1NC

The United States federal government should stop the enforcement of all the economic
sanctions imposed on Cuba.
The CP competes --- lift means to rescind.
American Heritage Dictionary 2000
to remove or rescind by an official act , as a ban, curfew, or tax: a court decision to lift the ban on strikes by
teachers.

Eliminating the economic sanctions is a form of whitewashing that sanctifies the violent
atrocities committed by the U.S. --- this makes the reproduction of violence against Cuba
inevitable.
Baudrillard, Professor of Philosophy and Culture and Media Criticism, 1995 (Simulacra and Simulation, pg. 49-50)
Forgetting extermination is part of extermination , because it is also the extermination of memory, of history, of
the social, etc. This forgetting is as essential as the event , in any case unlocatable by us, inaccessible to us in its
truth. This forgetting is still too dangerous, it must be effaced by an artificial memory (today, everywhere, it is
artificial memories that efface the memory of man, that efface man in his own memory). This artificial memory will
be the restaging of extermination -but late, much too late for it to be able to make real waves and profoundly
disturb something, and especially, especially through a.medium that is itself cold, radiating forgetfulness, deterrence,
and extermination in a still more systematic way, if that is possible, than the camps themselves. One no longer
makes the Jews pass through the crematorium or the gas chamber, but through the sound track and image track,
through the universal screen and the microprocessor. Forgetting, annihilation, finally achieves its aesthetic
dimension in this way-it is achieved in retro, finally elevated here to a mass level. Even the type of sociohistorical
dimension that still remained forgotten in the form of guilt, of shameful latency, of the not-said, no longer exists,
because now "everyone knows," everybody has trembled and bawled in the face of extermination-a sure sign that
"that" will never again occur. But what one exorcises in this way at little cost,, and for the. price of a few tears, will
never in effect be reproduced, because it has always been in the midst of currently reproducing itself , and
precisely in the very form in which one pretends to denounce it, in the medium itself of this supposed exorcism:
television. Same process of forgetting, of liquidation, of extermination, same annihilation of memories and of
history, same inverse, implosive radiation, same absorption without an echo, same black hole as Auschwitz. And one
would like to have us believe that TV will lift the weight of Auschwitz by making a collective awareness radiate,
whereas television is its perpetuation in another guise, this time no longer under the auspices of a site of
annihilation,.but of a medium of deterrence. What no one wants to understand is that Holocaust is primarily (and
exclusively) an event, or, rather, a televised object (fundamental rule of McLuhan's, which must not be forgotten),
that is to say, that one attempts to rekindle a cold historical event, tragic but cold, the first major event of cold
systems, of cooling systems, of systems of deterrence and extermination that will then be deployed in other forms
(including the cold war, etc.) and in regard to cold masses (the Jews no longer-even-concerned-with- :their own
death, and the eventually self-managed masses no longer even in revolt: deterred until death, deterred from their
very own death) to rekindle this cold event through a cold medium, television, and for the masses who are
themselves cold, who will only have the opportunity--for a tactile- thrill and a posthumous emotion, a deterrent thrill
as well, which will make them spill into forgetting with a kind of good aesthetic conscience of the catastrophe.

This process of historical revisionism and burial sanctifies power.

Sumi Cho, Depaul Law Professor, 1998 (Boston College Third World Law Journal Redeeming Whiteness in the
Shadow of Internment: Earl Warren, Brown, and a Theory of Racial Redemption 19 B.C. Third World L.J. 73) pg.
122
Racial redemption is the process by which whiteness can be restored to its full material value by removing the
encumbrances that the legacy of racism has placed upon it. Such a process reconciles the knowledge/desire tension
by denouncing supremacy while permitting its continued operation. Specifically, there are three identifiable features

