You are on page 1of 13

Will Malson Book of Impacts V.

2 Page 1 of 13

Book of Impacts V.2 -- Index

Constitution Good (1/3) ..............................................................................................................2


A. Violating the Constitution is like playing Russian roulette: if the bullet fires, there’s no hope of pulling it
back. John Eidsmoe 92 .............................................................................................................................................2
B. If we attempt to change the status quo for the better while ignoring the constitution, we destroy what
makes that original attempt possible. Stephen Carter 86.......................................................................................2
C. Constitutional violations cannot be justified under any moral code. Stephen Carter 87................................3
D. As policymaker, you are required to uphold the Constitution in all instances. Roger Pilon 98 ....................3
E. Maintaining constitutionality is always justified, even if you look at from a utilitarian point of view
(attempting to maximize the good in the status quo). Levinson 2k ........................................................................3
F. Failure to correct constitutional violations means inevitable revolution, with loss of life and disruption of
society. Jon Roland, No date ....................................................................................................................................4
G. The only options are these: uphold the constitution, or uphold tyranny. Ed War 04......................................4

Democracy Good ........................................................................................................................5


A. DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, GENOCIDE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DESTURCTION......................................................................................................................5

Freedom Good ............................................................................................................................6


A. EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED.............................................................................6

Hegemony Good.........................................................................................................................7
A. US HEGEMONY IS KEY TO PEACE, LIBERTY, AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH ..........................7

Human Rights Good ...................................................................................................................8


A. BILLIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION..............................................................8

Nuclear Proliferation Bad ...........................................................................................................9


A. PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL .............................................9
B. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION ...................................................................................9

Military Readiness Good (1/2) ..................................................................................................10


A. MILITARY READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT .............................................................................. 10
B. MILITARY READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY............................................................................ 11
C. PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES FOR WWIII...................................................................................... 11

Separation of Powers Good.......................................................................................................12


A. COLLAPSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE OF POWER RISKS TYRANNY ....................................... 12

Space Militarization Bad...........................................................................................................13


A. SPACE MILITARIZATION CAUSES WAR ..................................................................................................... 13
Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 2 of 13

Constitution Good (1/3)

A. Violating the Constitution is like playing Russian roulette: if the bullet fires, there’s no hope of
pulling it back. John Eidsmoe 92
John A. Eidsmoe [Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Colonel with the USAF], 3 USAFA J. Leg. Stud. 35,
p. 57-9, 1992

“Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our
commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry
may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation, they will grow green again,
and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars
should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall
reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns
of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skilful architecture which united national
sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns fall, they
will not be raised again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears,
however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or
Rome ever saw, the edifice of Constitutional American liberty. It is possible that a Constitutional convention could take place
and none of these drastic consequences would come to pass. It is possible to play Russian roulette and emerge without a
scratch; in fact, with only one bullet in the chamber, the odds of being shot are only one in six. But when
the stakes are as high as one's life, or the constitutional system that has shaped this nation into what it is
today, these odds are too great to take the risk.”

B. If we attempt to change the status quo for the better while ignoring the constitution, we destroy
what makes that original attempt possible. Stephen Carter 86
Stephen L. Carter, professor of law at Yale, 1-1986 66 B.U.L. Rev. 71, p. 83-4, 1986

The fact that any rule can constrain creative freedom is sometimes missed by those who assert that
constitutional theories fall into two categories, "interpretive" and "non-interpretive." The error is the assumption
that one school assigns to the Constitution a different importance than the other. This simply isn't so. When Aloysius cries "intent of the Framers" and
Bernadette ripostes "emergent moral consensus" their disagreement is not over the weight to be assigned to the Constitution, but rather over the rules that
will bind the interpreter in the creative act of transforming its symbols into policy. Paul Brest and Laurence Tribe do not respect the Constitution any less
than do Robert Bork and Raoul Berger; their argument is over what demands that respect places on the interpreter. Each theorist's view on the best means for
channeling the creative imagination of the reader is put forth as a set of interpretive rules.] The crucial question for many constitutional theorists is whether
the rules governing interpretation can be set out with clarity sufficient to render constitutional adjudication something other than the judge's imposition of
her own value preferences. Those I call "delegitimizers" are of the view that mainstream liberalism cannot resolve this question: liberals, if they seek rules to
The only answer
cabin judicial freedom, are stuck with a Bickelean exaltation of process and a process that occasionally produces repugnant results.
liberals can come up with, so the argument goes, is the fundamental rights form of judicial review, that
is, to ignore the process -- and any coherent rules for interpretation that the process might require -- and
impose better results. But this of course is what classical liberalism forbids, for there must, in liberal
theory, be a way of recognizing law and distinguishing it from simple power. Judges in the liberal state
are to enforce this recognizable law. If they do something else -- for example, enforcing their preferences and calling them
law -- they are violating the rules that make liberal constitutional adjudication possible. Thus the essence of the
critique is not that the fundamental rights jurisprudence reaches substantive results that are good or bad -- such notions are quite irrelevant 54 -- but rather,
that liberal political theory cannot explain it. And if even liberals admit that they must sometimes step outside their own system in order to avoid morally
repugnant results, then their system must on its own terms be immoral.
Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 3 of 13

Constitution Good (2/3)

