Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2013-2014CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEBATE ONE
Debate Prep:AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
What is Success?
What it comes down to…
Define empathy…
em·pa·thy
(ˈempəTHē/)
Noun
1.the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Deadlines/Prep Points
Case Briefs and Answers DUE Next Tuesday (10/1) by 11:59 PM USE manual templates as a worksheet TYPE questions and answers, TYPE case briefs No prep points assigned Will receive up to two fall points if not completed
up to standards 2 Fall Points if not completed 1 Fall Point if completed or not completed up to
standards
Deadlines/Prep Points Contd
FIRST DRAFT DUE Tuesday, 10/15/13 by 11:59 PM FOLLOW examples and specs in manual for formatting
e.g. Font, Spacing, Headings Will NOT receive full prep points if not properly followed
EARN up to two prep pointsFINAL DRAFT
DUE Tuesday, 10/22/13 by 11:59 PM (one week turn-around)
FOLLOW examples and specs in manual for formatting e.g. Font, Spacing, Headings Will NOT receive full prep points if not properly followed
EARN up to FOUR prep points
Deadlines/Prep Points Continued
DEBATE COACHING DUE Friday, 10/25 by 11:59 PM Required one session Earn up to two prep points Will follow up with times to meet with debate coaches
MENTOR RECEIPTS DUE Friday, 10/25 by 11:59 PM Required – two meetings during cycle Earn up to four prep points
2 meetings = 4 points 1 meeting = 2 points
On to TEXABAMA!!
EQUAL PROTECTION
Three (3) Considerations
Rational Basis Intermediate Scrutiny Strict Scrutiny
Ends
(The Goal)
Legitimate Purpose Ex. Administrative convenience
Important Purpose Ex. Preventing teen pregnancy, traffic safety, gender; (maybe LGBT rights)
Compelling Purpose (extremely important purpose) Ex: Remedying past discrimination, achieving diversity in Higher Ed (Parents Involved and Grutter)
Means (how you achieve the
goal)
Rationally Related Substantially Related
Narrowly tailored to that purpose; - Should not be over or under inclusive - Are there race-neutral alternatives that would satisfy the goal?
Classification
Non-suspect Ex: Individuals under the age of 21
Quasi-suspect Ex: Gender, legitimacy (whether your parents were married when you were born)
Suspect Ex: Race, ethnicity, alienage
Start by asking…
1. Is there a reasonable purpose for this program or law?
2. Is the discriminatory category reasonably related to achieving the purpose of the policy?
1. Is there a compelling state interest for this program or law?
2. Is the program or law narrowly tailored? (Is the discriminatory action the only way to attain that purpose?)
NO YES
C R E A C
For EACH section of your argument, complete a CREAC:
C - Start with your conclusion. Does your case satisfy the legal rule or not?
Ex. SUT’s program’s desire remedy past discrimination is a compelling interest.
R – State the legal rule(s) you will use. You may have more than 1 rule.
Ex. Remedying past discrimination is a compelling state interest when the school itself has discriminated against the specific racial group in the past.
E – Provide textual evidence from the case(s) to support the rule. Use direct quotes! You should briefly (1-2 sentences) summarize the case and then provide a quote from the case that supports your rule.
Ex. In Parents Involved, students claimed Equal Protection clause violations when the Seattle and Jefferson public school systems used racial tiebreakers to assign students to schools. The Court held that Seattle could not rely upon an interest in remedying the effects of past discrimination because “Seattle public schools have not shown that they were ever segregated by law, and were not subject to court-ordered desegregation decrees.”
A – Apply the facts of your case to the rule(s) you just explained. In this section, you should talk about how your facts are similar or different to the facts of the cases you used to form your rules in order to make your point.
Ex. Here, SUT has discriminated in the past by …. Unlike the schools in Seattle, SUT …
Also address counterarguments in this section by explaining why they are different from and do not apply to your case.
C - Restate your conclusion regarding this rule. Does your case satisfy the rule or not?
Ex. Thus, SUT’s desire to remedy past discrimination is a compelling state interest.
Croson
Main Points Race = Suspect Class Strict Scrutiny Remedial = Compelling Interest, but must show
evidence Must be able to determine whether best-fit to
accomplish specific objective Note – about local and state laws
Adarand
Main Points Remedial = Compelling Interest (Note – Croson holding summarized) Again – strict scrutiny, but first time applies it to
federal law, not state or local law
Grutter
Main Points Diversity in higher education = compelling interest Must be narrowly tailored (approach to achieve
interest is best fit) Race can be one “plus factor,” but must be considered
in conjunction with entire individual, cannot be preference solely based on race
Seattle School District
Main Points Involves diversity in grade school Different from Grutter – Means not narrowly tailored “Here, racial balance the school districts seek is a
defined range set solely by reference to the demographics of the respective school districts….racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake.” (p. 33)
Hopwood
ID Pointers Summarize Facts/Circumstances Main Points
Case is a good example of the necessity at times for remedial action
Look at data and parts that are relied on by court in justifying remedying past discrimination
