FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
OK everyone. It's time to spruce this place up a bit. We need a constant influx of new material, so I am going to rip high school debate topics and post them in here. I was on my high school's debate team, and was very successful, and I can tell you that these topics are always relevant, and you may surprise yourself about what side you end up on as you start to formulate arguments. If these start to get some momentum, I will sticky the newest ones and we will get us a series going.
That being said.....
-------------------------------------------------------
Resolved: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
I will argue against the topic.
The most important facet of a just society is order. No one can realize the full potential of their liberty in a chaotic society. Property rights must be maintained through reciprocal surrendrence of natural rights.
In order to maintain a just society, certain rules must be followed, and certain powers must be reserved for the federal government. These powers are called plenary powers. During the examination of this topic, we will define some of the plenary powers of the United States government, and illustrate how these powers must remain absolute, even on reservations, in order to maintain the necessary order in our society.
Plenary Power Number 1 - Congress' absolute dominion over interstate trade laws and the tax code.
In 1993, Congress passed laws giving tax breaks to businesses operating on reservations. These tax cuts cut the depreciation of lands on reservations, providing for greater after tax income for both the individual and the reservation drawing revenue from the lease of the land.
Basically, the tax cuts made reservation land more valuable. All too often, the land in reservations depreciates in value, keeping businesses from operating in these areas, making life harder on Natives. These businesses employ Natives and provide them with health benefits. This tax cut, which can only be granted by the US congress brings insurance, economic development, and convenience to a people who are all too accustomed to getting the short end of the stick.
The laws saved 40% on the depreciation of the value of the land over a period of forty years. It added nearly $150 million dollars in income for Native Americans in Oklahoma alone.
This makes society a more just place for Natives. According to John McCain, natives are amongst the poorest Americans, and the subjegation of their rights to regulate their own trade (in sales of land) with publicly traded companies, created a windfall for the reservations as a whole. Congress allowed for a tax cut for businesses to move to reservation land, supplying the natives with many conveniences that would otherwise not be available.
The commerce clause (Article 1, section 8) also gives congress the power to regulate trade with "Indian tribes", thereby providing the legal basis for the above mentioned laws.
Plenary Power Number 2 - Treaties and War
Giving Native American tribes sovereignty effectively makes them separate nations. These "nations" would be able to declare war and sign treaties on their own. Signing treaties with banned trading partners would undermine the US government. A certain uniformity is needed, and a treaty with a declared enemy is a mixed message which may very well start an international incident. Different rules for different sections of the country might start a war for the entire nation. If a northern tribe was upset over Canadian politics was allowed to declare war would violate territorial restriction on the United States. A tribe allowed to declare war on another tribe would mean that troops would marching across American soil to meet each other. While these may be extreme examples, allowing tribes to build armies would create an arms race and possibly ignite centuries old tensions. The maintenance of these rights by the federal government maintains a certain order necessary for the commerce and peace necessary for a functioning society.
Third, free speech and women's rights are maintained through plenary powers.
Allowing complete sovereignty to tribes could mean the restriction of the rights of women, the right of free speech, the safety of children, and the safety of the workplace.
A tribe that could suddenly restrict free speech would be violating the Constitutional rights of Americans. Simply put, the tribe would gain extended control over it's people, violating the liberties promised to ALL Americans.
Furthermore, misogyny could run rampant throughout tribes. Women and children could be unfairly represented in legal matters. Children could be forced into labor, women could become victims of ancient social roles, not allowing them their liberty to self actualize. The rights promised by the federal government are provided so that each individual can choose their role in a social order, and with complete sovereignty for tribes, anyone could be forced into any job.
Remember, my claims are theoretical. The moral obligations to maintain order definitely override the claims of sovereignty by individual tribes.
--------------------------------------------------
Feel free to take either side of the topic. Let's see where this can go.
That being said.....
-------------------------------------------------------
Resolved: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous peoples ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government.
I will argue against the topic.
The most important facet of a just society is order. No one can realize the full potential of their liberty in a chaotic society. Property rights must be maintained through reciprocal surrendrence of natural rights.
In order to maintain a just society, certain rules must be followed, and certain powers must be reserved for the federal government. These powers are called plenary powers. During the examination of this topic, we will define some of the plenary powers of the United States government, and illustrate how these powers must remain absolute, even on reservations, in order to maintain the necessary order in our society.
Plenary Power Number 1 - Congress' absolute dominion over interstate trade laws and the tax code.
In 1993, Congress passed laws giving tax breaks to businesses operating on reservations. These tax cuts cut the depreciation of lands on reservations, providing for greater after tax income for both the individual and the reservation drawing revenue from the lease of the land.
Basically, the tax cuts made reservation land more valuable. All too often, the land in reservations depreciates in value, keeping businesses from operating in these areas, making life harder on Natives. These businesses employ Natives and provide them with health benefits. This tax cut, which can only be granted by the US congress brings insurance, economic development, and convenience to a people who are all too accustomed to getting the short end of the stick.
The laws saved 40% on the depreciation of the value of the land over a period of forty years. It added nearly $150 million dollars in income for Native Americans in Oklahoma alone.
This makes society a more just place for Natives. According to John McCain, natives are amongst the poorest Americans, and the subjegation of their rights to regulate their own trade (in sales of land) with publicly traded companies, created a windfall for the reservations as a whole. Congress allowed for a tax cut for businesses to move to reservation land, supplying the natives with many conveniences that would otherwise not be available.
The commerce clause (Article 1, section 8) also gives congress the power to regulate trade with "Indian tribes", thereby providing the legal basis for the above mentioned laws.
Plenary Power Number 2 - Treaties and War
Giving Native American tribes sovereignty effectively makes them separate nations. These "nations" would be able to declare war and sign treaties on their own. Signing treaties with banned trading partners would undermine the US government. A certain uniformity is needed, and a treaty with a declared enemy is a mixed message which may very well start an international incident. Different rules for different sections of the country might start a war for the entire nation. If a northern tribe was upset over Canadian politics was allowed to declare war would violate territorial restriction on the United States. A tribe allowed to declare war on another tribe would mean that troops would marching across American soil to meet each other. While these may be extreme examples, allowing tribes to build armies would create an arms race and possibly ignite centuries old tensions. The maintenance of these rights by the federal government maintains a certain order necessary for the commerce and peace necessary for a functioning society.
Third, free speech and women's rights are maintained through plenary powers.
Allowing complete sovereignty to tribes could mean the restriction of the rights of women, the right of free speech, the safety of children, and the safety of the workplace.
A tribe that could suddenly restrict free speech would be violating the Constitutional rights of Americans. Simply put, the tribe would gain extended control over it's people, violating the liberties promised to ALL Americans.
Furthermore, misogyny could run rampant throughout tribes. Women and children could be unfairly represented in legal matters. Children could be forced into labor, women could become victims of ancient social roles, not allowing them their liberty to self actualize. The rights promised by the federal government are provided so that each individual can choose their role in a social order, and with complete sovereignty for tribes, anyone could be forced into any job.
Remember, my claims are theoretical. The moral obligations to maintain order definitely override the claims of sovereignty by individual tribes.
--------------------------------------------------
Feel free to take either side of the topic. Let's see where this can go.
