The US ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants its citizens
AFFIRMITIVE
Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart once said, "Fairness is what justice really is." It is because of this that I affirm the resolution stating Resolved: The US ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants its citizens. Before going further, I would like to define the following terms:
Ought, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is used to express moral obligation.
Citizen, according to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, is defined as members of a political community who follow the rules of said community and in return receive privileges and rights. Grant- according to Oxford Dictionaries is defined as giving (a right, power, property, etc.) for morally or, legally to:
Therefore, this resolution states that the US has a moral obligation to give the same due process protections that it gives its citizens. For the purpose of this debate, I will be using the value of Justice, which can be defined by Law guide Dictionary as the system that works to give each their due. I will be supporting this with a value criterion of Egalitarianism, which is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the doctrine believing in the equal rights of humanity in political, social, and economic respects. My value criterion supports my value because the doctrine of egalitarianism gives fairness and equality to the meaning of Justice in its principles and emphasis of equality under all considerations, including the law. I will be supporting this with three contentions.
Contention 1: The US Constitution supports this resolution completely. Constitutional due process is explained in the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. My opponent may observe how this document supports egalitarianism and does not have bias against those who aren't citizens in the following sub-points.
Sub-point A: The 5th amendment details the legal rights of the people. It states, " No
Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart once said, "Fairness is what justice really is." It is because of this that I affirm the resolution stating Resolved: The US ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants its citizens. Before going further, I would like to define the following terms:
Ought, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is used to express moral obligation.
Citizen, according to the Blacks' Law Dictionary, is defined as members of a political community who follow the rules of said community and in return receive privileges and rights. Grant- according to Oxford Dictionaries is defined as giving (a right, power, property, etc.) for morally or, legally to:
Therefore, this resolution states that the US has a moral obligation to give the same due process protections that it gives its citizens. For the purpose of this debate, I will be using the value of Justice, which can be defined by Law guide Dictionary as the system that works to give each their due. I will be supporting this with a value criterion of Egalitarianism, which is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the doctrine believing in the equal rights of humanity in political, social, and economic respects. My value criterion supports my value because the doctrine of egalitarianism gives fairness and equality to the meaning of Justice in its principles and emphasis of equality under all considerations, including the law. I will be supporting this with three contentions.
Contention 1: The US Constitution supports this resolution completely. Constitutional due process is explained in the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. My opponent may observe how this document supports egalitarianism and does not have bias against those who aren't citizens in the following sub-points.
Sub-point A: The 5th amendment details the legal rights of the people. It states, " No