Community Standards vs. National Standards: Civil Liberties

Negative arguments?
It seems kind of obvious but has anyone thought about the supremacy clause for the negative? article 2 paragraph 4 i believe of the constitution states that national law always supercedes community law when the two conflict, that basically (assuming that you can shift the grounds to US) renders the affirmatve incapable of upholding civil liberties? anxious for your thoughts.

balancing act?
On the question that CHSwhiteboy05 brought up, it seems virtually impossible to balance this resolution, after all it is talking specifically about conficting national standards, meaning that you would have to compromise the federal authority to reach some kind of agreement? More ideas, standards aside from laws are given rituals and customs too?? Some Native American tribes are matriarchal as opposed to the national standard of patriarchy, so those two obviously conflict, and there is no good reason for national standards to override the community standards, even though there is a conflict between the two, while we are on the subject of native americans, in louisiana, indian tribes in the central area of the state want to build a casino and the federal govt. gives them full permission to do so, however, the area where the tribe is situated is in a heavily religious area full of people who absolutely oppose gaming/casinos, so the community standards are conflicting national standards but the question of morality is what is being debated heavily by the community while the native americans clearly have the right to build the casino...so who should win?

We're doing a unit on debate....
My 9th speech class is doing a unit on debate, our topic is the same as this forum's topic. I am on the affirmative side, and I am in desperate need of help. I don't understand debate very well. My value is individual rights, my value criteria is ??????, i need a specific definition of comm. standards, nat. standards, and civil liberties.

My main arguement is going to be that with community standards, your voice is better heard. I was going to use examples of things that should be community that are now on the national level, but I can't think of any. Would it be just as effective to give examples of things that ARE on the community level instead of national? For example:: I live in southern Louisiana and coastal erosion is a BIG problem. I thought this was on the national level, but it turns out its on the community level. I was going to say how people from oh, je ne sais quoi, Minnesota shouldn't need to vote on coastal erosion because they have no understanding of it. Would the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504; disability) be something to change to the community level? PLEASE HELP!

That's an excellent example, tahiti. However, here's the problem. I'll bet you anything that part of the funding for combating coastal erosion on tne Gulf of Mexico comes from Federal funds. Here's where the national standards part comes in: the Feds can and do tell you exactly how the money they allocate to a state is to be spent. In other words, even though the work is community-based, the standards still have been set by the national goivernment.

In the example yoiu cite, this may not be a major problem. The funding was probably secured by a Louisiana Senator or Congressman who knows what the state needs. But what if the final decision on whether or not to fund this project were made by a committee consisting entirely of legislators from South Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa? They might insist on compliance standards that have more to do with the cattle industry and cornfield maintenance than with coastal erosion.

The Feds routinely blackmail states into doing their bidding simply by refusing to allocate any Federal funds for a specific project unless the state falls into line with Federal policy. That's why the legal drinking age in all states is now 21, instead of, say, 18, as it used to be in some states. The powers that be in Washington, DC have made it clear that any state which lowers the drinking age will get no Federal highway maintenance funds. Likewise, education standards used to be a matter of local concern only. But then the states started accepting Federal money earmarked for school programs. Once states had become dependent on these funds for such things as improving the infrastructure (building new schools, etc.), the Federal government started insisting on the maintenance of certain educational standards, some of which might seem useless in some communities. The list goes on.

Good luck on your debate. You sound like you know what you're doing. And -- oh, yes -- welcome to A2K.

Re: Where to run "Balanced"?

you cant run it on aff or neg. you have to support community of aff and natl on neg. this isnt a debater forum is it?

meep, sorry, that looks mad when i look back on it. sorry. when you allow individual voices to be heard, and communities be governed ny them, like someone way before said, then wouldnt you have given the kkk they key to the town so to speak?

meep, sorry, that looks mad when i look back on it. sorry. when you allow individual voices to be heard, and communities be governed ny them, like someone way before said, then wouldnt you have given the kkk they key to the town so to speak?

ok, so i actually have to debate this topic at a tournament against other people for a prize, and i have about a week to write my arguments. this site has helped a whole lot, but i can't limit the topic to the United States, so i was wondering if anyone had evidence or ideas that are outside our coastlines



Ok, so i tried looking for that in the U.S. constitution and couldn't find where that was stated... can anyone help me find that? thanks

Replies everywhere.
Hello again. What i posted earlier about national standards having precedence constitutionally can be found in the supremacy clause. of course our founding fathers were more wordy than i chose to be, but in summation that is what it states.


To tahitiswiti, first of all im southern LA to, nice ta meet you. some good examples of communal standards gaining national attn. or becoming national standards is basically everything, even when you look down to the most fundamental laws of america. They all came from some community. for instance the laws against murder and theft have their roots in the ten commandments stemming from the religious community. the bus boycotts with rosa parks are another prime example

i think everyone should remember that the government can make all kinds of laws, but if they dont enforce them then the laws really arent legit...? any ideas?

I debate for school and have a tournament where I will be debating this topic on the 15-17. So, I have read all the forums posted here and on a few other debate websites and am thoroughly confused. I can't seem to grasp this topic very well. I am basically getting that the smaller man can protect your rights better than the big guy. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have to write aaffirmative and negative case. Thanks bunches!

Ok, let me see if i can help with this a little.
It is big guy vs. little guy somewhat, but not nessisarily who can protect the little guy's rights better. also, look at how little guy affecting everyone else when he does what he wants. for example, gay rights. Some of the country couldn't care less and some of the country is insulted. also thin affirmative action. outside the country, you can lookat say Ireland, split north/south because of religion. possibly even the middle east (isreal, iran, iraq and so forth).
Just out of curiosity, where are you debating at, because i have a tournament at the same time... would be cool if it was the same.

