LD TOPIc

Can someone point out the flaws so i can better my case and give me some ideas? Thomas Jefferson: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." I agree with this because I believe that Americans deserve the rights that are stated in the Constitution and nothing should be put above it. And therefore I negate the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to Jurisdiction of an international court design to prosecute Crimes against Humanity Definitions: C.A.H.- as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion." Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies Submit: to give over or yield to the power or authority of another International Court: Since the only International Court designed to prosecute C.A.H. is the ICC I will be using the ICC to define International Court. Value: Independence- Independence puts the differences between different societies across the globe. In every world justice system it is necessary to give them independence from one another because of the change in them. And what may be tolerable may not be by others. V.C. National Sovereignty- the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights is what makes this country and its people, which make its power. By submitting to the ICC it is excepting a new court over it's own and devaluing the constitution therefore taking away the U.S. sovereignty. Contention 1- By the U.S. giving itself to the ICC (submitting) it will lessen its own existence. The U.S. constitution was mainly made for the purpose of protecting the people of the nation first and the nation itself. By allowing the ICC to come in and have power and influence the U.S. is no longer by itself but a larger country. Its Constitution becomes void because there is a higher power, which goes to that court system which can then prosecute the U.S. citizens freely. Then their laws can take power over the laws of the U.S and endanger the United States. Contention 2- The ICC is not properly structured. A) The ICC does not try its defendants by a trial by jury. Instead, the trial is done in front of a panel of three judges. If a US citizen were to be tried under the ICC, he/she would lose basic fundamental rights given to them by the government. Therefore, the US government has a moral obligation not to join, since losing the citizens rights is not protecting the citizen. B) Even American citizens who get tried can get tried again. The Fifth Amendment of the American constitution says "… nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Article 20 (3) of ICC says: Persons acquitted by a national court can be brought to trial again if the ICC concludes that the original trial was "conducted in a manner which, in the circumstance, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person to justice." One purpose of American rules of trial evidence is to protect individual liberty, giving power to the purpose of the Bill of rights, which is designed to restrain governmental abuse. That results in the exclusion of evidence obtained illegally. But the ICC has lower standards for warrants and the legitimacy of evidence. Thus, a judgment of not guilty by an U.S. court because of illegally obtained or unreliable evidence might well be rejected by the ICC as being "inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice", resulting in a second trial by the ICC using the very same evidence that had previously been rejected by the U.S. court because it was considered unreliable or illegal under our Bill of Rights. In conclusion by giving away our jurisdiction, we our giving up our freedom.