Changes for page Lexington Alessandro Aff
on 2016/11/11 19:30
on 2016/08/22 20:40
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 16 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. stephenalessandro3@gmailcom1 +XWiki.nbalachundhar@gmailcom
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,85 +1,0 @@ 1 -I affirm 2 -A. The constitution denotes explicit obligations meaning only it can serve as a guide to action because only it is accessible - the obligations are clear. 3 -B. Bodies like the executive and judicial enforce the constitution and ensure the U 4 -AND 5 -other ethical theory and its obligating capacity but they’ve already endorsed the constitution. 6 - 7 -Ought to is defined as functionally being supposed to do something based on the factual nature of the agent. 8 - 9 -Macintyre 81 Alasdair MacIntyre, “After Virtue”, 1981 Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre (born 12 January 1929) is a Scottish1 philosopher primarily known for his contribution to moral and political philosophy but also known for his work in history of philosophy and theology. He is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Aristotelian Studies in Ethics and Politics (CASEP) at London Metropolitan University, and an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. During his lengthy academic career, he also taught at Brandeis University, Duke University, Vanderbilt University, and Boston University. 10 -Yet in fact the alleged unrestrictedly general logical principle on which everything is being made to depend is bogus- and the scholastic tag applies only to Aristotelian syllogisms. There are several types of valid arguments in which some element may appear in a conclusion which is not present in the premises. A.N. Prior’s counter-example to this illustrates its breakdown adequately; from the premise ‘He is a sea captain’; the conclusion may be validly inferred that ‘He ought to do whatever a sea-captain ought to do’. This counter-example not only shows that there is no general principle of the type alleged; but it itself shows what is at least a grammatical truth—an ‘is’ premise can on occasion entail an ‘ought’ conclusion. From such factual premises as ‘This watch is grossly inaccurate and irregular in time-keeping’ and ‘This watch is too heavy to carry about comfortably’, the evaluative conclusion validly follows that ‘This is a bad watch’. From such factual premises as ‘He gets a better yield for this crop per acre than any farmer in the district’, ‘He has the most effective programme of soil renewal yet known’ and ‘His dairy herd wins all the first prizes at the agricultural shows’, the evaluative conclusion validly follows that ‘He is a good farmer’. Both of these arguments are valid because of the special character of the concepts of a watch and of a farmer. Such concepts are functional concepts; that is to say, we define both ‘watch’ and ‘farmer’ in terms of purpose of function which a watch or a farmer are characteristically expected to serve. It follows that the concept of a watch cannot be defined independently of the concept of a good watch nor the concept of a farmer independently of that of a good farmer; and that the criterion of something’s being a watch and the criterion of something’s being a good watch. 11 - 12 -And the functional nature of the U.S. is adhering with the Constitution. 13 - 14 -The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/constitution 15 - “The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens. 16 -Thus, ought implies the standard which is maintaining consistency with the constitution. 17 - 18 -The standard is adhering to the U.S Constitution. 19 - 20 -Thus the plan: The USFG should remove the clearly established doctrine from qualified immunity. 21 - 22 -Wright 15 is the advocate Sam Wright http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/ Sam Wright is a public interest lawyer and he graduated from Brooklyn Law School in May 2014 and currently works as a Pro Bono Attorney for Earthjustice in the New York office. SA 23 -Instead, police officers have recourse to the broad protections of the judicially established doctrine of qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, state actors are protected from suit even if they’ve violated the law by, say, using excessive force, or performing an unwarranted body cavity search — as long as their violation was not one of “clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would be aware.” In other words, if there’s not already a case where a court has held that an officer’s identical or near-identical conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, there’s a good chance that even an obviously malfeasant officer will avoid liability — will avoid accountability. To To bring about true accountability and change police behavior, this needs to change. And change should begin with an act of Congress rolling back qualified immunity. Removing the “clearly established” element of qualified immunity would be a good start — after all, shouldn’t it be enough to deviate from a basic standard of care, to engage in conduct that a reasonable officer would know is illegal, without having to show that that conduct’s illegality has already been clearly established in the courts? 24 - 25 -The clearly established clause creates a vicious cycle which results in greater uncertainty regarding the law and more rights violations in the future. 26 - 27 -Carbado 16 Devon Carbado https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2808010 Carbado is a Professor of Law at UCLA. SA 28 -With respect to the “clearly established” doctrine, there are two problems with the standard. First, courts often avoid deciding the question of whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution and rule instead on whether the constituitional right in question was clearly established. The Supreme Court has made clear that lower courts are free to proceed in this way, making it relatively easy for courts to make the defense of qualified immunity available to a police officer without having to decide whether the officer violated a constitjitional right. This avoidance compounds the extent to which the law is unsettled. And, the greater the uncertainty about the law, the greater the doctrinal space for a police officer to argue that particular rights were not “clearly established’ at the time the officer acted. In other words, the more courts avoid weighing in on the sub-stantive question of whether police conduct violates the Constitution, the more leeway police officers have to argue that their conduct did not violate a clearly established right. 