Word: states
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Scott, for Princeton, followed Daniels in rebuttal, and said that it was for the public good that the President should have the proposed power, both in the case of violation of national laws and violation of State laws, when the State cannot deal with such violation. It then is necessary to choose between federal protection and no protection...
...they are proposing, the affirmative, he said, must show an overwhelming necessity. The negative contend that they cannot show such a necessity because the existing means of suppressing domestic violence have proved fully adequate to the situation. There are at present three methods of suppressing domestic violence: first, the State may suppress the violence with its own forces; secondly, the State, if unable alone to restore order, may call upon the federal government for assistance; thirdly, when the violence immediately threatens the sovereignty of the national government by obstructing federal laws, the President may intervene at once. In these ways...
...interfere also undermines the political development of the people. We have developed political intelligence further than any other people. In the South reconstruction from without was an utter failure--from within it was a success. Hence the negative opposes the position of the affirmative because national interference in state affairs is unnecessary, radical and objectionable...
...first rebuttal speech for Harvard, Daniels contended that the affirmative went too far in assuming that the proposed remedy would meet cases that have never yet arisen. Conditions which demanded federal intervention without application from State authorities have not arisen in the past, and there is no reason to expect they will. The solution for any case that may arise will come through the present system; no such radical change as is proposed is needed...
Hornblower, answering Catchings in rebuttal, said that the affirmative did not assert that the States could not protect themselves. If the power of the States is found now to be adequate, the proposed power to be given the President is not necessary. But many instances have been cited to prove that it is not adequate. Domestic violence is not a matter of State concern. Our economic conditions make it inevitable that trouble in one State affects the nation...