LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

I agree with my opponent's arguments against the guidelines I set in place for the theoretical IC. But points 2 and 3 of these guidelines should be extended. Firstly, in regard to my value of domestic justice, the constitution specifically states the government's purpose to include preserving "domestic tranquility," without a mere mention of international relations. Regardless of what my opponent goes on to say about my value criterion, the constitution is the fundamental base of the U.S. government and therefore its goals (or purpose) does not change. In other words, the government is still supposed to work towards domestic tranquility, not international tranquility. While it would be good for the U.S. to look to the world as well, it is not one of the obligations that the government must fulfill. Therefore, domestic justice is As for my value criterion of constitutionality, it is true that the Constitution is a living document, and is open to amendments. Obviously, the initial draft of the constitution would not be perfect for the times we are in now. However, the most valuable property of a living document is that it changes to suit the country's needs. Therefore, the state of the Constitution at one point in time IS PERFECT for that given time. When the need for change arises, it is amended. Therefore, at this particular point in time, the constitution is perfect for this case, as the resolution is phrased in the present tense. Contention 1: My opponent says that I have no warrant for my arguments. However, a warrant is provided through logic as the scenarios given are theoretical; however, the very fact that they are possible means that if the U.S. submits to the IC's jurisdiction, they could possibly happen. If the door is open for atrocious violations of the standing of the U.S. legal system, then the violations can occur without any checks. The U.S. should not open that door. Contention 2: I'm not sure where my opponent is pulling this information from, but I never said "this IC will would try cases involving human rights violations and only when the state cannot justly prosecute the [criminal] itself." This was not one of the three point initially included regarding the theoretical IC; rather, my opponent may be confused with this property of the ICC, however that court is not under consideration in this debate, as agreed upon by both the affirmative and the negative. Therefore, the contention is not void. Once again, since these are all simply possibilities that can occur, a warrant is not needed other than logic. However, if my opponent demands one, I offer the following: According to David Scheffer & Ashley Cox from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Spring, 2008 "Without the ability to exercise jurisdiction over any atrocity crimes allegedly committed by U.S. nationals anywhere in the world, the United States would forfeit its privilege to apply all U.S. constitutional due process protections, including the right to trial by jury, for the benefit of U.S. nationals sought…for the commission of crimes that are not codified in U.S. Code Titles 10 and 18." In addition, According to Lauren Fielder Redman from the Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Fall, 2007: "Although the Rome Statute provides for the accused to be entitled to a public hearing without inexcusable delay, there is no firm definition of what constitutes inexcusable delay. The ICTY, which served as a model for the ICC, has given some indication that five years in custody awaiting trial might not be undue delay. In contrast, the United States law makes plain what is unacceptable delay. In the U.S., the defendant has the right to be brought to trial within seventy days of indictment." Contention 3: I apologize for my oversight. Obviously, the constitution limits the extent of judicial power to the Supreme Court and those inferior. If the U.S. must submit to an IC which can contradict rulings of the Supreme Court, it is an obvious clash with the Constitution. Contention 4: If the power is not given, it is not permissible. This is fundamental under the Constitution. The powers are given to the president by the constitution. The powers may then only travel down the line of succession should the president and or those who serve after/in place of him die. Giving up these powers is an immediate clash with the Constitution. My opponent says that we cannot wait for 4-8 years and allow human rights violations to continue. However, no warrant is given for human rights violations under the Obama presidency. So far, the president has only righted the violations committed under past presidencies. Basically, that entire statement of condoning HR violations is COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE unless my opponent can offer some evidence of violations under the Obama presidency. However, predicting violations to come is irrelevant. In that case, should there be a possibility of violations in the future, I propose a counter-plan involving a delay of six months, followed by re-evaluations after every period of six months as to whether or not the government should submit to the IC's jurisdiction. However, right now, in the present, no action can be taken without evidence. My opponent does not respond to my attack on Subpoint A of contention 1, so please drop that point. Secondly, my opponent offers no response to my argument against her claim of "manipulation" of the constitution, as she completely disregards the fact that the constitution is a living document, meant for INTERPRETATION. Fundamentally, my opponent attacks my basic case structure with two main arguments: 1.Global justice is more important than domestic justice 2.The constitution changes, and therefore cannot be considered a point of reference for justice. In response, no, global justice is not valued higher than domestic justice from the U.S. government's point of view. Just check their website: USA.gov. Its primary responsibility lies with the citizens and nationals of the U.S. and preserving the peace in their nation. Secondary goals may extend to benefitting the world, but the U.S.'s obligation (indicated by the word "ought") lies solely with the U.S. I agree that my opponent's points on this matter may make sense if the nation in question was not specified in the resolution, but since the U.S. is mentioned, we understand its responsibility is limited to the preservation of peace in its own society. Secondly, is my opponent even serious? Please, suggest another point of reference for me to use as a basis of domestic justice, if you have one. The fact is: justice changes based on the needs of nations and their people. International courts did not even exist a few decades ago. Just because the constitution changes does not make it inapplicable. In fact, since the debate is current, the present form of the constitution is the most valuable resource we have for judging how just something IS (currently). My opponent values human rights above all. Yes, we should try to preserve them as much as possible. But the U.S. should not attempt to do so at the sake of the fundamental rights it provides to its nationals. Thus, I urge you to negate.