Chapter XLII: Cross Examination

Esoteric--policy debate.

Two interesting cross-ex segments from my last practice debate.

Note to the reader: In cross-ex transcripts, the speaker is identified in terms of the constructive speech he gives.
1AC = the person who gave the first affirmative constructive speech
2NC = the person who gave (or will give) the second negative constructive speech. I was the 2NC for this debate.

[1AC has just given his speech, wherein he proposes that Congress repeal Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act]
2NC (me): First off, please read the resolution text so we all know what we're debating about.
1AC: Resolved that the US Congress should substantially restrict one or more of the authorities established by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
2NC: Thank you. The authority you wish Congress to restrict is that of indefinite detention?
1AC: Yes, under the PATRIOT Act the Attorney General can detain foreign aliens indefinitely.
2NC: Your position is that indefinite detention is unconstitutional, correct?
1AC: Yes.
2NC: Which Section of the PATRIOT Act grants this unconstitutional authority?
1AC: Section 412.
2NC: Here is a copy of Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act [Procures document and passes it to other team]. Please point out the specific text which authorizes the Attorney General to detain people indefinitely.
1AC: [A minute of silence as they pore over the text fruitlessly]
2NC: I have no further questions.

Note to the reader: In fact, the much feared indefinite detention supposedly authorized by Section 412 is not explicitly mentioned therein. It is the result of a loophole involving Section 412 and the Immigration Code. Section 412 allows the Attorney General to detain someone for only seven days before he must charge him with a crime or release him. However, it is not stated what must happen after the person is charged--theoretically, the Attorney General can charge the person with a minor immigration violation within seven days and THEN hold him forever. Which is what he should have said.

[I have finished my 2NC wherein I argued that using the Supreme Court to rule Section 412 unconstitutional is more solvent]
1AC: Do you know how many members the Supreme Court has?
2NC: Yes.
1AC: How many?
2NC: Nine.
1AC: So you're comfortable with the idea of nine unelected men deciding the fate of 250 million people?
2NC: I'm sorry, did you say nine men?
1AC: Yes.
2NC: I wasn't aware that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a man. I look forward to hearing your piece of evidence on that.
Judges: [Chuckles]

Note to the reader: I did eventually answer the question, of course. The counterargument I chose for this particular debate was that although unelected, the Supreme Court is composed of the finest legal minds in the country, as determined by the President and Congress (responsible for confirming the President's nominations). Thus, any criticism of a Justice's suitability to rule on constitutional issues is in effect a criticism of Congress's judgement in confirming that Justice. As such, the Affirmative cannot attack my plan in this respect without admitting that Congress is fallible and weakening their own plan, which calls for an Act of Congress rather than a Supreme Court ruling.