Formal debate on the Newdow case with James Madison

[StrictSeparationist]

And before you get all excited, it isn't that (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html) James Madison, it's this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/member.php?userid=16053) one. :)

Anyway, JM has agreed to a formal debate on the Newdow case. We have not hammered out the details, so I'm opening this thread to do that. Please note that all of the following proposed conditions that I'm about to lay out are subject to approval by my opponent, except for the start date, which we've already agreed on.

(a) Resolved: that Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended February 28, 2003, was correctly decided.

(b) StrictSeparationist, taking the affirmative position, and James Madison, taking the negative.

(c) Because I fear that this debate may become sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not a particular interpretive method is defensible, I propose that the scope be limited to court decisions at any federal or state judicial level, with such extrinsic evidence as tests articulated by said court opinions allow for or require (e.g. Marsh, if applicable, may require at least some examination of the historical context of a practice alleged to violate the Establishment Clause).

(d) The debate will consist of a round of opening statements, then three rounds of argument, then a round of closing statements. I guess this constitutes five rounds.

(e) Statements will be made in turns, beginning with StictSeparationist.

(f) The maximum length of each statement will be 5,000 words, including quotes but excluding non-quoted legal citations and notes of added emphasis or omitted citations attached to quoted material.

(g) The interval between statements will be one week.

(h) Quoted material will be fully permitted to the extent allowable by law.

(i) The debate will begin on May 25th, 2004.

(j) StrictSeparationist, subject to Nightshade's approval, will completely recuse himself from moderating this debate. The debate's format will be normal, with no new arguments to be presented in the closing statements.

As I said, JM still needs to agree to all of these. I've PMed to let him know about this thread, so he will hopefully be checking in here soon.

[James Madison]

(c) Because I fear that this debate may become sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not a particular interpretive method is defensible, I propose that the scope be limited to court decisions at any federal or state judicial level, with such extrinsic evidence as tests articulated by said court opinions allow for or require (e.g. Marsh, if applicable, may require at least some examination of the historical context of a practice alleged to violate the Establishment Clause).

I will agree to this but with a qualification. While a factual analysis is useful it should not be outcome determinative of this discussion as it has never been outcome determinative for some of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in the past. As the two of us know there has always been and will continue to been new precedent setting cases in which the facts of prior cases are not analogous but the legal rules, principles, or reasoning used in those cases guides the Court in governing a factual case which is not exactly on point as the precedent. The reasoning used in a case is just as important as the facts of a case.

Everything else appears as a good idea to me.

James

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Just a few clarifications,


(g) The interval between statements will be one week.


This is more accurately "maximum duration". You can respond the very next day after an opponent's someone's post if you want to, as long as it's within a week.


(i) The debate will begin on May 25th, 2004.


I will set up the debate thread tonight, if this condition still holds.

Anyways, if StrictSeparationist is still good with start date being tonight and agrees with JM's qualification, then we'll be good to go. :)

Jason

[StrictSeparationist]

I'd actually prefer that, with JM's approval, we postpone the start until tomorrow. I had anticipated him checking in sometime before the day we had set to begin. My mistake, but I'd like a day to get my opening statement in order.

[liquid]

Sorry to interrupt, but it struck me that the SCOTUS judgement may well come out right in the middle of this debate if I understand my timings right. That will shake things up a bit and perhaps you should agree how to deal with it?

If I don't have my timing right, then ignore me!

[StrictSeparationist]

Sorry to interrupt, but it struck me that the SCOTUS judgement may well come out right in the middle of this debate if I understand my timings right. That will shake things up a bit and perhaps you should agree how to deal with it?

If I don't have my timing right, then ignore me!

If each of our statements is submitted at the end of the week allotted, then we could expect the Supreme Court to rule on Newdow sometime in the middle of the second round or at the beginning of third round. Liquid makes an excellent point, so just for the sake of keeping things kosher, let's agree that only cases decided on or before the start date (whether that ends up being today or tomorrow) are available as citations to back arguments made in the debate.

[James Madison]

No problems and I think SS has an idea of what cases I will be relying upon anyway.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Alrighty then, I'll start the debate thread now. :)

Just a clarification on how the start dates works...

II Formal Debates: Rules and Procedures (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85870)

The starting date is the date that the moderators will set up the formal debate thread. The person going first is expected to submit his or her statement within the time that is the same as the maximum duration agreed to between statements.

This means that SS's opening statement will be expected within a week. He need not post tonight or tomorrow night if he doesn't wish to.

This thread will now be closed.

Jason