Commissions cp neg
Download 413.33 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC---AT: Perm---Do Both
- 2NC---AT: Perm---Plan Through Process
- 2NC---AT: Perm---Do Counterplan
Perm/TheoryTheoryNeg Ground—the topic is massive and energy/environment AFFs make it bidirectional—the counterplan is key to check unpredictable nature of the topic.Risk/Reward—the AFF gets to avoid roll back arguments through durable fiat, they should have to incur the strategic cost of uncertain counterplans to maintain the balancePolicy Making--Commissions are a well established alternative to traditional policymaking—proves the CP is predicable and germaneCampbell 2 – Colton C. Campbell, Associate Professor of Political Science at Florida International University, visiting Professor of Political Science at American University, 2002, Discharging Congress: Government by Commission, p. 129 Ad hoc commissions as instruments of government have a long history. They are used by almost all units and levels of government for almost every conceivable task. Ironically, the use which Congress makes of commissions— preparing the groundwork for legislation, bringing public issues into the spotlight, whipping legislation into shape, and giving priority to the consideration of complex, technical, and critical developments—receives relatively little attention from political scientists. As noted in earlier chapters, following the logic of rational choice theory, individual decisions to delegate are occasioned by imperfect information; legislators who want to develop effective policies, but who lack the necessary expertise, often delegate fact-finding and policy development. Others contend that some commissions are set up to shift blame in order to maximize benefits and minimize losses. Implementation key –it’s the most important aspect of policy—just because the AFF has a bad defense of theirs doesn’t mean the CP is unfair Schuck 99—Peter, Professor, Yale Law School, and Visiting Professor, New York Law School, “Delegation and Democracy” http://www.constitution.org/ad_state/schuck.htm God and the devil are in the details of policymaking, as they are in most other important things—and the details are to be found at the agency level. This would remain true, moreover, even if the nondelegation doctrine were revived and statutes were written with somewhat greater specificity, for many of the most significant impacts on members of the public would still be indeterminate until the agency grappled with and defined them. Finally, the agency is often the site in which public participation is most effective. This is not only because the details of the regulatory impacts are hammered out there. It is also because the agency is where the public can best educate the government about the true nature of the problem that Congress has tried to address. Only the interested parties, reacting to specific agency proposals for rules or other actions, possess (or have the incentives to ac-quire) the information necessary to identify, explicate, quantify, and evaluate the real-world consequences of these and alternative proposals. Even when Congress can identify the first-order effects of the laws that it enacts, these direct impacts seldom exhaust the laws’ policy consequences. Indeed, first-order effects of policies usually are less significant than the aggregate of more remote effects that ripple through a complex, interrelated, opaque society. When policies fail, it is usually not because the congressional purpose was misunderstood. More commonly, they fail because Congress did not fully appreciate how the details of policy implementation would confound its purpose. Often, however, this knowledge can only be gained through active public participation in the policymaking process at the agency level where these implementation issues are most clearly focused and the stakes in their correct resolution are highest. Reject the argument not the team – the punishment does not fit the crime—making the debate hard for the AFF is the NEGs job—have a high threshold to avoid substance crowd out.2NC---AT: Perm---Do BothDoing both links to politics and doesn’t solve--- a) Congressional debates---the CP means Congress won’t debate the merits of the plan---they give an up-or-down vote to a commission report. The perm forces debate on the substance of the plan now---electoral pressure and fights over the plan trigger the link---that’s all our politics net-benefit ev. b) Secrecy---the commission’s deliberations aren’t public, but the plan forces the issue onto Congress’s radar immediately---ensures backlash Campbell 2 – Colton C. Campbell, Associate Professor of Political Science at Florida International University, visiting Professor of Political Science at American University, 2002, Discharging Congress: Government by Commission, p. 13-14 Life on Capitol Hill has frequently become acrimonious because of escalating partisanship between parties.48 Increasing polarization in Congress49 has led to gridlock50 and stimulated the use of message politics,51 thereby limiting both the flexibility and the creativity of congressional action through normal legislative channels. The logic of commissions is that leaders of both parties, or their designated representatives, can meet to negotiate