that characterize the process of racial redemption: 1) the repudiation of old forms of white supremacy; 2) the burial
of historical memories of racial subordination; and 3) the transformation of white supremacy into more sustainable forms.
The repudiation of America's supremacist past may take various forms, such as the declaration of racial apologies or
racial equality "covenants." A number of historical events merged in the mid-twentieth century to force the repudiation of white
supremacist regimes, only two of which I will address. First, the discovery of the Nazi death camps was an epiphanal moment for the United
States and began the final demise of the pseudo-scientific, biologically-based philosophy of white supremacy. n251 The Holocaust held a mirror
to white Americans' violent [*123] exclusion and disfranchisement of people of color, particularly Black Americans in the South. In addition,
the 1944 publication, An American Dilemma, removed the intellectual cover enjoyed by scientific racism. n252 In his thousand page work,
Gunnar Myrdal argued that America's race problem was attributable not to the biological inferiority of the minority group, but to the irrational
prejudices of members of the majority group. n253 The Holocaust, the public spectacle of the Nuremberg trials and the influence of An American
Dilemma made it impossible to sustain old forms of white supremacy as a public rationale for the racial caste system in postwar America. n254

The burial feature of racial redemption makes use of censorship , historical amnesia , selective recall,
euphemizing and revisionist historicizing in achieving its ends. This process obscures individual, institutional and
cultural complicities with the old forms of white supremacy that would otherwise have left "blood on the hands"
of those who participated in the repudiated regime , and even damaged the moral currency of those who
passively benefited from it. In one sense, burial provides closure after a grieving period, granting permission to "move
on" from the legacy of America's racist past. Such burials may manifest themselves as outright denials, glaring omissions, silences,
absences and counter-factual or decontextualized assertions. Burial obscures the full extent to which white privilege has been
consolidated and leveraged into material gain . n255 The third, and most important, feature of racial redemption
involves the simultaneous transformation and reassertion of white supremacy. [*124] The process of racial
redemption retires an outmoded form of white supremacy while introducing a new, more resilient form . What has
been billed as revolutionary racial change in the repudiation phase reveals itself as a "mere change in the form of
investment" in white supremacy. n256 Burial of racial historical context makes it analytically difficult for the
public to evaluate comparatively the evolving form of subordination . Pre-Brown, white supremacy manifested
itself in the system of segregation supported by an ideology of biological determinism. Post-Brown, white supremacy
continued in the new form of formal legal equality abutted by the ideology of colorblind fundamentalism.

Extinction.
Foucault 1990, Chair of History of Systems of Thought at College of France [Michel, The History of Sexuality: An
Introduction p. 136-137]
Since the classical age the West has undergone a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. "Deduction" has tended to be no
longer the major form of power but merely one element among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the
forces under it: a power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making
them submit, or destroying them. There has been a parallel shift in the right of death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a
life-administering power and to define itself accordingly. This death that was based on the right of the sovereign is now manifested as simply the
reverse of the right of the social body to ensure, maintain, or develop its life. Yet wars were never as bloody as they have been since the
nineteenth century, and all things being equal, never before did regimes visit such holocausts on their own populations . But this formidable
power of death and this is perhaps what accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which it has so greatly expanded its limits now
presents itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize,
and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the
name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone ; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital
. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many
wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars has

caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that
terminates them are in fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival . The atomic situation is now at
the end point of this process: the power to expose a whole population to death is the underside of the power to
guarantee an individual's continued existence . The principle underlying the tactics of battlethat one has to be capable of killing in
order to go on livinghas become the principle that defines the strategy of states. But the existence in question is no longer the
juridical existence of sovereignty; at stake is the biological existence of a population . If genocide is indeed the
dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is
situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population .

