[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Treaties Topic Paper

At 12:34 AM 4/17/97 -0500, MAGARIEL wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, MAGARIEL wrote:
>
>> A quick question...
>> 
>>    Not to be negative (I like this area as a topic) however I was
>> wondering with these topics and resolutions presented which propose to
>> have the Senate ratify treaties which Clinton was already signed, how the
>> negative has ANY unique links?  Whose Disad links assume that Clinton
>> already signed a treaty, and is awaiting Senate ratification?  All links
>> would be non-unique, assuming a first signing/ratification.  Won't this
>> also foster agent C-P's (which I am saying is a bad thing)  ie congress
>> signs, President vetoes - which tubes his popularity and Clinton Good?  Of
>> course the "easy" perm being congress signs president vetos, and congress
>> overides his veto - which tubes him worse.  Of course that may be an
>> intrinsicness perm?
>> 

I think the topic makes disad links "uniquely unique".. If you're running
disads based off of signing the treaty, then of course you may be in
trouble. But if it's based on ratification you are in excellent shape for
several reasons. What was the problem with uniqueness this past year? That
environmental regulations got done all of the time. How often do treaties
get ratified? Almost never. Also your links will be about one body acting -
the senate - which eliminates uniquess problems experienced this year when
anything done by an executive agency, Clinton himself, the House or the
courts could give the negative troubles. Ands lots of affirmatives will
restrict the types of uniqueness answers they can make by their 1AC
advantages. Lots of people will want to claim to increase US international
credibility/leadership.  If your links say that is bad, the affirmative
cannot very well say leadership is already high without beating their own
advantage.. (maybe leadership will be high now but set for a decline, still
you get some kind of future unique link).. Additionally many of the
treaties were signed quite long ago and have been in the foreign relations
committee forever, making the answer you are talking about pretty
irrelevant. Signing also doesn't do anything really without ratification
substantively, so at worst some perception disads might be non-unique.. All
the disads to the enabling legislation itself and agreeing to comply with
the treaty would still be unique.

I don't understand the agent counterplan argument at all. Only the senate
can ratify treaties, that seems to be pretty damning to those arguments.
Doing a Lopez like mandate to give someone else the jurisdiction would be a
pretty major restructuring of the Constitution, there would probably be
some disads to that.. 



-/-> John Sullivan
-\-> Michigan State
--\> sulliv75@pilot.msu.edu
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page