29 - 30 -The empircal example of Stanton v. Sims shows how the process with the clearly established clause blurs courts from upholding the 4th amendment. 31 - 32 -Carbado 16 Devon Carbado https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2808010 Carbado is a Professor of Law at UCLA. SA 33 -Consider, for example, Stanton v. Sims.202 There, the Court avoided the question of whether an officer’s entrance into a yard to effectuate the arrest of a misdemeanant vio- lated the Fourth Amendment, but ruled that the right to avoid such an intrusion was not clearly established.203 Unless and until the Supreme Court expressly rules that, absent ex- igent circumstances, one has a right to be free from warrantless entry into one’s yard, courts will likely grant qualified immunity in cases involving such arrests 34 - 35 -Police Culture has developed to a point that where excessive force and 8th amendment violations is common place- we need a major change to Qualified Immunity to solve. 36 -Joyner 15, Irving. "The Police, the Law, and the Unjustified Use of Force." RSS. N.p., 8 July 2015. Web. 24 Oct. 2016. http://www.scalawagmagazine.org/articles/police-law-force. Law Professor Irving Joyner explains the near impossibility of prosecuting police officers for using excessive force, and suggests what we can do about it. VV 37 -Where a police officer uses any degree of force, fatal or non-fatal 38 -AND 39 -the police culture and its use of force will continue to frustrate people. 40 - 41 -Qualified immunity hurts clear precedent and favors officers- that allows judges to avoid setting new rights 42 -Carbado 16 Drew Carbado (Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA), “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. 43 -Qualified Immunity: Perhaps a more fundamental barrier to holding police officers ac- countable 44 -AND 45 -a significant doctrinal hurdle to holding police officers accountable for acts of violence. 46 - 47 -Judges allow the police to get away with anything- people are deterred from filing lawsuits 48 -Pattis 16 bracketed for ableist rhetoric Pattis, Norm. Management, Elite. "Norman Pattis Blog". Norm Pattis Blog. N. p., 2016. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.KB 49 -I get many calls each week from people who believe they have been abused by 50 -AND 51 -accomplices in a police state; most of them don't even realize it. 52 - 53 -Lawsuits are uniquely key to revealing the truth behind constitutional rights violations. 54 -1. Takes out Body Cam CPs cause they don’t solve with out the AFF 55 -Schwartz 11-2 Schwartz, Joanna C. is a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. In 2015, she received UCLA’s Distinguished Teaching Award. She is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School "What Police Learn from Lawsuits." Cardozo L. Rev. 33 (2011): 841. http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/event/265497/media/slspublic/What_Police_Learn_From_Lawsuits.pdf NN 56 -The most “glaring deficiency” of the internal investigation was the failure to enhance 57 -AND 58 -be filled, at least in part, by information revealed in litigation. 59 - 60 -The plan allows for increased litigation and solves-multiple warrants 61 --removing the cleary established increases condfidence 62 - 63 -1. Precedent and Cooperation- litigation establishes clear precedents for the future and fosters trust in the community 64 -Stefan 16 De Stefan, Lindsey, (J.D. Candidate, Seton Hall Universtiy School of Law; B.A. Ramapo College of New Jersey. "“No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:” How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct" (2017). Law School Student Scholarship. Paper 850. http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/850 NB 65 -Altering the qualified immunity doctrine is an excellent way to begin the path to restoring 66 -AND 67 -, in the heat of the moment, whether reasonably or not.59 68 - 69 -Underview 70 - 71 -The Role of the Ballot is to vote for the best post-fiat policy option. 72 - 73 -Role playing is the best method for creating social change by students outside the debate space. 74 - 75 -Coverstone 2 Alan “Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact” 76 -However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power. Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than Acting on Activism - 16 the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. I’m up against...their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It’s as if such students can’t imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today’s students’ lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) 77 -The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the 78 -AND 79 -that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today. 80 - 81 -Critiques don’t provide a concrete political alternative, rendering them useless. 82 -Bryant 12 Levi R. “Underpants Gnomes: A Critique of the Academic Left” (2012) https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/ (Bryant is a Philosophy Professor at Collin Colledge, and a psychoanalyst) 83 -Unfortunately, the academic left falls prey to its own form of abstraction. It’s 84 -AND 85 -make a sound! Seriously dudes and dudettes, what are you doing? - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:24:47.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lexington Alessandro Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale QI 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:10.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:13.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:14.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:15.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:15.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:15.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:15.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:17.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:17.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:17.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:17.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:17.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:23:18.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:24:46.0 - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Princeton DC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Scarsdale
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-11 19:30:09.379 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -contact - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -contact - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Contact