Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Debating4Christ

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    E. Roberts
  • School
  1. Again thanks for all the great responses... It's starting to get me think again about some of the larger holes. So here are some of the cuff responses to some of the arguments. Let me know what ya'll think. "except if the Constitution or an Act of Congress merits its use. This bill is available to the Negative team upon request."[/size] This bill is about 1 page long. So short enough the other team can read it in round. In response to the except if the constitution or an Act of congress merits its use. I would say the Constitution may merit it's use when ruling on a case that has impact not just in/on the United States for example below, also the actual bill states Requires its consideration, would it be better if I used require? Bill text can be found at: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3052/text Article III section 2a of the Constitution states The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. But then you must consider Amendment XI The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Acts of congress would have a similar deal attached to them. Are they dealing with international laws or is this a purely national question? This question could be the basis of deciding if it merits the use of international precedents and/or laws. DA response: If you want to choose to be ruled by international law then why can't they prosecute in that country? (a lot of what I'm saying hasn't gone though a sieve yet so If some of it is flawed continue to press it, I guess) Case in which international law or cases in which the preceding happened on international soil could be referred to the court of the country in question. Or maybe it would fall under the Acts of congress if they're is a bill addressing international law in contract law? I'm not quite sure of yet... Your last example is flawed because at least where I live you can get married at 16 with parental consent. But I think I get where you're going with the examples... It may fall under the require idea. Also I believe that that wouldn't necessary be the court system you are talking about when it comes to marital communications privileges doesn't that happen during the incarceration before they ever get to court, so not in the courts?
  2. Thank you both for your responses it gives me some idea of what people might have against it. What do you mean by a gendered language? Binding Precedent - I agree it hasn't been the only thing they've cited but as my quote stated there have been 3 instance in which it was cited with some amount of authority. Also there are reasons to believe that if we don't stop it from happening now that it will increase. For instance many well known people are pushing for it as well as a couple of the SCOTUS judges think it is a good idea. And again if we let this go you can look at 2 of the harms I listed I do have a couple more though. Medellin v. Texas held that international law isn't binding on the United states not that the courts couldn't use international law in their decisions so I'm not quite sure how that applies. As for Zimbabwe - it is practically a monarchy though it calls itself a republic the same party has "won" the elections since independence and now there's a power share between two people, Mugabe and Tsvangirai. In short it does not have a similar government structure nor are the people, those governed, the same as the people of the united states. We have many different ideals than what is practically happening in Zimbabwe.
  3. I thought I had added a word document but now I can't seem to do that so I pasted it below. Thanks. 1AC: Abolish International Precedent in the Federal courts People make decisions every day some small and some big. But all of our decisions are made for some reasons. In the Federal courts our judges have to make decisions every day and they have to give us the reasons for their decisions. Originally verdicts were supposed to be based on the Constitution but now they are being based on many different things including international laws. We are outsourcing federal judicial verdicts and are looking to international courts to help determine what should happen within the United States Federal Courts. Because Morgan and I believe that outsourcing our judicial decisions is illegitimate and may bring harm the United States we stand RESOLVED: The United States Federal Court system should be significant reformed. To show you why we believe this let’s begin by establishing that we are using foreign precedents in our federal courts with Fact 1. FACT 1: Supreme Court uses Foreign Precedent. In recent years the Supreme Court has cited international precedent: International Precedent are simply understood as a court decision or law that is referred to as an authority on a case. Often once a case has been decided all similar cases will refer to it, this helps us have similar outcomes in similar cases. However in United States Courts we are looking not just at the constitution and previous U.S. judicial decisions for guidance in current cases. Recently we have broadened our scope to include international laws and judicial decisions. As Robert Delahuny, an associate Professor of law, and John Yoo, a Professor of law, said together: Robert J. Delahunty and John Yoo, [at least 2005] (Robert: Associate Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Delahunty: Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall); Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.),“Against Foreign Law”, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_Delahunty_Yoo.pdf QUOTE: “In recent years, several Supreme Court Justices have looked to the decisions of foreign and international courts for guidance in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. This practice has occurred in several controversial, high‐profile cases. Roper v. Simmons1 outlawed application of the death penalty to offenders who were under eighteen when their crimes were committed. Law‐ rence v. Texas2 struck down a state law that criminalized homo‐ sexual sodomy. Atkins v. Virginia3 held against the execution of mentally retarded capital defendants. All three cite foreign and international precedents.” :UNQUOTE Now that we’ve established that the United States Federal Courts are using International Precedent in their decisions we wonder why Judges are using international precedent. There are many reasons why Judges might do this but we will focus on two of the biggest. Reason 1: Judges are pursuing personal agendas Judges are people just like you and me and though they are supposed to be neutral we cannot expect them to be perfect or unbiased. