Federal aid to private companies is unconstitutional in the United States.

ROAD MAP ---------------------------- 1.) FRAMEWORK (Burdens) 2.) DEFINITION 3.) NEG 4.) AFF Alright, to begin to make this debate a little more clear for the voters, I will construct a framework esque section just to clarify burdens within this debate. 1.) the Negative Burden within this debate round is to show that giving federal aid to companies within the united states can be constitutional at times. so long as I show one example where it is constitutional to provide federal aid to private companies you must negate. 2.)The Affirmative burden is to show that giving federal aid to private companies would be unconstitutional in all situations. If the Aff cannot fulfill this burden you must negate. Okay on to the definition debate The aff does in no way warrant as to why you look to their definition within this debate round, or as to why this is even an adequate definition to satisfy the parameters of the term "federal aid". it appears (and I may be wrong, however there is no source to this definition) that the affirmation simply constructed this definition of "giving specific companies money because they are not economically sound", and crafts it to fit the needs of future arguments against my contentions. Additionally reject the economically sound segment of his definition as it is unwarranted and not stipulated by the resolution we came here to debate. the resolution says "private companies" not Private companies that are not economically sound. Reasons why you prefer NEG definition 1.) Neg's definition is actually cited and legitimate 2.) logically, federal aid can be several other things than just throwing money at a problem. for example if I were to give a friend aid with his dying grandmother, there could be several other means to help them rather than just throwing money at him like feeding her or getting her medicine or reading her a book or something. although somewhat of a poor analogy, the federal government consistently gives aid to those who need it by the means of federal programs, or, as it says in my definition: any activity provided that directly assists or benefits the American public. thus, the NEG definition stands. NOW ON TO THE CON Contention 1- AFF states:"My opponent has taken a clause of the constitution out of context...The meaning of common defense back in the time of the constitution is described below. ------------------ RESPONSE: when talking about that clause of the constitution, I was more referring to the latter, general welfare. However, the means of which the federal government provides common defense is through the military, and more specifically military spending. A common factor between every hegemonic power ever to exist, is the advanced industrialization of that entity, or more specifically, how proficient and sound that country's means of supplying defense is. since our defense is provided by the military, which is provided by militaristic spending, which is funded through an advanced and industrialized economy, a collapse of that economy would mean a collapse or downfall in the U.S.F.G.'s ability to defend our country. cross apply sub contention c which is the necessary and proper clause which gives the federal government the ability to do whatever in it's means to carry out the powers invested in them through the constitution. meaning that the federal government would have to give money to these companies in effort to prevent economic collapse to ensure the means of Common Defense. The AFF goes on to define general welfare as : "improving the well being of the whole of society." ------- RESPONSE: I have no idea how this conflicts with my position of advocacy. if a corporate entity worth billions of dollars and employing millions were to collapse, to provide that company with aid would in no doubt be "improving the well being of the whole society."if millions of jobs are lost due to the collapse of this entity, the federal government may see it as advantageous to the general public "bail out" or provide aid to such a company, to prevent further job loss and exacerbation of markets. AFF says further: "A broad purpose of the government that is constantly open to adaptation and growth, is the role of the government to provide the American people with services and regulations that are for the public good. Such regulations may include health and food standards, public education, and consumer protection."" ----- RESPONSE: The first part of this definition completely coincides with the Negative Case. the federal government is "adapting" to the changes and slumps in the market to give aid to these companies. I've already discussed how this can be for the benefit of the public good. Futhermore, the AFF even goes as far as to define regulations as consumer protection. consumer protection is defined as "Movement or policies aimed at regulating the products, services, methods, and standards of manufacturers, sellers, and advertisers in the interests of the buyer." http://www.reference.com... so the federal government, MAY, by the advocacy of the affirmative, provide aid to companies to ensure that the consumer is being protected through incentives, or just plain aid when the market is going down to keep prices bearable. clearly this interpretation coincides with the constitution, my opponent and I both agree. now on to NEGa. look to the whole definition section to see why my opponents argument against this sub contention doesn't work. my definition has been warranted, cited, and is legitimate. thus you look to my definition which clearly states aid as anything executed by the federal government to aid or benefit the people. in response to his uniformity of tax argument, I agree, so long as the federal government is giving tax breaks in a uniform manner to private companies, I am still negating the resolution. NEG 1b I have already explained how the collapse of an economy would be enough to jeopardize the common defense and general welfare. if everyone is unemployed, and the government could have prevented that by giving aid to corporations, the feds must act. NEG1c since there is no real refutation besides what is argued on con 1 a, I feel no need to refute why sub contention a stands, its already been solidified. -------------------- I now move on to the AFF --------------------- PRO 1,2 I have already explained quite elaborately, (even using my opponent's interpretation of common defense and general welfare) why my arguments are all consistent with the constitution. I can see in no way how I have conceded his case just kick the interstate commerce argument, as that's another debate for another day. conclusively, going by my opponents own interpretation of the U.S. constitution I have unquestionably shown how the federal government may use the powers enumerated within the constitution to provide private companies with aid; all in all leaving you with more than enough ground to warrant a negative vote.