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

Re: Regulatory reform and you

Hey Josh,

Thanks for your message.  I thought I had spoken my last words on topic stuff.  But, you inspired 
me to raise three issues.

1.	If folks like the "regulatory reform" language then they should breathe a sigh of relief 
about bi-directionality.  I have been reading lots of stuff that clearly distinguishes between 
regulatory reform and deregulation.  If you like the other end of the political spectrum it also 
provides you with the dreaded reform language.

2.	Regarding the concern about how USFG and regulation relate to each other in the topic.  
If everyone wants the topic but for this issue, my suggestion (although this will be highly 
unpopular) is to replace USFG with EPA.  Yep, EPA.  They are the ones your darn solvency cards 
will assume anyway.  Kind of hoses agent counterplan ground if you think solvency is important 
for counterplans, but you don't have to worry about the solvency evidence assuming the plan.

3.	The problem with limiting the affirmative to congressional action is the dreaded EO and 
Clinton nightmare everyone was lamenting around a few weeks ago.

Although I was enjoying my brief recess from the topic discussion I have a feeling I am being 
sucked back in......Thanks Josh:)

Josh wrote:
> 
> Sorry for the lack of a quicker defensebut I have been getting finals graded
> etc.  As far as I know the congress only has four avenues of change open to
> them in terms of regulations.  The dillemna is that given the nature of checks
> and balances regulation follows a very precise format that goes as follows
> (the Stanford environmental law review suggested this as the model) 1) problem
> occurs 2) enabling legislation is passed 3) regulation occurs through
> administrative agencies (trust me,this is the true, Congress cannot regulate)
> 4) regulatory failure occurs 5) regulatory reform occurs 6)deregulation
> occurs.  This means that Congress only has the following inroads to the
> regulatory process 1) enable 2) reform 3) deregulate 4) oversight.  Now,
> it may be true that reform by itself is a bad term to use in debates but, as
> our NDT like to say, regulatory reform is a "term of art" in the literature.
> In fact, it is the only terminology that is used in the action part of any of
> the resolutions that is true to the language of the political process.
>   Disadvantages to the wording. Yes, it is true that this allows the two topics
> to be bi-directional but they are bidirectional within a defined set  (ESA,
> CAA,CWA or Airborn  pollution).  I respectfully disagree with my colleagues
> who say this allows five-hundred to one thousand cases because the process of
> regulatory reform is a specific action and must be taken in the framework of
> the entire regulatory framework that is amended.  What I am trying to suggest
> is that the affirmative making a minor alteration to say the CAA is still
> responsible for the CAA on the whole post amendment (reform).  This creates
> vast negative generic ground in either direction.
> Advantages to wording.  The Gallentine/Shuster(Thompson,Harris) topic does
> not, despite its many other advantages, conform to the real nature of the
> political process.  To correctly compose a topic under that resolution you must
> have congress and the EPA and the President working together in the plan (see
> above, congress cannot regulate). In addition, it lends no guidance to the
> debater researching the topic as to what could be a topical - solvent policy.
> Personally, I tire of listening to case after case that is constructed from
> the imagination of the debater where the plan is a constantly changing jello-
> like amorphous mass of topical language that is politically impossible to
> pass.  In other words, what is topical may not be possible but may have cards
> that refer to solutions that cannot be passed in the way the plan is written.
> However, it is the rare negative who can get through the minefield of rhetoric
> and the plausible sounding language to explain the implications of passage of
> such a plan.  I would prefer that the action in the resolution represent
> correctly the actions of the resolutional actors - IN THE REAL WORLD!  In other
> words, the more the action in the resolution mirrors the action in the
> literature the greater the chance that solvency will mirror the literature
> rather than the imagination.
> I included the regulatory reform language because that is what Congress does
> when they want to tinker with enabling legislation.  If someone can suggest
> a more precise term that is used in the literature than I will be swayed.
> I am not swayed, however, by forcing words that do not mirror the literature
> into a topic when a more literature specific term exists.  Thanks for your
> patience....Josh
> 
> Joshua B. Hoe
> Asst. Dir. Forensics
> Arizona State University
> e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
> (602) 965-5578

-- 
Becky Galentine
theloft@accessone.com
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page