September/October LD Resolution

I wish to express my gratitude to my opponent for her thoughtful work and invaluable suggestions. First, let me answer the question about the value clash. There are five competing national interests (they are not mutually exclusive however), and to maintain a perfect balance among all competing interests, no interest should be advanced at the expense of others. Extreme cases are strictly forbidden in order to persevere the status quo. Therefore, unlike what my opponent suggested in her rebuttals, I did not assume that one value has to be held above others. My contentions were built around the United States Constitution and I proposed that by granting the due process protections to the accused aliens, the national interests i.e., the sprits of the Constitution would not be served. There are five competing yet complementary national interests and they are 1. To establish justice; 2. To insure domestic tranquility; 3. To provide for the common defense; 4. To promote the general welfare; 5. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; I suggested that if the pursuance of one of the national interests undercuts other national interests, the pursuance should not be continued. The five national interests form a coherent unity and no national interest should be considered more important than others. Simply put, if we assume the importance by assigning each national interest a number, say 20, then the sum of them is 100. Now, the only time that the national interests are served is when the sum of the national interests is more than 100 and each national interest is no less than 20. For example, you cannot have justice with number 50 whereas the general welfare gets zero even if the total value, in this case, exceeds 100. By granting the accused aliens the due process protections, the promotions of the general welfare would be consequently undermined, and the purpose of the common defense would be defeated. In order to maintain the status quo (simply not make things worse), I concluded that the United States ought not to purse such an agenda. In response to my opponent"s deconstruction "it is unreasonable to assume that the Constitution is not primarily intended for the United States." This is a statement I derived from the fourteenth amendment. The full text of the 14th amendment read as "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subjected to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the framers intended the fourteenth amendment to be a "universal" statement, they would specifically state in the amendment by excluding the sentence "All person born or...wherein they reside." But the very fact they didn"t exclude the sentence in the original document emphatically suggests that the framers intended the fourteen amendment to be for the United States citizens. My opponent erred by taking an excerpt from the text and then tried to interpret it without referring to other components of the statements. In summary, my statement was not conjured up out of thin air. "Subsequently, ...pursue it" I suggested that justice should be given a high regard, but certainly not at the expense of other national interests. My opponent suggested that "justice is the highest value of any society." ("What my opponent does not understand is that justice is the highest value of any society,...") But, none of her contentions explicitly stated it. What my opponent does suggest is that justice is an indispensable component of a properly functioned society. According to her statement, "This is so because if justice is not upheld within a society,...,then the citizens of that country are worse off." Something that is considered necessary is not the same as stating that the same thing is the most important. Moreover, I never even remotely suggested that justice is not important. What I did say was that a balanced approach should be employed in dealing with the competing yet complementary national interests. It does seem that my opponent determined to take the case to an extreme point by suggesting that anything that may potentially impede the advancement of justice should hold no values. Her arguments could hardly justify such an extreme statement. In terms of the national security, as I have suggested, it would be compromised if these accused aliens gain access to the due process protections. FBI and/or CIA agents may be prevent from questioning the suspects for the purpose of intelligence gatherings on the ground that some interrogation techniques are not permitted if these accused terrorists are protected by the due process protection. Therefore, unlike what my opponent believed, national security would be threatened if these accused aliens can enjoy the due process protections. Furthermore, I did admitted that it would be just to offer these accused terrorists due process protections. What I did not concede, however, is that the United States ought to offer these accused aliens the due process protections. There is a difference between something that "would" be the case and something that is "ought" to be the case. I never suggest that United States ought to pursue a particular path merely due to the fact that path would justify some beliefs. Rather, I urged people to consider the matter in the context of the national interests. An equilibrium status among all five national interests is required to advance national interests as a whole. No one should try to damage national interests in the name of pursuant of justice, and granting the accused aliens the due process protections vitiated the very idea that I strived to establish. Last but not least, let me address the legitimate issue raised by my opponent. The concepts of economic benefits and national interests are embodied within the national interests, and they are derived from "To promote the general welfare" and "To provide for the common defense" respectively." I failed to see how these two values cannot serve the legitimate ends. They are both contained in the preamble of the Constitution; they both exist in our daily lives; and they are the two main issues in the Presidential debates. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they are used to fulfill the legitimate purpose and they are legitimate ends in themselves. Conclusions In conclusion, there is no rational basis to extend the U.S. Constitutional due process protections to the accused aliens. My opponent made some great points by stressing that justice would be served if we granted these aliens the constitution due process protections. I did not protest her contentions on the basis that I believe the same thing. But her contentions cannot lead to the conclusion. My opponent believed that the justice is the highest value of any society whereas I considered that there are other competing values that are equally important. Thank you.