Topicality - Michigan 2024 STARTER

Topicality---Michigan Starter Pack 2024
Thanks to David Heidt for some the evidence in this file. Please email Kevin Hirn (khirn10@gmail.com) with any questions or concerns.
Resolution---Intellectual Property Rights
Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly strengthen its protection of domestic intellectual property rights in copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks.
Resolved
Resolved---Formal Vote---2AC
‘Resolved’ means declaring by a vote.
Merriam ’7 [Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; carbon dated January 7, 2007; “resolve verb,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]
3a: to declare or decide by a formal resolution and vote
b: to change by resolution or formal vote
// the house resolved itself into a committee
Resolved---Legislative---2NC
‘Resolved’ requires a legislative instrument.
LSA ’5 [Louisiana State Legislature; 2005; Governing body of the state of Louisiana; Louisiana State Legislature, “Legislative Glossary,” https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx]
Resolution
A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for introduction nor to governor's veto. (Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11, 13.1, 6.8, and 7.4 and Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1)
Resolved---Certain---2NC
‘Resolved’ means certain.
Oxford 20 – Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, “resolved”, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/resolved
Definition of resolved in English:
adjective
[PREDICATIVE, WITH INFINITIVE]
Firmly determined to do something:
Constance was resolved not to cry
Resolved---AT: Certainty---2AC/1AR
‘Resolved’ doesn’t require certainty.
Merriam-Webster’s 19 Online Dictionary, “resolved”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved
: to become separated into component parts
also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis
2 : to form a resolution : DETERMINE
3 : CONSULT, DELIBERATE
Nor 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.”
The United States Federal Government
The---Requires ‘All’---2NC
‘The’ requires all.
Supreme Court of Kentucky 3 (“Kotila v. Commonwealth,” 2000-SC-0341-MR, Lexis)//BB
Whether a conviction under this statute requires possession of all (as opposed to any) of the chemicals or equipment necessary to manufacture [**24] methamphetamine under some manufacturing process is a matter of statutory construction. First, we examine the language of the statute, itself. United States v. Health Possibilities, P.S.C., 207 F.3d 335, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2000) HN9 ("The starting point in a statutory interpretation case is the language of the statute itself."). Obviously, the multiple manufacturing methods and the availability of a broad range of readily available chemicals and equipment necessary for each manufacturing process militates against itemizing within the statute all of the possible chemical and equipment combinations by which methamphetamine could be manufactured. Nevertheless, KRS 218A.1432(1)(b) does not read "[p]ossesses chemicals or equipment," or "[p]ossesses some of the chemicals or equipment," or "[p]ossesses any of the chemicals or equipment." It reads "[p]ossesses the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine." The presence of the article "the" is significant because, grammatically speaking, possession of some but not all of the chemicals or equipment does not satisfy the statutory language.
FN 10
In the context of statutory construction, "the" is used as a function word before a plural noun denoting a group to indicate reference to the group as a whole. In decisions spanning three different centuries, the appellate courts of Kentucky have found use of the word "the" to have a significant effect upon meaning. Courts are directed by the general assembly to construe Kentucky statutes according to the common and approved usage of language. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 446.080(4). More like this Headnote
End FN 10
"The" is "[u]sed as [**25] a function word before a plural noun denoting a group to indicate reference to the group as a whole." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2369 (1993). In decisions spanning three different centuries, the appellate courts of this Commonwealth have found use of the word "the" to have a significant effect upon meaning. See Revenue Cabinet v. Hubbard, Ky., 37 S.W.3d 717, 719-20 (2000) ("[U]se of the definite article 'the' indicates that the statute refers to the entire body and not to discrete parts or components. . . ."); Cardwell v. Haycraft, Ky., 268 S.W.2d 916, 918 (1954) (the trial court's contributory negligence instruction was erroneous in that it contained the definite article "the" before the words "proximate cause" and "such language indicates that 'the sole' rather than 'a contributing' cause was meant."); Schardein v. Harrison, 230 Ky. 1, 18 S.W.2d 316, 319 (1929) ("[I]f the makers of the Constitution had intended to qualify the word 'office' [in Ky. Const. § 161] they would have inserted the definite article 'the' before 'office.'") (quotation omitted); Sheriff of Fayette v. Buckner, 11 Ky. (1 Litt.) 126, 128 (1822) [**26] (holding that legislative act referencing "the clerk of the court" intended a particular clerk of court referenced elsewhere in the legislation). For similar interpretations by other jurisdictions, see, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 466 Mich. 142, 644 N.W.2d 715, 718 (Mich. 2002); Patricca v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 527 Pa. 267, 590 A.2d 744, 751 (Pa. 1991); McClanahan v. Woodward Constr. Co., 77 Wyo. 362, 316 P.2d 337, 341-42 (Wyo. 1957); Williams v. McComb, 38 NC. (3 Ired. Eq.) 450 (1844) ("[G]rammatically speaking, 'The,' is a definite article before nouns, which are specific or understood, and is used to limit or determine their extent."). We are directed by the General Assembly to construe our statutes "according to the common and approved usage of language." KRS 446.080(4). Following that directive,
FN 11
The Kentucky Supreme Court construes the phrase "the chemicals or equipment" as used in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218A.1432(1)(b) to mean all of the chemicals or all of the equipment necessary to manufacture methamphetamine. More like this Headnote
End FN 11
we construe "the chemicals or equipment" to mean all of the chemicals or all of the equipment necessary to manufacture methamphetamine.