Solvency 2NC
The CP solves the entirety of the case --- the mechanism of the economic sanctions are void
and unenforceable but we leave the legislation like the Helms-Burton Act on the book as a
relic for past atrocities.
The CP has the Supreme Court rule the provisions unenforceable. This takes away the
power of the law while keeping the economic sanctions on the books.
Treanor and Sperling, 1993
(William Michael, Associate Professor of Law @ Fordham University, and Gene B., Deputy Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy, December, Prospective Overruling and the Revival of "unconstitutional" Statutes, 93
Colum. L. Rev. 1902, Columbia Law Review)
Unlike the Supreme Court, several state courts have explicitly addressed the revival issue. The relevant state court
cases have concerned the specific issue of whether a statute that has been held unconstitutional is revived when the
invalidating decision is overturned. 42 With one exception, they have concluded that such statutes are immediately
enforceable. The most noted instance in which the revival issue was resolved by a court involved the District of
Columbia minimum wage statute pronounced unconstitutional in Adkins. After the Court reversed Adkins in West
Coast Hotel, President Roosevelt asked Attorney General Homer [*1913] Cummings for an opinion on the status of
the District of Columbia's statute. The Attorney General responded, The decisions are practically in accord in
holding that the courts have no power to repeal or abolish a statute , and that notwithstanding a decision holding
it unconstitutional a statute continues to remain on the statute books; and that if a statute be declared unconstitutional and the decision so
declaring it be subsequently overruled the statute will then be held valid from the date it became effective. 43 Enforcement of the statute followed without
congressional action. 44 When this enforcement was challenged, the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Jawish v. Morlet 45 held that the
decision in West Coast Hotel had had the effect of making the statute enforceable. The court observed that previous opinions addressing the revival issue proceed on
the principle that a

statute declared unconstitutional is void in the sense that it is inoperative or unenforceable , but not

void in the sense that it is repealed or abolished ; that so long as the decision stands the statute is dormant but not
dead; and that if the decision is reversed the statute is valid from its first effective date. 46 The court declared this
precedent sound since the cases were "in accord with the principle "that a decision of a court of appellate jurisdiction overruling a former
decision is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former decision is bad law but that it never was the law.' " 47 Adkins was
thus, and had always been, a nullity. The court acknowledged that, after Adkins, it had been thought that the District of Columbia's minimum
wage statute was unconstitutional. As the court put it, " "Just about everybody was fooled.' " 48 Nonetheless, the court's view was that since the
minimum wage law had always been valid, although for a period judicially unenforceable, there was no need to reenact it. 49 Almost all other

courts that have addressed the issue of whether a statute that has been found unconstitutional can be revived have
reached the same result as the Jawish court, using a similar formalistic [*1914] analysis. 50 The sole decision in
which a court adopted the nonrevival position is Jefferson v. Jefferson, 51 a poorly reasoned decision of the Louisiana
Supreme Court. The plaintiff in Jefferson sought child support and maintenance from her husband. She prevailed at the trial level; he filed his notice of appeal one day
after the end of the filing period established by the Louisiana Uniform Rules of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rejected his appeal as untimely, even
though the Louisiana Supreme Court had previously found that the applicable section of the Uniform Rules violated the state constitution. One of Ms. Jefferson's
arguments before the state Supreme Court was that that court's previous ruling had been erroneous and that the rules should therefore be revived. In rejecting this
claim and in finding for the husband, the Court stated: Since we have declared the uniform court rule partially unconstitutional, it appears to be somewhat dubious that
we have the right to reconsider this ruling in the instant case as counsel for the respondent judges urges us to do. For a rule of court, like a statute, has the force and
effect of law and, when a law is stricken as void, it no longer has existence as law; the law cannot be resurrected thereafter by a judicial decree changing the final
judgment of unconstitutionality to constitutionality as this would constitute a reenactment of the law by the Court - an assumption of legislative power not delegated to
it by the Constitution. 5 The Louisiana Court thus took a mechanical approach to the revival question. According to its rationale, when a statute is found
unconstitutional, it is judicially determined never to have existed. Revival therefore entails judicial legislation and thereby violates constitutionally mandated
separation of powers: because the initial legislative passage [*1915] of the bill has no legitimacy, the bill's force is considered to be purely a creature of judicial
decision-making. Jefferson has little analytic appeal. Its view of the separation of powers doctrine is too simplistic. Contrary to the Jefferson rationale, a "revived" law
is not the pure product of judicial decision-making. It is, instead, a law that once gained the support of a legislature and that has never been legislatively repealed. Its
legitimacy rests on its initial legislative authorization. Moreover, the

view that a statute that has been found unconstitutional should be

treated as if it never existed may have had some support in the early case law, but it has been clearly rejected by
the Supreme Court. Instead of treating all statutes that it has found unconstitutional as if they had never existed, the
Court has recognized a range of circumstances in which people who rely on an overturned decision are protected.
Indeed, as will be developed, the doctrine of prospective overruling evolved to shield from harm those who relied on
subsequently overruled judicial decisions. 53 In short, the one case in which there was a holding that a statute did
not revive does not offer a convincing rationale for nonrevival.

