8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

1/13

Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 1 of 13

Book of Impacts V.2 -- Index

Book of Impacts V.2 -- Index.............................................................................................1Constitution Good (1/3).....................................................................................................1

A. Violating the Constitution is like playing Russian roulette: if the bullet fires, theres no hope of pulling itback. John Eidsmoe 92........................................................................................................................1

B. If we attempt to change the status quo for the better while ignoring the constitution, we destroy whatmakes that original attempt possible. Stephen Carter 86....................................................................2

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

C. Constitutional violations cannot be justified under any moral code. Stephen Carter 87................2

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

Constitution Good (3/3).....................................................................................................3

F. Failure to correct constitutional violations means inevitable revolution, with loss of life and disruption ofsociety. Jon Roland, No date ........................................................................................................ ......3

G. The only options are these: uphold the constitution, or uphold tyranny. Ed War 04......................4

Democracy Good...............................................................................................................4

A. DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, GENOCIDE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESTURCTION..................................................................................................4

Freedom Good....................................................................................................................5

A. EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED...........................................................5

Hegemony Good................................................................................................................6

A. US HEGEMONY IS KEY TO PEACE, LIBERTY, AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH............6

Human Rights Good...........................................................................................................7

A. BILLIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION.............................................7

Nuclear Proliferation Bad...................................................................................................8

A. PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL............................. .8

B. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION.................................................................9

Military Readiness Good (1/2)...........................................................................................9

A. MILITARY READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT...............................................................9

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

B. MILITARY READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY...........................................................10

C. PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES FOR WWIII....................................................................11

Separation of Powers Good..............................................................................................11A. COLLAPSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE OF POWER RISKS TYRANNY........................11Space Militarization Bad..................................................................................................12

A. SPACE MILITARIZATION CAUSES WAR...................................................................................12

Constitution Good (1/3)

A. Violating the Constitution is like playing Russian roulette: if the bullet fires, theres no hope of

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

2/13

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

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 pillarsshould 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 columnsof 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 ofa more glorious edifice than Greece or

Rome ever saw, the edifice of Constitutional American liberty. It is possible that a Constitutional convention could take placeand 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 istoday, 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 assumptionthat one school assigns to the Constitution a different importance than the other. This simply isn't so. When Aloysius cries "intent of the Framers" andBernadette 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 forchanneling 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 ofher own value preferences. Those I call "delegitimizers" are of the view that mainstream liberalism cannot resolve this question: liberals, if they seek rules to

cabin judicial freedom, are stuck with a Bickelean exaltation of process and a process that occasionally produces repugnant results. The only answer

liberals can come up with, so the argument goes, is the fundamental rights form of judicial review, thatis, 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 stateare 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 thecritique 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.

Constitution Good (2/3)

C. Constitutional violations cannot be justified under any moral code. Stephen Carter 87

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

3/13

Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 3 of 13

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

means that must be tested against its efficacy in achieving the desired end. The Constitution, which is after all a species of law, is thus quite

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 ofthe 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.Catos 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 anextraordinarily thoughtful plan of government, but it is up to us, to each generation, to preserve it for ourselves and for

future generations. Forthe Constitution will live only if it is alive in the hearts and minds of the Americanpeople. 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

Extending a majority rule analysis of optimal deterrence to constitutional torts requires some explanation, forwe do not usually think of

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 evenutility-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 therights-violating activity, orif 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.

Constitution Good (3/3)

F. Failure to correct constitutional violations means inevitable revolution, with loss of life and

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

4/13

Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 4 of 13

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 organizationdedicated 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 faror 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 answersalmost 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 Prologueto a Farce or a

Tragedy."James Madison The Father of the Constitution's words and meanings are clear. Anything other than aHistorical Background Constitution Interpretation is Tyranny. James Madison wanted to be sure future America could notsay, "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.

Democracy Good

A. DEMOCRACY SOLVES NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, GENOCIDE AND

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

5/13

Will Malson Book of Impacts V.2 Page 5 of 13

ENVIRONMENTAL DESTURCTION

Freedom Good

A. EVERY INVASION OF FREEDOM MUST BE REJECTED

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

6/13

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

Hegemony Good

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

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

7/13

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

Human Rights Good

A. BILLIONS WILL DIE WITHOUT HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

8/13

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

Nuclear Proliferation Bad

A. PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND THREATENS SURVIVAL

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

9/13

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

B. NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION CAUSES EXTINCTION

Military Readiness Good (1/2)

A. MILITARY READINESS SOLVES GLOBAL CONFLICT

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

10/13

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

Military Readiness Good (2/2)

B. MILITARY READINESS IS CRUCIAL FOR HEGEMONY

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

11/13

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

C. PROACTIVE DETERRENCE SOLVES FOR WWIII

Separation of Powers Good

A. COLLAPSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE OF POWER RISKS TYRANNY

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

12/13

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

Space Militarization Bad

A. SPACE MILITARIZATION CAUSES WAR

8/14/2019 Book of Impacts V2 (doc)

13/13

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