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

Con Case Pro’s rebuttal I did not say there was a difference between convicting and sentencing; even though there is. I said there is a difference between executing a convicted criminal and assassinating a suspect who has yet to be convicted. I also stated that there is a difference between execution and assassination. A citizen must be trialed by jury, and citizens have a right to not only hear the charges against them, but defend against those charges. Treason is not exempt from the 5th amendment; until someone is convicted of a crime, they maintain their 5th amendment rights. If 2 FBI agents don’t like your Facebook status, do they have a right to declare you a traitor and shoot you on your way to work? No trial by peers, no indictment; just a warrant granted by a judge based on their word alone. Sorry but that’s not how it works. Nowhere in the constitution does it create an exception for suspected traitors. Treason is a high crime, and as such the 5th amendment applies. The only people exempt from the 5th amendment rights are our own armed forced, and only during time of war. When someone enlists they willingly give up certain rights, and that is this is one right they forfeit. Simply being a suspected traitor does not warrant the government to infringe your 5th amendment right. The 6th amendment deals with all criminal offenses; my opponent claims that I am lumping treason in with other offenses, however it is not I who is lumping treason in with other offenses it was the authors of the 6th amendment. If my opponent is willing to argue that treason is not a criminal offense, than he may have a case for ignoring the 6th amendment; although it would be a weak argument, seeing as treason is a crime. Pro claims that article 3 section 3 grants congress the right to pass bills of attainder, in regards to treason. This is not the case, as in Article 1 Section 10 the constitution clearly states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” [1] Pro also seems to think Bills of Attainder can be applied to individuals, when actuality it applies to groups of people; such as families, political parties, or religious organizations. [2] Article 3 Section 3 was just reiterating Article 1 Section 10, by stating, “no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood”. This clause is not a power grant, it’s a prohibition. Pro also claims that the 8th amendment allows for bills of attainder in regards to treason; it says nothing of the short. The 8th amendment reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” [3] This lacks any reference to treason, or bills of attainder. The 8th amendment could actually be used against assassination as a criminal punishment, as one could argue that it is cruel and unusual to premeditatively kill someone without their knowing. If one fails to show up for his court hearing, he is charged with contempt of court, and a warrant is placed for his arrest. If someone has already arrested, but later escaped; then he would be charged with escaping from prison. The state does not have a right assassinate a fugitive; the state has the right to recapture a fugitive. If that fugitive puts up a fight, the government officials trying to capture him may kill him on the scene, but not without provocation. As for Pro’s repetitive use of Alwaki as an example; Alwaki was never convicted of treason, he was only suspected of treason. If he was convicted of treason he would have never been assassinated. I did not contest the substance of the Supreme Court ruling, because the Supreme Court ruling is the source, not the argument. I only have to contest your argument associated with it. I feel the Supreme Court ruling is a loop hole, as agents are not witnesses to the crime unless they were present when the crime was committed. They may be witnesses to the investigation, and may be used to vouch for the integrity of the investigation; however they are not “Witnesses to the same overt Act”. Once again, the Supreme Court can only be used as a source, not an argument, so my feelings in regards to the ruling are irrelevant. Pro Case C1: The Executive Branch First Pro dropped my argument regarding the congressional power to further define the limitations of the Executive branch. His only rebuttal is that Mansfield was making a claim in regards to Madison’s claim; this issue with this is that my opponent is trying to prove a stance of Madison, not by quoting Madison but by quoting someone’s interpretation of Madison’s quote. It reminds me of a game called telephone, which I use to play as a kid. The more people who repeat and interpret the original quote, the more likely the quote and its message would be distorted; in fact, the telephone game gives empirical evidence for how easily it can be distorted. 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. Third Once again pro claims that Mansfield was consisted with his sources simply because he cited them. Locke did not confuse liberty with rights, Locke claimed that man has a right to life, liberty, and property; this is known as Locke’s trinity. If Locke used the word “liberty” to refer to rights, than Locke’s trinity would argue we have a right to rights, which makes no sense. Liberty is a right, but not all rights are liberties. Liberty is simply a fancy way of saying freedom; we have a right to life, freedom, and property. Locke also believed that governments were instituted amongst men in order to protect the natural rights of the community. This idea was echoed by Jefferson in the declaration of independence.[4] Pro claims that there needs to be a Branch of Government to distinguish between civil rights and natural rights, and that that branch is the executive. Pro fails to realize that the Legislative Branch has the power to distinguish between natural rights and civil rights, through legislation. Natural Rights are enforced by government when overlapped with Civil Rights; the legislature passes Civil Rights legislation. C2: The Constitution Pro says that he does not need to mention the constitution to prove the executive branch has certain powers, but rather that he only needs elaborate on the implied authority of the President. The issue with this argument is that the President has no implied authority; his authority is limited to the constitution, and legislation passed by congress. Closing statement The constitution makes clear that no citizen may be deprived of life, without due process. Due process for treason consists of presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury, a speedy public trial with an impartial jury of his peers, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him, to confront the witnesses making those accusations, to have a legal process for obtaining those witnesses, and to have a lawyer defend him against the charges; one cannot be convicted of treason without at-least 2 witnesses to the crime, or without a confession in court. Congress is prohibited from passing bills of attainder, and a suspected traitor cannot constitutionally be deprived of life, until he stands trial, unless he gives adequate provocation during the attempt to arrest him. The constitution clearly states that the president and the courts are limited to the laws passed by congress as well as the Constitutional restrictions. 1. http://www.archives.gov... 2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 3. http://www.archives.gov... 4. http://www.archives.gov...