Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


**States COUNTERPLAN Negative 1NC States Counterplan



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page68/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   ...   75

**States COUNTERPLAN Negative

1NC States Counterplan

Counterplan Text: The 50 states and all relevant territories should




Solvency: The counterplan solves- The 50 states have taken the lead on protecting individuals from federal government surveillance


BBC 2015- April 27, “US states take aim at NSA over warrantless surveillance” http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32487971

These days Stickland, a Texas state representative, isn't spending most of his time worrying about the government "stealing" through high taxes or onerous regulation - standard political fare for the kind of conservatives who populate the state capitol in Austin.¶ Instead his cause has been what he sees as government theft of privacy - the unlawful acquisition by the National Security Agency of personal information in the form of metadata about electronic communications by US citizens.¶ The particular target of his ire is the Texas Cryptologic Center, an NSA facility located near San Antonio. He has proposed a state law cutting off the building's access to public utilities - water and electricity - until the agency ceases what he says is unconstitutional warrantless data collection. "I believe the first role of government is to protect the personal rights and liberties of its citizens," says the Republican, who has represented a district near Dallas for two years. "Before we build a road or anything else, we have to ensure that those exist for every Texan."¶ "I believe that it is my responsibility as a representative at the state level to fight against that kind of tyranny," he continues. "Whether it's from the federal government or a foreign entity, it doesn't matter."¶ The Texas bill is just one of the most recent examples of a growing movement among states - both liberal and conservative - to end government support for NSA facilities.¶ Last year California became the first to pass what's been called a Fourth Amendment Protection Act. Its law prohibited the state from providing support to a federal agency "to collect electronically stored information or metadata of any person if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or unconstitutional collection".¶ This year 15 other states have introduced some kind of anti-NSA legislation, including politically diverse locations like liberal Washington and Maryland and conservative Oklahoma and Mississippi.¶ The movement has been championed by the Tenth Amendment Center and its OffNow coalition, which provides support and model legislation to politicians like Stickland interested in challenging the NSA.¶ According to Mike Maharrey, communications director for the centre, the California law, with its "actual knowledge" provision, is significantly weaker than they had hoped - but a good first step in the nation's most populous state.¶ He says they came up with the suggested legislation because they don't trust the US Congress to do anything to keep the NSA in check. The Patriot Act, which authorises the NSA surveillance programme, is up for renewal in May, and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already proposed that it be extended to 2020.¶ "I'm not really faithful in things that are going on in Washington, DC," he says. "People can make a difference more rapidly and more readily at the state level."¶ He adds that state politicians are generally more responsive to their constituents. "A lot of phone calls make a state legislator really nervous," he says. Maharrey says his proposed legislation is just the latest example of a US tradition of states expressing their independence from an intrusive federal government. He says the movement's inspiration was the efforts of Northern states to undermine the federal requirement to return fugitive slaves prior to the Civil War.¶ "It's called the anti-commandeering doctrine," he says. "The federal government cannot force the states to provide personnel or resources to any federal regulation or federal act or federal process. If the feds want to do it they can do it, but they have to do it themselves."

2NC/1NR- States COUNTERPLAN- Solvency- Overview




Extend our 1NC BBC evidence, the states are more responsible with surveillance than the federal government- our evidence indicates that states have already begun passing legislation to curb government intrusion, proving that they can do the plan

2NC/1NR- States COUNTERPLAN- Solvency- Drone Aff

States and localities are taking the lead on banning domestic drone surveillance


Swanson 2013 - David, author War is a Lie “Banning Surveillance: What States and Localities Can Do About Drones” http://www.occupy.com/article/banning-surveillance-what-states-and-localities-can-do-about-drones
Charlottesville, Va., passed a resolution that urged the state of Virginia to adopt a two-year moratorium on drones (which it did), urged both Virginia and the U.S. Congress to prohibit information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into court, and to preclude the domestic use of drones equipped with "anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being." It also pledged that Charlottesville would "abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones."¶ St. Bonifacius, Minn., passed a resolution with the same language as Charlottesville, plus a ban on anyone operating a drone "within the airspace of the city," making a first offense a misdemeanor and a repeat offense a felony.¶ Evanston, Ill., passed a resolution establishing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones in the city with exceptions for hobby and model aircraft and for non-military research, and making the same recommendations to the state and Congress as Charlottesville and St. Bonifacius.¶ Northampton, Mass., passed a resolution urging the U.S. government to end its practice of extrajudicial killing with drones, affirming that within the city limits "the navigable airspace for drone aircraft shall not be expanded below the long-established airspace for manned aircraft" and that "landowners subject to state laws and local ordinances have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the airspace and that no drone aircraft shall have the 'public right of transit' through this private property," and urging the state and Congress and the FAA "to respect legal precedent and constitutional guarantees of privacy, property rights, and local sovereignty in all matters pertaining to drone aircraft and navigable airspace."¶ Other cities, towns, and counties should be able to pass similar resolutions. Of course, stronger and more comprehensive resolutions are best. But most people who learned about the four resolutions above just leaned that these four cities had "banned drones" or "passed an anti-drone resolution."¶ The details are less important in terms of building national momentum against objectionable uses of drones. By including both surveillance and weaponized drones, as all four cities have done, a resolution campaign can find broader support. By including just one issue, a resolution might meet fewer objections. Asking a city just to make recommendations to a state and the nation might also meet less resistance than asking the city to take actions itself. Less can be more. Localities have a role in national policy. City councilors and members of boards of supervisors take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Cities and towns routinely send petitions to Congress for all kinds of requests. This is allowed under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. This clause is routinely used to accept petitions from cities, and memorials from states.¶ The same is established in the Jefferson Manual, the rulebook for the House originally written by Thomas Jefferson for the Senate. In 1967, a court in California ruled (Farley v. Healey, 67 Cal.2d 325) that "one of the purposes of local government is to represent its citizens before the Congress, the Legislature, and administrative agencies in matters over which the local government has no power. Even in matters of foreign policy it is not uncommon for local legislative bodies to make their positions known."¶ Abolitionists passed local resolutions against U.S. policies on slavery. The anti-apartheid movement did the same, as did the nuclear freeze movement, the movement against the PATRIOT Act, the movement in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, etc. No locality is an island. If we become environmentally sustainable, others will ruin our climate. If we ban assault weapons, they'll arrive at our borders. And if the skies of the United States are filled with drones, it will become ever more difficult for any city or state to keep them out.


Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review