C. Constitutional violations cannot be justified under any moral code. Stephen Carter 87
Stephen L. Carter, professor of law at Yale (Brigham Young University Law Review No. 3, p. 75 1-2, 1987)
The problem with this use of our burgeoning public policy science, an inevitable one in an area of theory driven by instrumental rationality, is that the law
itself is stripped of the aura of uniqueness which is assigned to it in liberal theory. The law becomes all too mutable, and is left as no more than one of the
The Constitution, which is after all a species of law, is thus quite
means that must be tested against its efficacy in achieving the desired end.
naturally viewed as a potential impediment to policy, a barrier that must be adjusted, through interpretation
or amendment, more often than preservation of government under that constitution is viewed as a desirable policy in itself. In this the
modern student of policy is like the modem moral philosopher - and like a good number of constitutional theorists as well -
in denigrating the value of preserving any particular process and exalting the desirable result. But
constitutionalism assigns enormous importance to process, and consequently assigns costs, albeit perhaps
intangible ones. to violating the constitutional process. For the constitutionalist, as for classical liberal democratic theory,
the autonomy of the people themselves, not the achievement of some well-intentioned government
policy is the ultimate end of which the government exists. As a consequence, no violation of the means
the people have approved for pursuit of policy - here, the means embodied in the structural provisions of
the Constitution - can be justified through reference to the policy itself as the end.

D. As policymaker, you are required to uphold the Constitution in all instances. Roger Pilon 98
Pilon, Roger. Vice President. Legal Affairs. CATO Institute. “The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Cato’s Letters. Number: 13. Pg. 7. 1998.

In the end, however, no constitution can be self-enforcing. Government officials must respect their oaths to
uphold the Constitution; and we the people must be vigilant in seeing that they do. The Founders drafted an
extraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve it for ourselves and for
future generations. For the Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the American
people. That, perhaps, is the most enduring lesson of our experiment in ordered liberty.

E. Maintaining constitutionality is always justified, even if you look at from a utilitarian point of
view (attempting to maximize the good in the status quo). Levinson 2k
Daryl Levinson, professor of law at University of Virginia, Spring 2000 UC Law Review

we do not usually think of


Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation, for
violations of constitutional rights in terms of cost-benefit analysis and efficiency. Quite the opposite,
constitutional rights are most commonly conceived as deontological side-constraints that trump even
utility-maximizing government action. Alternatively, constitutional rights might be understood as
serving rule-utilitarian purposes. If the disutility to victims of constitutional violations often exceeds the social benefits derived from the
rights-violating activity, or if rights violations create long-term costs that outweigh short-term social benefits,
then constitutional rights can be justified as tending to maximize global utility, even though this requires
local utility-decreasing steps. Both the deontological and rule-utilitarian descriptions imply that the
optimal level of constitutional violations is zero; that is, society would be better off, by whatever
measure, if constitutional rights were never violated.
Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 4 of 13

Constitution Good (3/3)

F. Failure to correct constitutional violations means inevitable revolution, with loss of life and
disruption of society. Jon Roland, No date
Jon Roland, founder and president of the Constitution Society, "Principles of Tyranny", The Constitution Society [a private non-profit organization
dedicated to research and public education on the principles of constitutional republican government. It publishes documentation, engages in litigation, and
organizes local citizens groups to work for reform], No date, http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm (HEG)

Avoiding tyranny The key is always to detect tendencies toward tyranny and suppress them before they
go too far or become too firmly established. The people must never acquiesce in any violation of the Constitution.
Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe measures will have to be taken
later, perhaps with the loss of life and the disruption of the society in ways from which recovery may
take centuries.

G. The only options are these: uphold the constitution, or uphold tyranny. Ed War 04
Ed Ward [MD, Founder of the Louisiana Constitutional Rights Council], "America's Only Real Choice: Constitution or Tyranny?" Published by The Price
of Liberty, November 19, 2004, http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/19/ward.htm (HEG)

The corporate-government press has given US a myriad of choices. Democrat, Republican,


Conservative, Liberal, Hawk, Dove, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Fathers, Mothers, Children, Best Interest, No Interest, Patriots,
Terrorists,Values, No Values, Stupid, Not Stupid, Conspirators, Conspiracies, Theories, Divinities, etc., are merely labels to divide and
divert the people from the only question that needs to be asked of America. Does America Live by the
Constitution of America or do we exist in Tyranny? The answer to that Constitutional Question answers
almost all the rest of the corporate-government label questions and allows the People to focus on what is Right, Just
and the True America. "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a
Tragedy." James Madison The Father of the Constitution's words and meanings are clear. Anything other than a
Historical Background Constitution Interpretation is Tyranny. James Madison wanted to be sure future America could not
say, "No one told me." James Madison wanted to make sure future America knew exactly what Interpretation of the Constitution Must Be Used in All
Government and Public Circumstances. Deviation from the Historical Background Constitution is Tyranny.
Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 5 of 13

Democracy Good

A. DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, GENOCIDE AND


ENVIRONMENTAL DESTURCTION
Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 6 of 13

Freedom Good

A. EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 7 of 13

Hegemony Good

A. US HEGEMONY IS KEY TO PEACE, LIBERTY, AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 8 of 13

Human Rights Good

A. BILLIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 9 of 13

Nuclear Proliferation Bad

A. PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL

B. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 10 of 13

Military Readiness Good (1/2)

A. MILITARY READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 11 of 13

Military Readiness Good (2/2)

B. MILITARY READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY

C. PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES FOR WWIII


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 12 of 13

Separation of Powers Good

A. COLLAPSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE OF POWER RISKS TYRANNY


Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 13 of 13

Space Militarization Bad

A. SPACE MILITARIZATION CAUSES WAR