Varsity-Packet-Final

hartford fire insurance company defendants appellees

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: t Congress and the president to agree on a health policy course for the nation. The most likely outcome is a marginal shift in power to states combined with outsize expectations for the state response. 19 | P a g e Topicality Topicality BDL Topicality – Table of Contents Negative Arguments 1NC – Increase doesn’t = create .......................................................................................................... 2 1NC – In = Throughout ......................................................................................................................... 3 1NC – Substantially = without material qualification.............................................................................. 4 Affirmative Answers Aff Answers – Increase includes create ............................................................................................. 5-6 Aff Answers – In = Within the Limits Of ................................................................................................. 7 Aff Answers – Substantially................................................................................................................... 8 Other Definitions Transportation Infrastructure Definitions .......................................................................................... 9-10 Investment Definitions .................................................................................................................... 11-12 1|Page Topicality BDL 1NC – Increase doesn’t = create A. Interpretation – In order to be topical the Affirmative must increase investment in a pre existing program. Since the word “increase” requires a pre-exisitng base line the affirmative cannot topically create a new program. Jeremiah Buckly, Attorney writing in an Amicus Curiae Brief to the Supreme Court, 2006 (http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdfSafeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al,) First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not “be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make something greater,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that “ad-verse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an “incre ase.” That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392 -93 n.10 (1979) (“[a] defin-ition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the word...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online