CP - Competition - Michigan 7 2023 CFMP

Competition Cards
Neg
Butterfly Effect---Fiat vs. Compel
No part of the counterplan fiats the aff---it just alters the world to make the aff more likely---any counterplan could do that.
Wood 13 [Jamie Wood, Avatel EVP, “The Butterfly Effect – What a Fascinating Theory!”, 6-10, https://avatel.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/the-butterfly-effect-what-a-fascinating-theory/] //adhi
Every action or decision has some kind of effect on something or someone, if only in an indirect way. How we approach these decisions or actions we take can have a huge impact, not just on those directly involved, but on others we could hardly fathom would be affected. You never know what little action may be the tipping point for another action and or reaction. butterfly effect When you hear the words “The Butterfly Effect”, most of you will probably think of the movie. That was about the chaos theory, meaning one series of events leads to another and the effect of changing the course of those events. Actually the term “The Butterfly Effect”, was a phenomenon proposed in a doctoral thesis written in 1963 by Edward Lorenz. It states that a butterfly, by flapping its wings in one place and time is able to create a major weather event in another place and time, eventually having a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent events. The butterfly effect suggests that cause and effect are applicable in the universe even if the pattern is indecipherable and the precise cause of our predicaments, rooted far away in time and space, are ultimately unfathomable. More than just an esoteric science, the chaos theory works off the concept that the relation between any two things is rarely linear in nature, that any reaction is usually the result of an accumulation of causative factors small and large, intentional and accidental.
Should---Certain---2NC
‘Should’ means must—its mandatory
Foresi 32 Remo Foresi v. Hudson Coal Co., Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 106 Pa. Super. 307; 161 A. 910; 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 239, 7-14, Lexis
As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word 'should' is not only an auxiliary verb, it is also the preterite of the verb, 'shall' and has for one of its meanings as defined in the Century Dictionary: "Obliged or compelled (to); would have (to); must; ought (to); used with an infinitive (without to) to express obligation, necessity or duty in connection with some act yet to be carried out." We think it clear that it is in that sense that the word 'should' is used in this rule, not merely advisory. When the judge in charging the jury tells them that, unless they find from all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, they should acquit, the word 'should' is not used in an advisory sense but has the force or meaning of 'must', or 'ought to' and carries [***8] with it the sense of [*313] obligation and duty equivalent to compulsion. A natural sense of sympathy for a few unfortunate claimants who have been injured while doing something in direct violation of law must not be so indulged as to fritter away, or nullify, provisions which have been enacted to safeguard and protect the welfare of thousands who are engaged in the hazardous occupation of mining.
‘Should’ means must
Words & Phrases 6 Permanent Edition 39, p. 369
C.D.Cal. 2005. “Should,” as used in the Social Security Administration’s ruling stating that an ALJ should call on the services of a medical advisor when onset must be inferred, means “must.”—Herrera v. Barnhart, 379 F.Supp.2d 1103.—Social S 142.5.
Substantial is certain and immediate
Words and Phrases, 64 (40 W&P 759)
The words “outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive,” in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.
Resolved---Certain---2NC
Firm decision
Merriam-Webster’s 19 Online Dictionary, “resolved”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved
5 : to reach a firm decision about
resolve to get more sleep
resolve disputed points in a text
Resolved---Immediate
‘Resolved’ implies immediacy
Random House 6 (Unabridged Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolve)
re·solve Audio Help /rɪˈzɒlv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zolv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -solved, -solv·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to come to a definite or earnest decision about; determine (to do something): I have resolved that I shall live to the full.
Increase---Immediate
Increase” must be immediate relative to the status quo.
