Topicality Updates - Michigan 2024 CFMP

T
L-Spec
Lespec--Interp: plans must specify the plans effect on Lebron James's legacy
Violation: the aff did not specify the effects of the plan on Lebron James's LegacyVote neg for -- Fairness -- its not fair that LeBron's legacy is tarnished by gen x and millennial nostalgia Ethics -- its a ethical, moral, and epistemic corrective to evaluate our actions on the scale of LeBron James
Framework: The ROTB is to evaluate whether the aff has a positive or negative effect on LeGoat's legacy
Resolve
“Resolved” must be immediate.
Austin 11 [Vichina; August 15; Program of Study and Committee at St Mary’s College; Stack Exchange, "Why is “resolved” used ahead of a question in a debate title, instead of saying “the Subject, topic” or alike," https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8608/why-is-resolved-used-ahead-of-a-question-in-a-debate-title-instead-of-saying]
The word resolved stated before the resolution means "obsolete", to deal with successfully, clear up, an immediate course of action, meaning that the plan would immediately be enacted. Therefore, if you come across a case that involves something like cooperation with other countries or anything that takes a significant amount of time, you can argue that it violates the word resolved.
Definition---AT: ‘Should’
“Should” isn’t binding.
Dvorsky 15 – George Dvorsky, Gizmodo, A Single Typo Nearly Killed the Paris Climate Accord, 12/14/15, gizmodo.com/a-single-typo-nearly-killed-the-paris-climate-accord-1747908970.
Hours before the historic Paris climate accord was to be ratified in a final vote, someone noticed that a word had been changed in the final draft of the text—a single word that threatened to derail the entire deal. As reported in the Washington Post, someone changed the word “should” to “shall.” Now, it seems like a little thing, but given that the words were in reference to sweeping new legal and financial obligations, it mattered. A lot. When it comes to legally binding terminology, there’s a big difference between “should” and “shall.” Whereas “should” is a kind of wishy-washy call to action, the word “shall” implies an obligation, and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could not abide the unexpected change. The New York Times reports: Throughout the process, the longer and less binding “should” was a deliberate part of the international agreement, put there to establish that the richest countries, including the United States, felt obligated to pony up money to help poor countries adapt to climate change and make the transition to sustainable energy systems. “Shall” meant something altogether different, American officials said. When “shall” was spotted in the document on Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry called his French counterpart and made it clear that unless a switch was made, France could not count on American support for the agreement. “I said: ‘We cannot do this and we will not do this. And either it changes, or President Obama and the United States will not be able to support this agreement,’ ” Mr. Kerry told reporters after delegates had accepted the deal by consensus Saturday night, amid cheering and the celebratory stamping of feet. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and within hours the wording within the 31-page text was reverted back to the original “should.” A subsequent vote affirmed the Paris Accord, and all was saved.
OR immediate.
Random House 19 – Dictionary Online, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shall
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.
Definition---AT: ‘Substantial’
“Substantial” means considerable.
SEC 5 – Investment Company Act of 1940 -- Section 3(a)(1)(A), 3(a)(1)(C), 3(c)(3), 2(a)(5), 7(d), 3(a)(10) -- Rule 3a-6(b), 3a-6, 3a-6(a), 3a-6(b)(2), 6c-9, 3-16 of Regulation S-X, 902 of Regulation S, lexis
You contend further that the ten percent test is consistent with the plain meaning of the word "substantial": "Belonging to substance; actually existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal." n7 You also contend that foreign banks that meet the ten percent test view their deposit-taking and credit extension activities as substantial due in part to the resources that must be extended to engage in those activities. In addition, you assert that the relevant foreign financial authorities view these activities as substantial, as evidenced by their specific regulation of such activities. In determining whether a foreign bank derives "a substantial portion of its business from ... extending commercial and other types of credit, and accepting demand and other types of deposits," for purposes of rule 3a-6, we are not inclined to provide an interpretation based on particular minimum percentages of either the bank's liabilities (in the case of deposits) or assets or revenues (in the case of credit extensions). This conclusion [*9] is based, in part, on the fact that the Commission, when adopting this standard, chose not to define it by reference to minimum percentages. Although we are not willing to set forth such minimum percentages, we recognize that various percentages could demonstrate that a foreign bank derives a substantial portion of its business from extending commercial and other types of credit and accepting demand and other types of deposits.
Definition---AT: ‘USFG’
“USFG” isn’t all three branches.
