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

Targeted Killings and Assassinations Framework My opponent tries to argue against the framework without arguing against the framework. He simply applies his contentional arguments to the framework. But he seems to miss the point of the framework: that assassinations are used against a specific class of people. Con Case Pro’s rebuttal My opponent first argues that there is a difference between convicting and sentencing. This argument doesn’t make an impact on the round because sentencing will always be done by judges in a treason trial. As long as there are two witnesses that can testify to a judge that a certain individual is guilty of treason then execution is not precluded. Pro completely dropped my 5th amendment argument, which states that a Grand Jury is required to provide an indictment or presentment before someone could be brought to answer for capital or infamous crimes; such as treason. The 5th amendment also states that one cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law; meaning that one must be trialed. My opponent’s second argument is that I dropped his 5th Amendment analysis. As mentioned in my last round I am using the analysis of treason which is a specifically detached crime from the 5th Amendment. Whereas other capital crimes such as murder would be included in the analysis of the 5th Amendment, treason is intentionally and conditionally different from the other capital crimes. There are due process limitations on treason charges: The first is that conviction only needs two people. If the government wishes to go through a whole trial as indicated by the requirement for a grand jury and other due process requirements it can. The government can easily present evidence in a court to go directly to trial and then have 2 witnesses testify against a military combatant. My opponent mentions the due process rights afforded by the 6th Amendment, but my opponent makes the mistake of lumping treason with all other offenses. The second is that Article 3 Section 3 paragraph 2 allows for Congressional attainder. “Treason against the United States... The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” Now what is attainder? This is a legal term that has lost colloquially meaning since it is negligibly used. Attainder refers to, under common law, the ability of Congress to bypass the judiciary and due process rights and convict and then sentence an individual. Whereas attainder has been struck down in all cases under the 8th Amendment, attainder is allowed in one case: treason. As such, assassination would be constitutional not only from a court order on the basis of two witnesses but also on an attainder vote by Congress. The only conditions on this attainder vote are that Congress cannot convict people related to the offender and the government cannot confiscate the property of the offender. Thus, these two exceptions to due process bypass the regulations of the 5th and 6th Amendments. My opponent argues that assassination does not equate to execution. The definition my opponent provides is that a public official is killed by a surprise attack, implying a targeted killing such as the killing of Alwaki. As such, all the methods of conviction would still apply to this definition. Since the target would by extension be a fugitive from justice if the courts order an execution of the criminal, it would still be a surprise attack. Also the attainder vote would grant permission to the Executive branch to carry out a surprise attack against the convict. Ny opponent’s final argument is that the Supreme Court isn’t a valid argument. The issue with this claim is that it wasn’t an independent justification or argument, but rather was an explication on the conditions of the word witness in Article 3. Regardless though my opponent has not contested the substance of the Supreme Court Ruling. Pro Case C1: The Executive Branch First My opponent claims that the first argument of Mansfield gives unlimited power to the executive branch. This is completely untrue. All Mansfield is claiming is that Madison, who is the author of the Constitution, delineated certain responsibilities to Congress but gave the executive branch “executive power” which in the Lockean sense and the Federalist Papers refers to expanded powers dealing with the office of the president. But the main point made by Mansfield which is the substance of the explanation comes in his 2nd argument. Second My opponent makes the argument that the Federalist Papers aren’t legally binding, like what I said about the Declaration. However he misses the reasoning behind using the Federalist Papers, specifically that of Madison. To correctly interpret what the Constitution means there needs to be a reference for us to evaluate what the Founder’s meant when they used certain words. Like for instance, many interpret the 2nd Amendment as only referring to state militias, but as evidenced by arguments and use of words in the Federalist Papers militia was referring to the whole populous as a bloc to tyranny of foreign invasion. The reason we know this is because we can reference the context of the specific words used in the Constitution and reference them elsewhere by works of the founders. The same applies here. Mansfield makes the argument that the Federalist Paper’s when referring to words such as executive and “to execute the office of the President” references the authority of the executive as a leader of the Republic which can respond to times of urgency and necessity whereas other branches might be functionally paralyzed by crises. When the President makes the oath to execute the office of the President, Mansfield explains to us that the wording of the oath as dictated by the Constitution tells us a lot about the implied emergency powers of the Executive Branch. The oath does not simply limit the President in following the dictum of congress but rather holds the president to the office, i.e. the responsibilities which come as the executive, chief enforcer and protector of the United States. Third My opponent argues that the distinction I made is incorrect. Well, in terms of the words rights and liberties, Mansfield was using the words of Locke who in his writings frequently used liberties and not rights. The main argument here is that the Founders working within the framework of Locke had to constitute the rights, and take them out of the state of nature and into a civil society. As such, rights are granted to the people but can be taken away or changed depending on the circumstances. Thus, within the framework of Locke there must be a branch of government which can mold itself to differing circumstances and not be constrained within an unchangeable framework. As indicated above, the executive branch fits this description since it is the branch which, according to Madison and Hamilton, has the energy needed to respond immediately to varying and urgent crises. What does all this mean? It essentially means that within the Lockean framework and the framework of the Founders the Executive Branch must change in order to respond to crises that threaten the security of the free state. This is what the office of the President means: to protect the existence of the state from both domestic and international threats. In order to achieve this goal, if the Executive Branch must limit due process protections then it has the authority to do so. My opponent ends his argument with the fact that I haven’t mentioned the Constitution. In contrast to this claim, my argument is explicating about the authority granted to the Executive via the Constitution. Actually I would think my argument gives a much more detailed