Rogers 5 Judge, STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT, NSR MANUFACTURERS ROUNDTABLE, ET AL., INTERVENORS, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12378, **; 60 ERC (BNA) 1791, 6/24, lexis
[**48] Statutory Interpretation. HN16While the CAA defines a "modification" as any physical or operational change that "increases" emissions, it is silent on how to calculate such "increases" in emissions. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(4). According to government petitioners, the lack of a statutory definition does not render the term "increases" ambiguous, but merely compels the court to give the term its "ordinary meaning." See Engine Mfrs.Ass'nv.S.Coast AirQualityMgmt.Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 124 S. Ct. 1756, 1761, 158 L. Ed. 2d 529(2004); Bluewater Network, 370 F.3d at 13; Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 215 F.3d 7, 10 [*23] (D.C. Cir. 2000). Relying on two "real world" analogies, government petitioners contend that the ordinary meaning of "increases" requires the baseline to be calculated from a period immediately preceding the change. They maintain, for example, that in determining whether a high-pressure weather system "increases" the local temperature, the relevant baseline is the temperature immediately preceding the arrival of the weather system, not the temperature five or ten years ago. Similarly, [**49] in determining whether a new engine "increases" the value of a car, the relevant baseline is the value of the car immediately preceding the replacement of the engine, not the value of the car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.
The
‘The’ requires specification.
Billings ’85 [Rendlon; June 25; Judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri; Case Text, “Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brooks,” https://casetext.com/case/shelter-mut-ins-co-v-brooks]
We hold the severability of interests clause requires the exclusion to be interpreted narrowly and only applied to exclude bodily injuries of the insured claiming coverage and his resident family. See Sacharko v. Center Equities Limited Partnership, 2 Conn. App. 439, 479 A.2d 1219 (1984); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 60 Ill.2d 295, 327 N.E.2d 321 (1975). Several considerations support this conclusion. First, it is implied from the severability of interests clause. Bituminous, supra; Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. American General Insurance Co., 455 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1970). Second, there is a grammatical ambiguity in the exclusion itself that suggests an interpretation favoring the insured. In the opinion transferring the case to this Court, Judge Smith analyzed the ambiguity:
It is clear that one insured under a policy is subject to liability for injury to another insured. The exclusionary clause in the preceding cases standardly utilizes the phrase found in the policy before us -- 'the insureds.' The word 'insured' is the usual character of word which can be either singular or plural in meaning. The article 'the' is a word of specificity as contrasted to the articles 'a' and 'an' which are general in description encompassing any of the class. If the article 'the' is combined with the plural 'insured' it clearly would encompass all insured under the policy. If on the other hand it is combined with the singular 'insured' it speaks to a specific insured rather than all members of the class wherein the terms 'an insured' or 'any insured' are more properly utilized.
The federal government has 3 branches.
Matheson ’21 [Scott Milne; December 8; Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; Lexis, “United States v. Muhtorov, 2021” 36170]
a. Separation of powers background
"The Constitution sought to divide the delegated powers of the new federal government into three defined categories, legislative, executive and judicial, to assure, as nearly as possible, that each Branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility." I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 77 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1983). HN68 "To the legislative department has been committed the duty of making laws, to the executive the duty of executing them, and to the judiciary the duty of interpreting and applying them in cases properly brought before the courts." Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488, 43 S. Ct. 597, 67 L. Ed. 1078 (1923).
Aff
Resolved = meaningless
The colon is meaningless---everything after it is what’s important
Webster’s 2k – Webster’s Guide to Grammar and Writing, http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm
Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on… If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.
Or immediacy
PTE 9 – Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009
(http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)
Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better course of life.”
USfg = nonfederal actors
Federal action includes nonfederal actors
Clark, former Deputy Secretary of State, 92
[Judge William, 950 F.2d 1129 (1992) “SAVE BARTON CREEK ASS'N v. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN.,”, http://www.leagle.com/decision/19922079950F2d1129_11917.xml/SAVE%20BARTON%20CREEK%20ASS'N%20v.%20FEDERAL%20HIGHWAY%20ADMIN., accessed 7/19/14, GNL]
The Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") has issued regulations defining "major Federal action." These regulations are entitled to substantial deference. Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 358, 99 S.Ct. 2335, 2341, 60 L.Ed.2d 943 (1979). The regulations provide that "major Federal action" encompasses not only actions by the federal government, but also actions by nonfederal actors "with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility." 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18 (1991) (emphasis added). The district court placed heavy reliance on this regulation in making its determination that the Austin Outer Loop is a "major Federal action."