Neg Case
Here is the negative case I ran at my state tournament. It was undefeated except for a non flow judge, supremacy clause argument is virtually unstoppable, you may get a crafty debater who finds a way around it but its not likely, amendments are irrelevant because removing supremacy clause eliminates power of federal government entirely.

Also counter the arguments about civil rights being better provided for with the fact that communities where hate crimes often occur have the standard that these crimes do not deserve punishments rendering communities incapable of preserving civil liberties to the extent that they actually condone the violation of such liberties on the grounds of race. for a more wordy person

Neg. Evidence

The national government has often been much more effective in delivering justice than local governments have.
Howell Raines My Soul is Rested: The Story of the Civil Rights Movement in the Deep South


Byron de la ("DeLay") Beckwith, a Greenwood fertilizer salesman and scion of an old Delta family, was tried twice for the murder of Medgar Evers. He was not convicted. In 1975 Beckwith was convicted in federal court of illegally transporting a dynamite bomb to New Orleans. He testified that he had not known the bomb was in his car. New Orleans police were said to suspect that he was on his way to blow up the home of a Jewish leader in New Orleans.




"Don't interfere with anything in the constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." Because I agree with Abraham Lincoln and agree that the only way to maintain order in our country is to protect the constitution and uphold it to the fullest extent, I negate the resolution,

RESOLVED: To better protect civil liberties, community standards ought to take precedence over conflicting national standards.

Before I move on to the body of the case, it should be observed that the resolution explicitly states that protecting civil liberties is the end goal. Whosoever better upholds civil liberties should win the round. Furthermore, the only way that you can be an effective judge is to understand the content of both my opponent and I's case. This is best achieved through limiting the grounds of debate to the United States. This achieves two things. First of all, it eliminates all extreme examples posed in third world countries and countries where civil liberties do not necessarily prevail. Secondly, it focuses the debate on an area where there is a dominating multi-cultural blend forcing an emphasis on civil liberties.

The value of this debate will be Constitutionalism. In short, this is simply the doctrine of maintaining the precedents set forth in the constitution of the United States. The value calls for the protection of all civil liberties, because that is virtually the sole purpose to which the constitution was established. Wikapedia.com defines Civil Liberties protections from the power of governments. Examples include the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These are usually guaranteed and protected by a constitution or by adherence to an international treaty. We can draw from this that the most effective way to provide and protect civil liberties is to value their number one safeguard, the constitution. The best way to uphold the value of constitutionalism, and thereby protect civil liberties is through the criterion of protecting constitutional ideals. This draws off of constitutionalism in the sense that one upholds the doctrine through protecting the essential elements of the constitution i.e. obeying laws and furthermore valuing national standards over conflicting community standards.

Contention 1- National Standards must take precedence in order to maintain order and protect civil liberties.

The constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article 6 paragraph 2 that:
SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be abound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Lectric Law Dictionary explains: Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
As was shown earlier, the constitution is by and large the most effective protector of civil liberties. The affirmative wishes to directly violate the constitution in the sense that they are directly disregarding the Supremacy Clause, one of the essential elements of the constitution. Therefore, the affirmative can in no way better provide for civil liberties than the negative because of the simple fact that they abolish essential elements of the constitution. If community standards are allowed to take precedence over conflicting national standards, the constitution is directly violated. When there is an allowance for the constitution to be habitually violated (as will explicitly happen if the affirmative wins this debate), this sets a precedent for the constitution to be violated in other ways as well. Once this precedent is set, the constitution becomes null and void leaving room for anarchy and a dystopian society.
The necessity that national standards take precedence over conflicting community standards is further brought on by the fact that allowing community standards to take precedence to a large degree reduces patriotism and national pride.
Cathleen Herasimchuk, Professor of Law at U. of Houston, furthers,
"A sense of a national consensus on issues concerning personal liberties and a desire for uniformity of rights also counsels against independent state constitutional construction. Because constitutions deal with fundamental human right, rights that cannot be abridged by any lawmaking body or statute and that are preserved above the ephemeral and shifting sands of public opinion, the nature and extent of fundamental rights should not dramatically change from state to state or from state court to federal court. Rights that are so fundamental and essential to human liberty and dignity that they are enshrined in a constitution should be fundamental enough to carry from place to place throughout the same nation."
By allowing community standards to take precedence, it dampens confidence in the national government because people assume that the federal force is not competent enough to make decisions that benefit everyone. This in turn potentially fosters anti-governmentalism, which can be a volatile and deadly force.


I hope it helps someone, PS anti-governmentalism is something i made up, so dont hope for an online definition, but its self explanitory. Also opponents are avoiding impacts, heads up

Community Standards
We/Debate team is working on this right now. Civil rights movement in the south is a great place for the negative. We are working with info from this sight right now.

Re: Neg Case


BECAREFUL saying something like that. Sounds like it worked... but if you hit someone, at least from around here, that's really good, they'll kill you for sayint that. And I know the debaters we're sending to nationals, and they WILL get you for that

The topic says nothing about limiting to the United States, and you can get in some serious trouble in around for doing that. the resoultuion was not limited because you're not supposed to limit it to one type of government or one form of thinking. Just a heads up for later on.

Aff. case
I am having a lot of troble coming up with a good Aff case. Can anybody help me?