national attention by imposing a law allowing shops to refuse service to gay couples. The reaction was so swift and negative that sports leagues, tech companies, artists and businesses cancelled their contracts in Indiana forcing him to retract the law. But perhaps his most controversial position is on abortion, which he totally opposes, signing earlier this year the second strictest law in the country that prohibits and punishes abortion even if the fetus suffers a physical or mental malformation. Additionally, it requires a funeral be performed after each abortion. Pence is married with three children. For a time, he worked as a talk radio host where he became known as an ultra-conservative. He is opposed to gays and lesbians enlisting in the Armed Forces because he says that homosexuality weakens the ranks and military life. He does not like parties, claims to be an enemy of frivolity and is a complete teetotaler. He hates alcohol and to avoid temptation, will only attend events where alcoholic beverages are served if his wife goes with him.
	14	+Assassination leads to government instability and civil war – democratic or autocratic Iqbal and Zorn 08
	15	+Iqbal, Zaryab, and Christopher Zorn. "The political consequences of assassination." Journal of Conflict Resolution 52, no. 3 (2008): 385-400. WHB
	16	+Assassination is generally defined as the killing of a public figure for political rea- sons; although it is an attack against an individual, the motives for an assassination are necessarily of a political nature (Khatchadourian 1974). In particular, the murder of a head of state1 often occurs as a means to bring about large-scale political change. In ancient political theory, assassination was often viewed as a viable method of end- ing the rule of an illegitimate ruler (Ford 1985) or to terminate the reign of a tyrant (Padover 1943; Walzer 1974); Julius Caesar’s assassination, for example, was justi- fied by many as tyrannicide. In contrast, modern societies have mostly regarded assassinations as acts of political violence that cannot be condoned on the basis of a need for political reform (see, e.g., Nielson 1974). Consistent with this modern view of assassination, we regard the act a phenomenon of political violence and therefore a negative influence on that state’s political system rather than as a legitimate mechanism for causing political change. As with other acts of political violence— such as coups—the effect of assassinations is to destabilize a society, with the mur- der of a head of state being particularly detrimental to the sociopolitical system. At the same time, as political events, assassinations capture the public imagination; years after the actual events, books about the assassinations of presidents Kennedy and Lincoln continue to appear in the popular press. Yet beyond some historical accounts of specific assassinations (e.g., De Witte 2001; Posner 1993; Raj 2001) or studies of psychological profiles of individual assassins (e.g., Freedman 1965; Slomich and Kantor 1969; Ben-Yehuda 1993), social scientists have paid relatively little attention to explaining assassination as a form of political violence, and even less to assessing its social and political consequences. To the extent that social-scientific work on assas- sinations has been done, it has tended to examine the social impact of assassinations, most commonly through a focus on assassinations’ effects on crime (Berkowitz and Macauley 1971), public opinion (Greenberg 1964; Patterson 1971; Hartnett and Libby 1972; Angermeyer and Matschinger 1995; Esaiasson and Granberg 1996; Yuchtman- Yaar and Hermann 1998; Raviv et al. 1998; Peri 2000; Klingman 2001) and political socialization (Orren and Peterson 1967; Siegel 1977).2 But despite this dearth of empirical research, assassinations of national leaders are widely believed (and asserted) to have substantial social and political effects. Patterson (1971) states flatly that ‘‘the death of the central authority figure in national political systems, whether it be Louis XVI, Josef Stalin, George V, or the American president, produces a crisis of authority’’ (p. 269). Snitch (1982) outlines the effectiveness of assassinations in achieving a range of terrorists’ goals, includ- ing broadening their base of support, ‘‘undermining the morale and prestige of the government’’ and prompting the government into desperate countermeasures (p. 56). More recently, Appleton (2000) claims that ‘‘the impact of assassinations on America and the world is incalculable’’ (p. 495) and noted that by a wide mar- gin, Americans cite the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as the crime that had the greatest impact on American society in the last hundred years. The predominance of such claims is, in many respects, unsurprising: in the wake of such a major assault on—in many cases—the most important political institution of a state, it would be shocking not to find at least some negative consequences. Assassination directly and severely perturbs a state’s political system and thus might be expected to lead to a range of manifestations of political unrest and instability, including riots, strikes, and demonstrations. Beyond these relatively minor reflections of domestic malaise, the sudden and violent death of a leader may also embolden dissatisfied groups to push for greater political change, in extreme cases leading to coups, revolution, and even civil war. At the same time, however, the forces that influence the occurrence of an assas- sination may also play a key role in mitigating its social and political impact. Recent empirical work has noted that assassinations are less likely to occur in sys- tems that provide a regular, institutionalized means of leadership turnover (Iqbal and Zorn 2006). Those findings suggest that political systems where executive turn- over is both regular and (mostly) nonviolent may also react differently to an assas- sination. In particular, such systems may reduce or eliminate the need for a period of political instability following such an event. Whether through constitutional suc- cession, hereditary accession, or other means, the presence of an accepted system for selecting a subsequent executive both assuages citizens’ concerns over the con- tinuity of the regime and reduces or eliminates the opportunity for dissident groups to attempt to seize power by force. Conversely, systems in which leadership succession occurs largely through internal struggle or guile are substantially more likely to observe a period of unrest following such a forcible removal of the head of state. In such a system, the assassi- nation of the head of state creates a power vacuum that is not immediately filled through institutionalized channels. This vacuum provides incentives for various factions to vie for power, often through violent means. In addition, the demise of a strong head of state may also open up opportunities for a general increase in dissent in the society. It is not unusual for highly repressive societies to experience high levels of stability due to widespread fear of extreme punishment for dissent (Hibbs 1973; Ferrara 2003). The death of that leader may give rise to (possibly violent) poli- tical demands by previously disenfranchised or repressed groups (e.g., Carey 2007). Ironically, domestic political upheavals may be facilitated by efforts at democratiza- tion following the assassination of an autocratic leader, as various groups seek repre- sentation or power. Such turmoil is unlikely in a state with a regularized system of succession.3 Taken together, these considerations lead us to expect that in general, the assassi- nation of a head of state will lead to an increase in the extent of political unrest, ran- ging from expressions of dissent (such as riots and antigovernment demonstrations) to the incidence of civil war. In addition, however, we believe that the impact of assassination will be mitigated by the presence of mechanisms for the peaceful acces- sion of the executive. That is, while assassination will in every event be destabilizing, the extent of that destabilization will be far greater in states that lack a formalized means of leadership succession. Thus, we test two main hypotheses: first, that the assassination of a head of state results in increased levels of domestic political tur- moil and armed conflict, and second, that the negative effects of assassination on domestic political stability are lower in states with regular and institutionalized mechanisms for leadership succession than in states that lack such succession pro- cesses. In the analyses that follow, we examine these expectations empirically.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-02 04:32:07.736

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Seth Wetsel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Centennial HH

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+49

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Engel Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOV-DEC - DA - Presidential Assassination

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Alta