Constitutional Law I Debates

Constitutional Law I Debates
Fall 2011
Mark Richards, Ph.D. 

This exercise will count for a total of 5 percent of your course grade, with the paper and the oral component each making up 50 percent of this assignment. Everything is graded individually.

Debate: The debate will proceed as indicated below, with each speech being 3 minutes. Grading criteria and expectations are contained in the debate rubric. Members of each team are encouraged to work with their partner to cover the widest range of arguments in the first and second speeches. You should make one legal, one policy and one normative argument in favor of your position. In the first and second speeches, you are just tasked with articulating your position. In the rebuttals, you should focus on responding to your opponents' best arguments and also reinforcing your main contentions.

Format: 3 minutes each speech

First affirmative:
Second affirmative:
First negative:
Second negative:
1A rebuttal:
1N rebuttal:
2A rebuttal:
2N rebuttal

Paper: Two pages, double-spaced, minimum font size 11. Papers are due in class the day of your debate. You should make one legal, one policy and one normative argument in favor of your position. You should also briefly articulate one of your opponents' best arguments and respond. Grading criteria and expectations are contained in the paper rubric.

Audience: The audience will vote (in favor of affirmative, negative or unsure) before and after the debate. Members of the audience will also submit a question.

Dates:

9/27: 1 & 2

10/6: 3 & 4

11/8: 5 & 6

11/15: 7 & 8

Resolutions:

1. U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright (1936) is a better framework than Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) for the Court to use to guide its decisions on presidential foreign affairs power.

2. The President is not constitutionally required to consult with Congress prior to engaging in a significant armed conflict.

3. The Suspension Clause (pertaining to habeas corpus) is in full effect at Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. (Affirmative means you want to require the government to respect habeas corpus rights at this location.) (Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2008)

4. Aliens detained as enemy combatants at Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to privilege of habeas corpus to challenge legality of their detention. (Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2008)

5. The requirement of the new federal health care law that individuals must purchase insurance exceeds the federal government's power under the commerce clause.

6. Arizona's new immigration laws are preempted by federal law and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause.

7. Taking property for economic development satisfies the public use requirement of the fifth amendment. (Kelo v. City of New London, CT., 2005)

8. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s strict regulation of soft money does not violate the first amendment. (McConnell v. FEC, 2003)

Readings:

1.

 O'Brien pp. 232-240
U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (1936)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952)
Dames and Moore v. Regan (1981)

2.

 O'Brien pp. 264-269
The Prize Cases (1863)
War Powers Resolution (pp. 325-330)
Baker and Christopher, "Put War Powers Back Where They Belong," NYT, July 8, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08baker.html?scp=1&sq=war%20powers%20consultation%20act%20of%202009&st=cse

3 & 4.

Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229, June 12 2008:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html

O'Brien pp. 269-276
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Rasul v. Bush (2004)
O'Brien, pp. 330-337
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

5.

Lyle Denniston, Doubts on New Health Law, SCOTUSblog.com, August 2, 2010:
http://www.scotusblog.com/blog/2010/08/02/doubts-on-new-health-law/

Virginia v. Sebelius, Memorandum Opinion on Motion to Dismiss, Civil Action 3:10CV188HEH, U.S.D.C. E. Dist. Of VA., August 2, 1010: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Hudson-ruling-on-health-care-8-2-10.pdf

Lyle Denniston, Health Insurance Mandate Struck Down, SCOTUSblog, August 12, 2011:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/health-insurance-mandate-struck-down/

6.

Lyle Denniston, Circuit Sets Alien Law Review, SCOTUSblog, July 30, 2010:
http://www.scotusblog.com/blog/2010/07/30/u-s-asks-fast-alien-law-review/

U.S. v. Arizona, Preliminary Injunction, CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB, U.S.D.C. Dist. Of AZ, July 28, 2010:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Bolton-prelim-inj-ruling-7-28-10.pdf

Appellants (AZ) Opening Brief, before Ninth Circuit:
http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/AppellantsOpeningBrief.pdf

7.

 O'Brien, pp. 1054-1059, 1077-1079
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (2005)

8.

O'Brien pp. 906-914
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)