UIC 7 (University of Chicago Manual of Style, “Capitalization, Titles”, http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/CapitalizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles30.html)
Q. When I refer to the government of the United States in text, should it be U.S. Federal Government or U.S. federal government? A. The government of the United States is not a single official entity. Nor is it when it is referred to as the federal government or the U.S. government or the U.S. federal government. It’s just a government, which, like those in all countries, has some official bodies that act and operate in the name of government: the Congress, the Senate, the Department of State, etc.
Definition - US
“United States” excludes sub-federal actors.
Lageux ’91 [Ronald Rene; September 17; Federal District Court Judge; Westlaw, “Complaint of Ballard Shipping Co.,” 772 F. Supp. 721]
Claimants argue that the statute's broad, “pre-civil war” definition of “United States”—meaning the several states and territories—when applied to subsection (f)(1), gives Rhode Island a cause of action. Claimants also argue that the provisions in subsection (f)(4), measuring liability to include costs incurred by a state government, and subsection (f)(5), requiring a state's authorized representative to act as a trustee to recover costs of restoration, confirm that states have standing under section 311 of the FWPCA to sue the shipowner.
2 But this selective reading of the statute misses more direct language that only supports a cause of action by the federal government. The language of the statute must be given its ordinary meaning, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980), and this Court must be chary of reading into the statute any remedies that are not expressly stated there, Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 14–15, 18, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 2623–24, 2625, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981). A common-sense reading of the statute compels the conclusion that states have no standing to sue under section 311. Subsection (f)(1) plainly makes shipowners and operators liable only “to the United States Government” for costs incurred during the removal of oil. 33 U.S.C. § 1321(f)(1) (1988). The last sentence of this section adds: “The United States may also bring an action against the owner or operator of such vessel....” Id. “United States Government” and “United States” mean the federal government.
The broad definition of “United States” in subsection (a)(5)—which includes the several states but conspicuously leaves out the federal government—would make little sense if it were applied to this context, as Claimants propose. To apply the broad definition set forth in subsection (a)(5) wherever the term “United States” appears in section 311 would be folly. For example, “district court of the United States,” 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(6)(B) (1988), can mean nothing but the federal district courts. The meaning of “United States” in this context is obvious, and no one would suggest that it includes the states.
The broad definition in subsection (a)(5) relates, not to the courts empowered with jurisdiction or the sovereigns that have standing to sue, but to the geographical scope of potential liability under section 311 of the FWPCA. See, e.g., 33 U.S.C. §§ 1321(a)(10), (a)(11), (a)(15), (a)(16), (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(3), and (b)(4). Thus, an oil spill in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands may touch the “United States” and create liability under the FWPCA, but the Trust *724 Territory of the Pacific Islands must rely on the “United States Government”—the appropriate federal authorities—to bring suit under Section 311.
Congress could have given the states explicit, separate authority to bring suit under section 311, but it did not. In other parts of this section, Congress recognized a distinction between the “United States” and “a State or political subdivision thereof.” E.g., 33 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(4) (1988). This distinction indicates that, subsection (a)(5) notwithstanding, Congress did not intend to include the several states every time it used the words “United States” in section 311. When Congress intended to include the governments of the several states, it explicitly spoke of states in addition to the “United States.”
Additional linguistic clues support this conclusion. Congress conferred this right of action on a capitalized and singular United States “Government, ” instead of the lower-case and plural “governments.” 33 U.S.C. § 1321(f)(1) (1988). Had Congress used the word “governments,” this arguably could have suggested an investment in the states of authority to bring suit under the FWPCA. But Congress chose a more restrictive word. Other usage of “United States” in section 311—such as the phrases “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” “United States citizenship,” and “international agreement to which the United States is a party,” 33 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(17) (1988)—provides even more evidence that Congress assigned “United States” its ordinary meaning, except when describing the geographic scope of liability under section 311.
While ambiguity may exist, “United States” and “United States Government” can mean only one sovereign in the context of subsection (f)(1), and that is the federal government.
That’s the standard legal usage, defined since the Constitution.
Anderson ’55 [William; 1955; Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Minnesota; The Nation and the States, “The Original Framers: Their Words and Intentions,” Ch. 4]
United States. Both the Articles and the Constitution utilize this term to designate the organized nation or the group of states taken as a single entity. In fact "United States" became the standard term at the time of the Declaration of Independence to designate the national unit of government and has been used in that way ever since.