Korematsu proves this solves

Marilyn Patel, United States District Court Judge for The Northern District Of California, 1984 (FRED
KOREMATSU, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, 584 F. Supp. 1406, lexis)

Thus, the Supreme Court's decision stands as the law of this case and for whatever precedential value it may still
have. Justices of that Court and legal scholars have commented that the decision is an anachronism in upholding
overt racial discrimination [**41] as "compellingly justified." "Only two of this Court's modern cases have held the
use of racial classifications to be constitutional." Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 507, 65 L. Ed. 2d 902, 100 S.
Ct. 2758 (1980) (Powell, J., concurring and referring to Korematsu and Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81,
87 L. Ed. 1774, 63 S. Ct. 1375 (1943)). See also L. H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 16-6, 16-14 (1978).
The government acknowledged its concurrence with the Commission's observation that "today the decision in
Korematsu lies overruled in the court of history." Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history.
As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent it stands as a
constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting
constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national
security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a
caution that in times of international hostility [**42] and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and
judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that
are so easily aroused.

The process of repealing sanitizes U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba --- turns the case
Baudrillard, Professor of Philosophy and Culture and Media Criticism, 1994 (The Illusion of the End, pg. 11-12)
Can one escape this curving back of history which causes it to retrace its own steps and obliterate its own
tracks , escape this fatal asymptote which causes us, as it were, to rewind modernity like a tape ? We are so used to
that we are quite
capable, in our present dizzy spin, of running history over again like a film played backwards. Are we condemned, in
the vain hope of not abiding in our present destruction, as Canetti has it, to the retrospective melancholia of living everything
through again in order to correct it all, in order to elucidate it all (it is almost as though psychoanalysis were spreading its shadow
playing back every film the fictional ones and the films of our lives so contaminated by the technology of retrospection,

over the whole of our history: when the same events, the same conjunctures are reproduced in almost the same terms, when the same wars break
out between the same peoples, and all that had passed and gone re-emerges as though driven by an irrepressible phantasm, one might almost see

do we have to summon all past events to appear before us, to

reinvestigate it all as though we were conducting a trial ? A mania for trials has taken hold of us in recent times, together with a
mania for responsibility, precisely at the point when this latter is becoming increasingly hard to pin down. We are looking to remake a
this as the work of a form of primary process or unconscious),

clean history , to whitewash all the abominations : the obscure (resentful) feeling behind the proliferation of
scandals is that history itself is a scandal . A retroprocess which may drag us into a mania for origins, going back
even beyond history, back to the conviviality of animal existence, to the primitive biotope, as can already be seen in the
ecologists flirtation with an impossible origin.

Perm 2NC Do Both

Lift means to rescind --- thats American Heritage Dictionary 2000 --- any perm that
removes the economic sanctions from the books severs. Thats a voter for fairness --- it
creates a moving target and kills neg ground
The perm links to the net benefit --- it removes the economic sanctions from the books.

AT: Your Ev is About Race

This applies to anything
Sumi Cho, Depaul Law Professor, 1998 (Boston College Third World Law Journal Redeeming Whiteness in the
Shadow of Internment: Earl Warren, Brown, and a Theory of Racial Redemption 19 B.C. Third World L.J. 73) pg.
121
My theory of racial redemption, presented here in an early stage of development, offers a general framework within
which to place a series of legal precedents and through which to understand legal history. Beyond its application to
Earl Warren and the Warren Court, racial redemption theory is available for a wide range of purposes, including:
analyzing contemporary post-civil rights politics in an era of race-coding; understanding the phenomenon of pitting
one subordinated group against another in a process I refer to as "racial brokering;" explaining the increasing use of
people of color as spokespersons or "racial mascots" for racially regressive policies and reconciling the increasing
equality discourse with the decreasing yield in material resources to redress inequality.