‘The’ means there’s only one whole.
Rehnquist ’4 [William Rehnquist; June 28, 2004; Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivering the opinion of the court; Westlaw, “Rumsfeld v. Padilla,” 542 U.S. 426]
The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained”). The consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition. *435 This custodian, moreover, is “the person” with the ability to produce the prisoner's body before the habeas court. Ibid. We summed up the plain language of the habeas statute over 100 years ago in this way: “[T]hese provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277 (1885) **2718 (emphasis added); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus” acts upon “the person who holds [the detainee] in what is alleged to be unlawful custody,” citing Wales, supra, at 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050); Braden, supra, at 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123 (“ ‘[T]his writ ... is directed to ... [the] jailer,’ ” quoting In re Jackson, 15 Mich. 417, 439-440 (1867)).
The only possible interpretation of ‘the’ is all, not some nor any.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 15 (“Gillie v. Law Office of Eric A. Jones, LLC,” File Name: 15a0087p.06, Lexis)//BB
Turning from "authorized by law," we find another reason to disqualify special counsel as officers under the plain meaning of the Dictionary Act. Mainly, that
Headnote 13
Special counsel do not perform "the duties" of any office. The use of the definite article preceding both "duties" and "office" in the definition in the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C.S. § 1, restricts the court's interpretation of that language. The word "the" frequently (but not always) indicates a particular thing. It can also be used to refer to something generically, as may be the case with "the office." By way of example, officers include any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office in question--which could be the (Ohio) Office of Attorney General or some other public office. However, the word "the" that precedes "duties" has only one sensible construction--that it refers to a specific thing--all duties associated with the office in question. It would be unreasonable to construe "the," in that instance, to mean "a," "some" or "any." It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. And it is normal usage that, in the absence of contrary indication, governs interpretation of texts. More like this Headnote
End Headnote 13
special counsel do not perform "the duties" of any office. The use of the definite article preceding both "duties" and "office" in the Dictionary Act's definition restricts our interpretation of that language. "[T]he word 'the' frequently (but not always) indicates 'a particular thing.'" NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 2550, 2561, 189 L. Ed. 2d 538 (2014). It can also be used to refer to something generically, id., as may be the case with "the office." By way of example, officers include any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office in question—which could be the Office of Attorney General or some other public office. However, the word "the" that precedes "duties" has only one sensible construction—that [**22] it refers to a specific thing—all duties associated with the office in question. It would be unreasonable to construe "the," in that instance, to mean "a," "some" or "any." See, e.g., Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870, 876, 187 L. Ed. 2d 729 (2014) ("It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2034, 2042, 182 L. Ed. 2d 955 (2012) ("And it is normal usage that, in the absence of contrary indication, governs our interpretation of texts.").
The---AT: Requires ‘All’---2AC/1AR
‘The’ precedes a member of its class.
Webster ’7 [Merriam Webster online dictionary; carbon dated 2007; “the,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the
b—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class
‘The’ just makes the noun definite.
Alito ’19 [Samuel Alito; March 19, 2019; Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, delivering the opinion of the Court (this is section IIIA); Westlaw, “Nielsen v. Preap,” 139 S. Ct. 954]
Our reading is confirmed by Congress's use of the definite article in “when the alien is released.” Because “[w]ords are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them,” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 140 (2012), the “rules of grammar govern” statutory interpretation “unless they contradict legislative intent or purpose,” ibid. (citing Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120, 122–126, 84 S.Ct. 580, 11 L.Ed.2d 559 (1964)). Here grammar and usage establish that “the” is “a function word ... indicat[ing] that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context.” Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1294 (11th ed. 2005). See also Work v. United States ex rel. McAlester-Edwards Co., 262 U.S. 200, 208, 43 S.Ct. 580, 67 L.Ed. 949 (1923) (Congress's “use of the definite article [in a reference to “the appraisement”] means an appraisement specifically provided for”). For “the alien”—in the clause “when the alien is released”—to have been previously specified, its scope must have been settled by the time the “when ... released” clause appears at the tail end of paragraph (1).
‘The’ is not transformative.