a deal without the media, the public, or interest groups present. When deliberations are private, parties can make offers without being denounced either by their opponents or by affected constituency groups; there is less chance to use an offer from the other side to curry favor with constituents. Agreement to bipartisan commissions and adherence to their logic are consequential because they represent a tacit promise not to attack the opponent. On some issues, for instance, the promise might imply letting the commission pick the solution and relying on party discipline to encourage lawmakers to go along even if their districts are disadvantaged by the solution; on others it might involve nothing more than a bipartisan admission that a commission is the next step Congress should take, without any understanding that all the players are bound ex ante by the commission’s resolution.52 Commissions also mean eschewing partisan attacks and suggest a strong preference for reaching an agreement.53 Doing both links to politics---only giving the commission time generates political support---the perm’s not a genuine recommendation and doesn’t allow any time for negotiation Biggs 9 [Andrew Biggs is a Social Security analyst and assistant director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization, “Rumors Of Obama Social Security Reform Commission,” Feb 17 http://www.frumforum.com/rumors-of-obama-social-security-reform-commission] One problem with President Bush’s 2001 Commission was that it didn’t represent the reasonable spectrum of beliefs on Social Security reform. This didn’t make it a dishonest commission; like President Roosevelt’s Committee on Economic Security, it was designed to put flesh on the bones laid out by the President. In this case, the Commission was tasked with designing a reform plan that included personal accounts and excluded tax increases. That said, a commission only builds political capital toward enacting reform if it’s seen as building a consensus through a process in which all views have been heard. In both the 2001 Commission and the later 2005 reform drive, Democrats didn’t feel they were part of the process. They clearly will be a central part of the process this time, but the goal will now be to include Republicans. Just as Republicans shouldn’t reflexively oppose any Obama administration reform plans for political reasons, so Democrats shouldn’t seek to exclude Republicans from the process. Second, a reform task force should include a variety of different players, including members of government, both legislative and executive, representatives of outside interest groups, and experts who can provide technical advice and help ensure the integrity of the reforms decided upon. The 2001 Bush Commission didn’t include any sitting Members of Congress and only a small fraction of commissioners had the technical expertise needed to make the plans the best they could be. A broader group would be helpful. Third, any task force or commission needs time. The 2001 Commission ran roughly from May through December of that year and had to conduct a number of public hearings. This was simply too much to do in too little time, and as a result the plans were fairly bare bones. There is plenty else on the policy agenda at the moment, so there’s no reason not to give a working group a year or more to put things together. Only the CP gets perceived as considering options from both sides before recommending one action---the perm looks like the commission favoring one side from the beginning---triggers politics and turns the case Hoyer 10 [Steny, Senator, “Building Momentum for Fiscal Responsibility,” 3/1 http://www.brookings.edu/events/2010/0301_fiscal_responsibility.aspx] I hope congressional Republicans will take the work as sincerely and seriously as the chairmen take it—that they will come to the table without preconditions, ready to contribute their ideas and not just their criticism from the sideline. The commission has a bipartisan pedigree, and it won the votes of 16 Republicans in the Senate. But I was disappointed to see that seven Republican supporters of the commission bill, including Minority Leader McConnell, decided they were against it as soon as President Obama said he was for it. President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill’s work on Social Security reform in the ‘80s, and the Republican reaction to the Medicare changes in the health care bill, both teach the same lesson: the real work of cutting deficits is so easy to demagogue that it rarely succeeds without support from both sides. That’s one of the reasons why the fiscal commission must not take any option off of the table, from raising revenues to cutting entitlement spending. And that’s why both parties have a duty to appoint members who are willing to compromise and make tough decisions. It’s also clear to me that if the commission takes a one-handed approach, it will fail, both politically and substantively. Congressman Ryan’s thoughtful budget proposal shows what an approach looks like when it relies entirely on cutting spending. He should be commended for putting together a serious and detailed plan to tackle the deficit. It doesn’t raise a single tax. But as a consequence, it significantly changes Medicare.
