Strat against Constitutionality

Strat against Constitutionality - Constitutionality...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Constitutionality definitely negates. First, the affirmative must prove that it would be just to try juveniles and adults in the same system as the resolution says “be treated as adults” in “the criminal justice system.” Second, don't even dare try to say that we don't have to subject them to the same punishments. Do you really want to have to answer 3 minutes of theory and substance in the 2ar. Ya no. Third, the supremacy clause of the United States dictates that international law is integrated as part of the constitution and upheld as the supreme law of the land Connie De La Vega and Michelle Leighton elucidate: International law, as expressed through international treaties and other agreements , is the supreme “law of the land” in the United States and should be applied in the context of juvenile sentencing. The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.156 Therefore, in order to prove that treating juveniles as adults is constitutional the affirmative has the burden to prove that it does not violate any tenant of the constitution. This burden is self imposed and my articulation of it is merely for clarification purposes. I contend that treating juveniles as adults violates the constitution by ignoring not only jus cogens norms but also by violating many international treaties to which the United States is already a party. Treating juveniles as adults violates the ICCPR De La Vega and Leighton 2 explain: Other recent developments in international law have highlighted the urgent need for countries to reconsider their juvenile sentencing policies and prohibit by law LWOP sentences for child offenders. The prohibition is recognized as an obligation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights140 (“ICCPR”). Article 7 prohibits cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment or punishment,141 and LWOP sentences are cruel when applied to children. Juvenile LWOP sentences also violate Article 10(3), which provides, “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/21/2011 for the course ECONOMICS 302 taught by Professor Wayne during the Spring '11 term at Wayne State University.

Page1 / 3

Strat against Constitutionality - Constitutionality...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online