This is the most recent Affirmative case of hers that is available.
She begins by speaking of the French Revolution, and how the system of Separation of Powers failed because the branches of government stopped competing.
Value: Excellence in government
Criterion: Separation of Powers* (with an emphasis on all competition)
The Main argument of her case is that a system of Checks and Balances/Separation of Powers keeps a government from becoming corrupt. She presents the examples of Roosevelt's court-packing and an Executive power-grab during a steel worker strike, as proof that a lack of competition for power between branches causes one to become dominate. She also speaks of the benefits of competition in elections and legislation.
- In my opinion, Separation of Powers is Separation, (or a lack of contact), not Competition. In fact, it was one branch trying to become superior to the others that caused the problem in her examples, not cooperation
Write the second section of your article here.