The perm’s illegitimate:a) Intrinsic---adds an element of delay that’s not in the counterplan---[the CP only fiats the creation of the commission and the recommendation]b) Severance---if the commission process is genuine and independent then the plan isn’t certain to be done until the end of the process---severs ‘should’ which requires immediacySummers 94 - Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 11-8-1994, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant,” online: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14 Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). c) No offense---if the CP fiated that the plan happens in the future their perm would be legit---this excludes abusive delay and condition CPs. It’s key to test the necessity of doing the plan---if only recommending it is better, then the aff should lose. The perm doesn’t solve politics---the commission process has to be independent---perm means Congress has its mind made up from the beginning, the decision to do the plan is made immediately even if it’s not implemented until after the commission makes its recommendations. The perception that the commission is a congressional proxy causes political battles Brookings Fiscal Seminar 9 – The Brookings Institution Fiscal Seminar, group of scholars who meet on a regular basis, under the auspices of The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation, to discuss federal budget and fiscal policy issues, June 2009, “The Potential Role of Entitlement or Budget Commissions in Addressing Long-Term Budget Problems,” online: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/06_commissions_sawhill/06_commissions_sawhill.pdf The use of commissions or advisory councils has a long history in the United States. In the early 1900s, the National Monetary Commission examined the nation’s distressed financial system and recommended establishing a central banking structure, a recommendation that was soon translated into the Federal Reserve System. From 1937 to 1996, Social Security policy-making was heavily influenced by the findings and recommendations of periodic advisory councils, including the National Commission on Social Security Reform (the Greenspan Commission) which helped to rescue the program from insolvency in 1983. The 1960s saw the Warren Commission investigate the assassination of President Kennedy and the Kerner Commission examine the causes of civil disorders. The Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) provided an effective mechanism over the past two decades for overcoming the political hurdles inhibiting the restructuring of U.S. defense facilities across the country. And the recent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) delved into the numerous facets of the 2001 terrorist attacks and potential changes in homeland security. Commissions can be used for a variety of purposes that suit the needs of the President or the Congress. The role of some commissions is to develop a knowledge base about certain policies or problems free from the political machinations that are an unavoidable part of the legislative process. They can also develop policy options that members of Congress and their staff have too little time or expertise to formulate. They can serve as consensus-building vehicles from which members of Congress may garner political protection while addressing contentious issues. At other times, commissions appear simply to serve as delaying measures that can be employed to defuse a political issue until a more opportune time for action develops. 2NC---AT: Perm---Do CounterplanDoing the CP alone severs: a) ‘Resolved’ means the plan has to be certain to pass Kernerman Dictionary 6 - Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, 2006, “Resolve,” online: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolution 1 to make a firm decision (to do something) I've resolved to stop smoking. 2 to pass (a resolution) It was resolved that women should be allowed to join the society.
“Should” means immediate Summers 94 - Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 11-8-1994, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant,” online: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 ***TO FOOTNOTES In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882). ***END FOOTNOTES The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record. Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. The actual meaning intended by the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the phrase to be interpreted is used.18 When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. b) It also means mandatory---introducing uncertainty severs Summers 94 - Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 11-8-1994, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant,” online: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14 Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). c) This is true of the CP---it’s a non-binding recommendation Oram 13—Cherise, is a partner in the Environment, Land Use and Natural Resources practice group, “Ocean Law Alert: Obama Administration Releases National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan,” 4/24 http://www.stoel.com/ocean-law-alert-obama-administration-releases-national-ocean The Implementation Plan is an extension of the National Ocean Policy, which "does not create any new regulations, supersede current regulations, or modify any agency's established mission, jurisdiction, or authority . . . [and] does not redirect congressionally-appropriated funds, or direct agencies to divert funds from existing programs." Thus, the Implementation Plan does not create new law. Rather, it describes specific actions that the federal agencies involved in ocean management will take to coordinate with tribal, state, and local governments; marine industries; and other stakeholders to streamline management of the nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters. Although the Implementation Plan does not create new law, it provides detailed directions for agencies tasked with navigating interagency cooperation and again calls on the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations ("U.N.") Convention on the Law of the Sea,[2] stating that accession is "critical to protecting our navigational rights and freedoms" and would "advance our national interests by protecting and enhancing our access to the ocean and important natural resources." The CP’s fundamentally distinct from the normal legislative process---it’s not USFG action Campbell 2 – Colton C. Campbell, Associate Professor of Political Science at Florida International University, visiting Professor of Political Science at American University, 2002, Discharging Congress: Government by Commission, p. xv So why and when does Congress formulate policy by commissions rather than by the normal legislative process? Lawmakers have historically delegated authority to others who could accomplish ends they could not. Does this form of congressional delegation thus reflect the particularities of an issue area? Or does it mirror deeper structural reasons such as legislative organization, time, or manageability? In the end, what is the impact on representation versus the effectiveness of delegating discretionary authority to temporary entities composed largely of unelected officials, or are both attainable together? Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 413.33 Kb. Share with your friends:
|