Federalism da

Coronavirus could kill millions

Download 71.63 Kb.
Size71.63 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
Federalism DA
the gutters, 2nc Lansing Rnd5, 1AC Practice 10-20, Speech 1ac Ag runoff 8-31 12AM, Speech 1AC CAFOs personal, send cards, 2nr , Con Side, Movements DA, Marijuana Neg, Court Packing DA, Death Penalty Negative, Death Penalty Affirmative, Aff AT Movements DA

Coronavirus could kill millions

Chappell 20 (Bill, Reporter and Producer for NPR “'We Are At War,' WHO Head Says, Warning Millions Could Die From COVID-19.” NPR, 3/26/20, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/26/822123471/we-are-at-war-who-head-says-warning-millions-could-die-from-covid-19, Accessed 7/5/20, GDI – JMoore)
"We are at war with a virus that threatens to tear us apart," World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told world leaders Thursday, in a special virtual summit on the COVID-19 pandemic. The deadly coronavirus, Tedros said, "is the defining health crisis of our time." As the WHO head spoke, the number of coronavirus cases worldwide was reaching the 500,000 mark. More than 20,000 people have died, and both Italy and the U.S. are poised to surpass China atop the list of countries with the most coronavirus cases. In the U.S., thousands of National Guard members are bolstering vital support systems, such as helping to distribute supplies at food banks. An increasing share of the world's population is under orders to stay at home; many schools and businesses are being told to shut down. Two weeks after deeming the viral respiratory disease a global pandemic, Tedros told those attending the G20 Extraordinary Leaders' Summit on COVID-19, "The pandemic is accelerating at an exponential rate." He noted that while it took weeks for the first 100,000 cases to accrue, the most recent 100,000 cases were reported over the course of just two days. Millions of people could die if governments don't take aggressive action against the coronavirus, Tedros said. The summit's participants included the world's most powerful leaders, from President Trump to China's President Xi Jinping.

--- Links ---

L—CJR—AT: Criminal Justice = Federal Jurisdiction

States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing criminal law

Barkow 5 [Rachel E. Barkow, Associate Professor, NYU School of Law. FEDERALISM: OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM OF SENTENCING. Stanford Law Review, 2005. www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/04/Barkow_0.pdf]
When it comes to criminal law enforcement, as the Supreme Court has recognized, “[s]tates historically have been sovereign.”8 This Part discusses the reasons for the states’ primary responsibility for crime control. Part I.A begins with the Constitution and its federalism requirements. Part I.B then discusses the functional arguments for keeping most matters of crime control with the states.
A. The Constitution and Federalism
The Framers vested the federal government with few explicit criminal enforcement powers.9 Congress therefore promulgates most federal crimes under its Commerce Clause powers.10 In 1995, the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Lopez11 that this authority is limited and does not allow Congress to take an expansive view of federal criminal law enforcement. The Supreme Court held in Lopez that Congress had exceeded its powers in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal crime to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. Although the decision was a marked shift from the lax enforcement of the Commerce Clause that prevailed in the almost six decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence prior to Lopez, the decision was grounded in “first principles” of constitutional law: that the “the powers delegated ... to the federal government are few and defined” whereas those vested in the states “are numerous and indefinite.”
Whatever the scope of the Commerce Clause in other substantive areas, it is particularly important to adhere to a strict dichotomy between federal and state authority when it comes to criminal law enforcement. Indeed, this was a critical part of the Court’s decision in Lopez. The Court emphasized that “[w]hen Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States, it affects a ‘change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.’”13 As the Court made clear, “[u]nder our federal system, the ‘States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.’”14

Download 71.63 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page