There is, however, a subtle difference between the Articles and the Constitution in the way in which "United States" is used. Nearly every use of the term in the Articles is in the phrase "the United States in Congress assembled," as if the United States did not exist except when the delegates from the several state legislatures were assembled in a Congress. Usually the words "United States in Congress assembled" are not even capitalized. Clearly the term "United States" did not as yet mean a fully united nation or a political entity with an established name, a government, and a being of its own.
On the other hand, the framers of the Constitution, just ten years after the Articles were drafted, spoke of the United States and the people of the United States as if they already existed as one nation. "The government of the United States" is recognized as a distinct government, in Article I, section 8, paragraph 18, of the Constitution, and evidently as something separate from and not dependent upon the state governments; while the Congress of the United States is spoken of as such, and never as "the United States in Congress assembled." In contrast with the term "the United States" the framers used the phrase "the several states" to refer to the separate states and their local or particular governments.
It’s defined in U.S. code.
U.S. Code ’90 [U.S. Code; November 29; Title 28 of United States legal code; Legal Information Institute, “28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions,” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002]
(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.
As a subject, ‘U.S.’ is the federal branch.
Hammerle ‘8 [Kurt and Theodore Ro; 2008; Patent attorney for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, employed in the Office of Chief Counsel at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, J.D. from the College of William and Mary; Patent attorney at the Johnson Space Center, J.D. from the University of Houston; Journal of Space Law, “The Extra-territorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law on Space-Related Activities: Does the ‘International Shoe’ Fit as we Reach for the Stars?” vol. 34]
<<FOOTNOTE 28 BEGINS>>
Consider the language, “made, used, or sold in the United States.” The “United States” in this context means, arguably, a national state entity geographically defined by territorial borders. Further, consider the language, “to which the United States is a party.” The “United States” in this context means, arguably, the U.S. Federal Government. Further, the legislative history of § 105 specifically states that “to which the United States is a party” encompasses a Federal agency of the U.S. Government (see S. REP. NO. 101-266, at 7).
<<FOOTNOTE 28 ENDS>>
Conflating the two wrecks precision.
Erbsent ’11 [Allan; 2011; Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School; Minnesota Law Review, “Constitutional Spaces,” vol. 95]
The place "United States" is difficult to define for two reasons: the different meanings of United States may not be coextensive, and there are several plausible permutations of what the United States may encompass. First, the scope of the United States as an entity need not be coextensive with its scope as a place because an entity can own or exercise control over places that are not physically within itself. The Constitution seems to recognize this fact in at least two provisions. The Thirteenth Amendment refers to conduct "within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,"87 and the Eighteenth Amendment (now repealed) referred to imports and exports "into" and "from" the "United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof."88 A place can thus be affiliated with the United States in a constitutionally meaningful way without being "in" it,89 and so the term "United States" may have distinct context-sensitive definitions depending on whether it refers to an entity or a place. 90 Moreover, asking whether a given place is a physical component of the United States rather than merely subject to its control (i.e., is it "in" the United States or "of' the United States) may often be pointless because there is no reason to think that the distinction matters beyond a few exceptional issues noted below. 91 Thus, for example, there might be no reason to develop legal fictions about whether the land under a particular federal installation is on U.S. soil, 92 or whether a ship flying a U.S. flag is an "island" of the United States. 93 What matters is how a particular place relates to the United States, which may not exclusively be a function of the place's location.
Second, because the Constitution defines many types of places, there are numerous permutations of these places that may collectively comprise the "United States." For example, the "United States" might merely be the sum of all land in the "States," or may also include land in the "Territories," the "District" constituting the seat of government, and/or federal "possessions." 94 The Constitution is silent about which permutation is accurate. The Supreme Court addressed the void by opining that the "term" "United States" "is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories."95 This statement appears correct insofar as it defines the United States as more than merely the sum of the states because the District of Columbia seems clearly in the United States even though it is not part of any state. 96 But the Court did not purport to treat all territories equally, nor did it purport to exclude other types of places from the ambit of the United States even if these arguably could not be classified as "territories" (such as embassies, military bases on foreign soil, U.S.-flagged ships, and the exclusive economic zone that extends 200 miles from the U.S. coast 9 7). 98 The Court's dicta thus adds little to our knowledge about what places are in the United States and what places are outside it.99
Competition should solely involve mandates---permuting effects kills ground because any action could cause the plan.
Wood ’13 [Jamie; June 10; Writer; Avatel EVP, “The Butterfly Effect – What a Fascinating Theory!” https://avatel.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/the-butterfly-effect-what-a-fascinating-theory/]
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 oth

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.