The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders.
Debate Title: "The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders.
Con: "I believe that the Constitution does not apply to non citizens [or] outside of American borders."
Because the debate title uses the word “does” as opposed to “should”, this is a legal debate, not a policy debate. This debate is not about whether the US constitution should or should not apply. This debate is about whether the US constitution does or does not apply.
THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO NON-CITIZENS
USCIS - “The Constitution and laws of the United States give many rights to both citizens and non-citizens living in the United States.”
USDOJ – “The Thirteenth Amendment protects every person in America—all races and creeds, citizens and non-citizens, children and adults—from the bondage of slavery.” [2 – Page 14]
“The due process clauses in the Constitution protect all people, both citizens and non-citizens” [2 – Page 21]
These statements strongly indicate that the constitution does apply non-citizens. USCIS and USDOJ are credible sources.
THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION APPLIES OUTSIDE OF AMERICAN BORDERS
Lets look at the SCOTUS case Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
Some quotes from the opinion:
“Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” “Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus”. “We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege.” [3 – Page 9] “We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.” [3 – Page 49] “[F]or the first time, this Court holds there is […] constitutional habeas jurisdiction over aliens imprisoned by the military outside an area of de jure national sovereignty”. [3 – Pages 79-80]
It looks like the constitution is applying to noncitizens outside of American borders. The SCOTUS is a credible authority on American law.
"The debate Title does not you the words 'does' therefore you just wasted a round. "
Nope, I did not. While it is true that I made a mistake when I asserted that the debate title says "does", my conclusion that this is a legal debate, not a policy debate, is still true nonetheless.
Debate Title: "The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders."
To elaborate many Americans seem to believe that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay should be treated constitutionally or when an American dies overseas via US drone strike there are always claims of their rights being violated. I move to suggest that the constitution applies only to American citizens within US borders.
You can move all you want, but the constitution does apply to non citizens outside of American borders. The SCOTUS case I cited shows that clearly.
Why does the Federal government decide the media is allowed in his war zone but not that one? The answer is because the constitution does not apply in said war zone. Why do we imprison terrorists is Guantanamo instead of in the US? The answer is because if we bring them here they will receive constitutional protection.
Interestingly Georgetown Law University disagrees with you, but I don't feel the need to copy past others work.
Here is the resolution: "The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders."
The resolution is ambiguous as to the extent to which the constitution applies to non citizens and outside of American borders. The resolution only asserts that the constutiton does apply to some extent. The resolution does not assert that the constitution applies anywhere, everywhere, and always. The following is a statement with a structure similar to the resolution:
"John Doe runs outside of American borders." This statement does not mean that John Doe runs in North Korea, France, Turkey, and the middle east.
Con states that Georgetown Law University disagrees with me, but doesn't show us what the university said how it would be inconsistent with my position. Con merely posts a PDF link. Con may or may not have actually read it. I won't do Con's work for him.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|