Breyer ’20 [Stephen Breyer; June 30, 2020; Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, dissenting; Westlaw, “United States Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com B. V.,” 140 S. Ct. 2298]
That fact does not distinguish Goodyear. A generic term may suggest that it is associated with a specific entity. That does not render it nongeneric. For example, “Wine, Inc.” implies the existence of a specific legal entity incorporated under the laws of some State. Likewise, consumers may perceive “The Wine Company” to refer to some specific company rather than a genus of companies. But the addition of the definite article “the” obviously does not transform the generic nature of that term. See In re The Computer Store, Inc., 211 U.S.P.Q. 72, 74–75 (TTAB 1981). True, these terms do not carry the exclusivity of a domain name. But that functional exclusivity does not negate the principle animating Goodyear: Terms that merely convey the nature of the producer's business should remain free for all to use. See 128 U.S. at 603, 9 S.Ct. 166.
USFG---Singular Whole---1NC
‘United States’ is a singular noun referring to the whole.
Dr. James R. Hurford 94, General Linguistics Professor at the University of Edinburgh, Grammar: A Student’s Guide, p. 224
Singular
Explanation
A singular noun or pronoun in a language typically refers to just one thing or person, or to a mass of stuff, rather than to a collection of things or people. Other nouns which occur in the same grammatical patterns as typical singular nouns may be classified as grammatically singular.
Examples
Some singular nouns in English are waiter, inability, objection, cat, frostbite, garlic, refusal, gatepost, liair and region.
The English personal pronouns I, he. she and it are singular.
Contrasts
Singular contrasts with plural. A word cannot simultaneously be both singular and plural.
Relationships Singular and plural in a language belong to its system of number. It is common in languages for singular to be the unmarked member of the system, and for plural nouns to have some special marker, such as a suffix; this is true of English, where, for instance, the noun dog is singular, and its plural is formed by adding an ~s. The singular is rarely formed by adding something in this way.
The basic parts of speech to which singular applies are nouns and pronouns; other parts of speech or word-classes may be marked as singular by agreement with a singular noun or pronoun. In English, only verbs and demonstratives show this agreement; this and that are singular demonstratives, and is and was are forms of the verb be which show singular agreement.
Among the nouns, mass nouns are always singular. So we may say This stuff is sticky and That wine tastes of bananas. Count nouns show the distinction between singular and plural. Thus we have singular/plural pairs such as tree/trees, diagram/diagrams and burial/burials. Proper names are almost always singular. Even proper names formed from plural common nouns, such as the United States, tend to be singular, as in The United States is ready to defend its vital interests.
USFG---Singular Whole---2NC
‘United States’ isn’t one branch.
Arthur Miller 86. Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law – Emory University. Summer 1986. “Congress, the Constitution, and First Use of Nuclear Weapons.” Review of Politics. Vol. 48, No. 3.
Three other points merit mention in this discussion of collective decision-making. First, both the formal and the secret constitutions allocate power over foreign relations and defense to the central government, to, that is, the United States of America visualized as a single entity. What, however, is "the" United States? The question has never been definitively answered; and indeed has seldom been asked in judicial opinion or scholarly discourse.42 Asked another way, the question is this: Where does sovereignty lie in the American polity? The formal constitution is supposedly based on popular sovereignty, with ultimate power resting in the people. That, however, is far from accurate. Proof positive that sovereignty lies in the "state" came when General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox: "the people" of the South were not to be permitted to exercise their "sovereignty." The powers of the national government are supposedly only those delegated to it, either expressly or impliedly. But that is scarcely accurate, as 200 years of constitutional development attest. The Framers of the formal constitution established a governmental system that, as Justice Robert Jackson commented, would ensure that the dispersed powers of the federal government would be integrated into a workable government. "Separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity" was the constitutional command.43 The meaning is unmistakable: "the" United States is a single metaphysical entity, encompassing state, society, and government in one artificial being. These terms are not synonymous. The state is the fundamental entity; government its apparatus; and society is composed of the individuals and groups governed. Much like the business corporation, the state-"the" United States-is an artificial construct, more a method than a thing. It exists in constitutional theory-in, for example, the state secrets privilege in litigation-even though judges and commentators alike often confuse the term with government and with society. A legal fiction that by itself can do no act, speak no work, and think no thought, the state (like the corporation) has "no anatomical parts to be kicked or consigned to the calaboose; no soul for whose salvation the parson may struggle; no body to be roasted in hell or purged for celestial enjoyment." 44 Despite loose language to the contrary from executive branch lawyers and even the Supreme Court, "the" state or "the" government-or "the" United States-is not to be equated with the executive branch. Nor with any one branch, for that matter; each branch is part of an indivisible whole.
‘Government’ is a collective noun, meaning the whole body
Dr. Loreto Todd 5, Professor and Reader in International English at the University of Leeds & Author of More Than 20 Books on Linguistics & English Usage, International English Usage, Ed. Hancock and Todd, p. 133
The term collective noun refers to a singular noun that has a plural implication (e.g. [for example,] government) and is used when the whole body (and not the constituent members) is being considered. The category collective nouns is not discrete, and it can be argued that some usages are midway between collective and mass nouns. For example, team is clearly a collective noun and butter is clearly a mass noun but it is not so easy to decide the status of such nouns as: hair linen royalty.
USFG---Not Singular Whole---2AC
‘United States federal government’ can

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.