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so”. [1] If we understand this we will better be able to combat the issue. But if we continue to believe that our judges are perfect little unbiased angles sitting on the bench giving out unflawed verdicts there is nothing we can do to fix the problem. Ryan Black, Ph.D., Ryan Owens, Ph.D., Daniel Walters, J.D., and Jennifer Brookhart, who is a graduate student of Political Science, understood this reality when they stated in 2014: Ryan C. Black, Ryan J. Owens, Daniel E walters, and Jennifer L. Brookhart, 2014 (Black: Ph.D.; Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University , Owens: J.D., Ph.D.; Lyons Family Faculty Scholar, Associate Professor of Political Science, and Honor- ary Fellow, Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. ,Walters: J.D.; Regulation Fellow, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Graduate Student, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Brookhart: Graduate Student, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison.), “Upending a Global Debate: An Empirical Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Use of Transnational Law to Interpret Domestic Doctrine”, http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2014/10/Black-updending.pdf Our theoretical starting point, based on decades of scholarship, is that Justices are strategic judicial decision makers who seek to pursue their policy goals but are constrained from so doing by a host of internal and external norms and actors.80 More specifically, the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its decisions. Instead, it must rely on citizens’ and policymakers’ beliefs in its legitimacy, something it earns by writing principled, logical, and well-supported opinions. As Justice Frankfurter once observed, the Court’s authority “ulti- mately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction.”81 In order to effectuate their policy goals, Justices must ensure that the opinions that justify those positions have legal and logical support. One way Justices can support their decisions is to reference transnational practices and transnational law. This brings us to the Second Reason judges may cite International Precedent. Reason 2: The courts are seeking to add to their powers If the Federal courts can legitimize the use of international precedent as a source for decisions they are no longer bounded by the constitution to only review certain cases. This in turn adds to the amount of power they have. This was recognized by Robert Delahunty an associate professor of law and John Yoo a professor of law who state together: Robert J. Delahunty and John Yoo, [at least 2005] (Robert: Associate Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Delahunty: Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall); Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.),“Against Foreign Law”, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_Delahunty_Yoo.pdf QUOTE: “This Article concludes by speculating on why the Supreme Court is so attracted to the use of foreign and international law in constitutional adjudication. Two explanations seem plausi‐ble. First, the Court may be seeking to augment its own power. The use of foreign law in constitutional cases makes constitu‐tional law more uncertain and unpredictable, and hence more malleable. The use of foreign law enables the Court to impose the results it wants in any given case, with fewer constraints from the written text of the Constitution, the Constitution’s structure and purposes, or even the Court’s own past prece‐dents. The Court is also less fettered by specifically American traditions of law or social practice, and freer to adopt European models and customs, if it finds them compelling. This has the effect of expanding the Court’s power to pursue different poli‐cies that would be foreclosed were it limited to relying on purely American practices or doctrines.”: UNQUOTE When our Constitution becomes malleable or illegitimate the Federal Judges will achieve much more power than they were originally intended to have. Because we recognize this we can see the problems that using international precedents causes. Problem 1: Using International Precedents subjects U.S. laws to international community Using international precedent in determining the validity of Congressional Laws subjects our government to the oversight of the international community. By allowing this we are setting up a dangerous pattern. This danger was recognized by Richard Posner, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, who stated in 2004: Richard Posner, August 2004, (Posner is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.) “NO THANKS, WE ALREADY HAVE OUR OWN LAWS The court should never view a foreign legal decision as a precedent in any way.” http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2004/feature_posner_julaug04.msp QUOTE: “Particularly questionable in this regard is citing foreign decisions to establish an international consensus that should have weight in U.S. courts. Such nose-counting is like subjecting legislation enacted by Congress to review by the United Nations General Assembly. I think that the Supreme Court would be making not only a juridical but also a political error by asking the American people (as one justice did in an opinion) to accept that decisions by the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe should influence decisions by our Supreme Court. I think most Americans would think it outrageous that Zimbabwean judges, however distinguished they may be, were making law for us.”: UNQUOTE I think most of can agree with Posner that the rulings of a court in Zimbabwe are not legitimate in America. But when we say that International precedents are ok we have no way of defining which nations these precedents will come from. German, English, and French decisions are just as legitimate as Chinese, Russian, or those of Zimbabwe. This brings us to the second problem. Problem 2: Using International Precedents Erodes the U.S. constitution. Once we begin saying that international precedent is a valid interpreter of United States laws we have put it on par with the U.S. Constitution. When we do this we open ourselves up to allowing the Federal courts to review any court case instead of being bounded to what the constitution says they may interpret. This in turn begins to make our Constitution illegitimate and if that happens we are left totally at the whims of our judges. Representative Sandy Adams recognized this when he said in 2011: Rep. Sandy Adams, March 9, 2011, (Adams was a Republican member of the House representing Florida. She is a former law enforcement professional who represented District 33 in the Florida House of Representatives.),“”ADAMS: Bam foreign law from courts. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/9/in-recent-years-supreme-court-justices-have-interj/ QUOTE: “In recent years, Supreme Court justices have interjected international law into their rulings, creating an environment of disregard for national sovereignty and threatening the institutions put in place by our forefathers. The Constitution laid the foundation for our nation’s judicial system, and allowing foreign law to supersede it in any capacity leads to its erosion. Not only is using international precedent a transparent disregard for the Constitution, but it could be used to advance a judge’s personal political agenda over the best interests of the nation.”: UNQUOTE This brings us back to the very reason judges may be using international precedent which was to legitimize their own position. The more we allow them to use International precedent the more it will break down our constitution and give the judges freer reign to make whatever laws they see fit. Because we believe that the use of international precedents to interpret the laws of the United States are invalid, that judges should not be allowed to add to their powers or pursue personal agendas, that our laws should not be subjected to the international community, and that we should support our constitution, we propose the following plan. PLAN Mandate: Congress will pass and the President will ratify the House Representatives Bill 3052: To Amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes. This bill in short says that no federal courts of the United States shall decide a case based on the authority of foreign law except if the Constitution or an Act of Congress merits its use. This bill is available to the Negative team upon request. Thank you and I am now ready for any questions from the opposing team. [1] “Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government” - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114 http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1030.htm
  4. hey if anyone is available to look over this 1AC and give me any thoughts that would be great.
  • Create New...