Spinkos tourney,Partial Semi-Finals: Assasination of US citizens is constitutional

Voters 1) Attainder My opponent completely misunderstands Article 3 Section 3 paragraph 2. He argues that this provision prevents Congress from using attainder against a target. He points to the line which states “…but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. ” However, he never mentions the first part of the paragraph: “The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason…” What my opponent misses in his analysis is that granting congress the power to declare punishment of Treason is attainder. The “but…shall work” conditions this right of attainder by conditioning the extent of the attainder. The conditions tell us that the Congress has the right to determine the punishment for treason, but cannot extend the punishment to include relatives/progeny and seizure of property. My opponent argues that attainder is for groups and not individuals, but this is completely incorrect. Using his source #2: The clause thus prohibits…'no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . . ” Thus, this is a clear reason to vote Pro because Congress is legitimately given power of attainder in treason cases. As aptly mentioned by my opponent Article 1 prohibits attainder but Article 3 qualifies this in cases of treason. My opponent argues throughout the entire debate that the 5th and 6th Amendments are absolute. I will respond to this under my Executive Branch analysis. 2) Executive Branch First My opponent’s main argument against this is that I dropped the analysis that Congress makes rules regulating the Executive Branch. This is a funny argument which isn’t dropped because it was already precluded by my Mansfield evidence. Ill refer to the preclusion: “The American Constitution signifies that it has fortified the executive by vesting the president with "the executive power," complete and undiluted in Article II, as opposed to the Congress in Article I, which receives only certain delegated and enumerated legislative powers. ” The preclusion is that without direct intervention from the Congress, Article 2 leaves the power of the president bound by the duties of his office. My opponent would be correct if (strong emphasis on if) Congress struck down the ability of the President in certain circumstances. In this particular case, there is no law which prohibits the use of targeted killings against national security threats. Otherwise, as indicated by Mansfield, the Constitution does not explicitly restrict the powers of the President like it does congress. My opponent tries to make an argument that using secondary sources is like playing telephone. The problem with this however is that Mansfield analyzes both the words and context of the words which is possible through written word, as opposed to oral word. If you passed a piece of paper around and told people to simply rewrite the sentence on the paper there will be little to no confusion. Second Pro claims that Mansfield did not argue the President had unlimited power, yet he states that Mansfield argued that the “The oath does not simply limit the President in following the dictum of congress” This is contradictory; either the president does not have unlimited power, or the president is not limited to rule of law. You can’t claim both to be true. The second point however is the most important, though my opponent spends the least amount of time on it. His argument is that my claim that the President does not have unlimited powers contradicts what I said about the presidents oath and Congress. First, this is false because as indicated by Mansfield, the President gains the “executive power” as explained by Madison in times of “urgency and necessity. ” This constricts the powers of the president in times of normalcy. But secondly, the oath the president takes is the Constitution’s guarantee that the President follows the demands and responsibilities of his office even though the Constitution does directly put dictums on the President. This is why I referred to the powers as implied powers. Why is this a voter? This is a voter because the words of the Constitution, the oath the President takes, and an analysis of the context of those words using Madison’s Federalist Papers give us the clear indication that in times of urgency the Executive Branch must be flexible and circumstantial in its abilities to fight any domestic and international threat to the free state. As mentioned before, we know the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by analyzing the words used and figuring out their meaning via other texts of Madison, i. e. the Federalist Papers. The same holds true in this case. To have a clear understanding of the Constitution we must look to the words and the meaning of those words at the time of the founding. This is where my opponent and I differ in analysis. My opponent tries to use his own interpretation of the Constitution which binds him in presentism. Thus, we can conclude that, unless directly prevented by the Congress, the Executive Branch can utilize its implied powers to protect the free state. As such, targeted killings are permissible via the Constitution. Third My opponent misunderstands what Mansfield was writing about. Locke used the words rights and liberties interchangeably. Yes, liberty is a natural right according to Locke, but when Locke says natural liberties he is referring to negative rights – right to liberty essentially umbrellas all the other rights or liberties. However this is just English semantics. The important point my opponent misses is that the rights given by the bill of Rights, such as the 5th and 6th Amendments are not inalienable. It is a common misconception that since rights have been constituted then they have the same status as natural rights. This argument directly refutes my opponents analysis of the 5th and 6th Amendments. If the President, in a time of urgency and necessity, deems it necessary that, in order for the security of the free state, an individual must not be granted those rights it is in his or her power to do so. :D