The United States” means an instrumentality of the United States—it does not require specification.
US Code 14, TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002, Cornell Web Archive
§ 3002. Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Should =/= certain or immediate
Should isn’t certain or immediate
COR 15 — County of Riverside, February 2015, Draft General Plan Amendment No. 960, http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_plan_2015/GPA%20960/General%20Plan%20Elements/Ch01_Intro.pdf
For a policy to be useful, it must be clear. However, not all policies are the same; they differ in terms of expected results, commitment of resources, and indication of importance or urgency. Therefore, it is important to simplify the language used in the General Plan and understand the distinctions between the different levels of policy. The following definitions of terms provide guidance in interpreting the policy language of the General Plan:
Ÿ Shall: Policies containing the word “shall” indicate that an action must be taken in all cases. This represents absolute commitment to the policy, and the expectation is that the policy will always be carried out.
Ÿ Should: Policies containing the word “should” indicate that an action will be taken in most cases, but exceptions are acceptable for good reason.
Should =/= immediate
Should doesn’t mean immediate
Dictionary.com – Copyright © 2010 – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should
should /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled[shood] Show IPA –auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Use should in a Sentence See images of should Search should on the Web Origin: ME sholde, OE sc ( e ) olde; see shall —Can be confused: could, should, would (see usage note at this entry ). —Synonyms 3. See must1 . —Usage note Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. ( You should get your flu shot before winter comes ), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would ) have called immediately. I should (American would ) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall. Shall –auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
Should =/= immediate---AT: Summers ‘94
Summers is out of context, not universal, defines ‘in praesenti’ rather than should, and says ought means should.
Card is written in the context of a court ordering jurors to disregard false testimony. Obviously that is a certain an immediate demand, but that’s contextual (Summers even says so). It’s not universal
The part that says “at present time” is NOT defining should…it’s defining the legal term ‘in praesenti
Literally should means ought
Summers ‘94 (Justice – Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, 1994 OK 123, 11-8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn13)
13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15.
Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony").
14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).
**THEIR EVIDENCE ENDS HERE**
15 Nonetheless, modern English usage appears supportive of my conclusion that ". . . what the practice amounts to is this: the past subjunctive should is not only used in all persons, but it is employed as, virtually, a present indicative synonymous with ought." E. PARTRIDGE, USAGE AND ABUSAGE, p. 376 (1963).
“Must” doesn’t mean “immediate.”
MW no date — Merriam Webster’s, no date (“Must,” Available Online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must, Accessed 09-17-2016)
Full Definition of must
present & past all persons must
verbal auxiliary
1
a : be commanded or requested to <you must stop>
b : be urged to : ought by all means to <you must read that book>
Should =/= certain
Strong admonition --- not mandatory
Taylor and Howard 5 (Michael, Resources for the Future and Julie, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, “Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa”, 9-12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)
Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significance—one is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonition—but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.
Should = recommendation
Should isn’t certain and allows clarification of the plan as the CP – it’s not affirmative language that requires binding decisions
Mulligan 18 ---- Stephen P., legislative attorney for the Congressional Research Service, J.D. (Loyola University Chicago School of Law), “Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement,” 5/4, R44761, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44761.pdf
Whether a U.N. Security Council resolution imposes legal obligations on U.N. Member States depends on the nature of the provisions in the resolution.188 As a matter of international law, many observers189 agree that “decisions” of the Security Council are generally binding pursuant to Article 25 of the U.N. Charter,190 but the Security Council’s “recommendations,” in most cases, lack binding force.191 Whether a provision is understood as a nonbinding “reco

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.