Word: powers
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...debate with Harvard, held in Alexander Hall, Princeton, last night. Harvard had the negative of the question: "Resolved, That whenever in the event of continued domestic violence, lives and property are not adequately protected by a State, it is for the public good that the President should have the power to afford protection without the application of the State for Federal aid." The Harvard and Princeton teams were made up respectively of A. A. Ballantine '04, W. Catchings 2L. and J. Daniels '04, and T. R. Good '04, G. S. Hornblower '04 and A. P. Scott '04. Judge Charles Andrews...
...their arguments to Princeton's unexpected contention that the question itself in the phrase "continued domestic violence," pre-supposed the occurrence of violence beyond control of the State, and left the question merely one of whether or not the President should be the agent vested with the necessary controlling power. Neither team showed more than very ordinary ability in weaving extemporaneous rebuttal into the set speeches. A persuasive appeal for a clear distinction of the exact issues between control by the President over infractions of State laws and National laws involved in the question ran through all the Harvard speeches...
...speaker concluded by briefly out-lining the safeguard to the public peace which the greater power of the President would mean, the preventative effect which this power would have, and the necessity of such power for unusual crises...
Ballantine opened the debate for Harvard. We of the negative, he said, stand for the protection of life and property as strongly as do the affirmative. But we contend that the means for suppressing violence are already adequate, and that the new power which the affirmative propose to grant to the President would be both unnecessary and undesirable. As the law now stands the President has absolute power to put down all violence which infringes national law, and the States have power to suppress violence infringing State law alone, not only by calling out State troops, but by calling upon...
...Scott, the second affirmative speaker, denied that the proposed power would be radical in principle. The principle that behind the state stands the union guaranteeing its stability is, he said, as old as the constitution. Moreover, the aim of the constitution is domestic tranquility. Therefore when continued domestic violence exists and a State re- fuses to ask for aid, the very end of the constitution is subverted...