The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Feelinsofly
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Feelinsofly
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 44285
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Letsdebate24

Pro

These are in direct violation of the constitution
Feelinsofly

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for what should be a very interesting debate. I hope that this enhances both of our knowledge on the issues at hand, and the members also walk away from this debate enlightened (or just having learned something).

Now, let's begin.

I would like to start by clarifying some terms, something my opponent has unfortunately not done. When we speak of the "Patriot act," I will take it to mean the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act passed in 2001 by the United States Congress. When we speak of the "NDAA," based on popular knowledge and context, I will take it to mean the controversial 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. When my opponent says "Americans" I will further take that to mean people who are citizens of the United States.

https://www.aclu.org...

I ask my opponent to correct me on any of these points if I have misinterpreted his intent.

The premise of this debate was "Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed.," which my opponent then clarified by saying in their opening statement that "These are in direct violation of the constitution."

There are three important points my opponent is wrong on.

1. The USA PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution.

Although much ado has been made about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, and rightly so, the Act has over 100 sections. Not all of those sections are unConstitutional, and though my opponent makes this blanket statement, no one in their right mind would say that the "Study of access" or "Sense of Congress" are unConstitutional sections. Therefore, the USA PATRIOT Act is not unConstitutional, contrary to my opponent's assertion.

https://www.eff.org...

2. The NDAA needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution.

This assertion fails for the same reasons as assertion #1, although on a greater scale and with worse consequences. To date, there have been fifty-two National Defense Authorization Acts, authorizing all manner of funding, from navy boats to intercontinental missiles, to drug task forces and more. Some sections have expired,some have not. If someone were to focus entirely on the 2012 NDAA, there are over 300 Sections, amassing over 1,000 pages long. Were these sections to be haphazardly repealed, many in our military would lose funding, certain protections, and even military families would be seriously hurt.

http://armedservices.house.gov...

The only sections that would fail a test of Constitutionality, as ruled by the 4th District Court of New York on September 12, 2012, are Sections 1021 and 1022. In fact, as the court duly noted, Section 1022 relies on section 1021, so Section 1021 would be the only section that would need to be struck down or altered in some fashion. These sections are blatantly unConstitutional, but to throw out all pay for the military with it is not the way to run a country, and not the way to handle legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com...;

3. These laws need to be repealed.

Finally, this fallacy rounds out my opponent's argument. My opponent asserts that these laws need to be repealed, as if that is the only way to fix this problem, or as if it would address the problem at all. Since my argument is that certain sections of both laws are unConstitutional, it would then follow that certain sections of these laws need to be fixed. However, not by repealing them.

Firstly, the USA PATRIOT Act may create new authority, but the 2012 NDAA does not. Instead, as according to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, it allows the military to detain a person under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It merely expands who can be targeted, statutorily.

http://pandaunite.org...

In essence, everything in the 2012 NDAA, section 1021-22 has been claimed, and exercised, by both the Bush and Obama administrations. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration argued that it could detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield under two premises: the 2001 AUMF, and plenary, or inherent, Commander-In-Chief authority under Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with the first argument, and left the second hanging.

After assassinating Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, the Department of Justice under the Obama Administration claimed that their authority was in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. They have since used this "authority" to assassinate 2 other American citizens via drone strike. Repealing the 2012 NDAA, even just the offending section 1021 and 1022, would do absolutely nothing, zip, nada, to prohibit the claimed powers that those sections statutorily codify and slightly expand who can be targeted under.

http://townhall.com...

Repealing the 2012 NDAA sections 1021 and 1022 would be a useless activity. As to repealing the USA PATRIOT Act, it brings us to our second reason why demanding that isn't a wise course.

In a case where repealing the offending sections of a law would actually eliminate the powers therein, demanding a repeal is a largely fruitless, and extremely time-consuming,action. Congressmen are, very obviously, bought and paid for, selling their Oaths and offices to the highest bidder (Some politicians, like Blogoevich, quite literally). To expect to make any meaningful progress turning back legislation introduced to "fight terror" at a national level is quite meaningless, hopeless, and to a certain extent naive. It has taken Congress twelve YEARS to even consider reducing transfer restrictions on cleared Guantanamo Bay prisoners. There has been continued, heated debate on NSA Spying practices, yet Congress has failed to come up with an alternative solution.

Instead, when states take it upon themselves to recognize a law as unConstitutional and therefore ignore it, bringing new state laws into the fray, you have the runaway successes of Colorado's marijuana legalization, Vermont's GMO labeling, and more. With regard to the National Defense Authorization Act specifically, 22 states have introduced legislation, and around 50 localities have done the same, recognizing the detention provision, Sections 1021 and 1022, as unConstitutional, and therefore unlawful to implement in that locality. This enacts change much faster, is more effective, and often works better for a community than Federal, one-size-fits-all fixes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://pandaunite.org...

To recap my points of contention.

1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional.
2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort.
3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized.

Thank you very much for starting this debate, and I look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Pro

You are correct in your assumptions of which I was referring to.

1. The USA PATRIOT ACT Section 215 has been found to be in violation of the 4th amendment by the ACLU and should be repealed. I apologize for the broad wording I have used in round one but I was expecting someone with a general knowledge that only knows of this particular section. I will be more specific in the following rounds.

https://www.aclu.org...

2. Section 1022 and 1021 of the NDAA have been found in violation of the constitution because it allows government agencies and our military forces to indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil or foreign without evidence or due process. Ron Paul has been one of the key political figures opposing 1021 and 1022. This bill is voted on and passed with flying colors every time its comes up and these two provisions were thrown in knowing full well the entire bill would still be passed despite two needles in a haystack.

The NDAA section 1021 and 1022 do in fact expand the governments power by expanding who can be targeted. By creating a broader range of people that can be detained it is an increase in their power.

To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy.
"Broadly, the AUMF gave Bush the power to, "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" Notice how they tie everything to the events of 911. Obama has made no such claim when speaking of the assassination of Anwar. The AUMF was specific to the events of 911 including people which Anwar was never rumored to have any connection. If the AUMF were all they needed to commit such acts the two sections we spoke of would be useless. Section 1021 and 1022 were not claimed to be the basis of his decisions because they were the creation of the Bush administration thus taking some of the pressure off of his latest provisions to the NDAA.
In short it was a political tactic used to make oneself look better.
Taken from your source
"this Court grants plaintiffs" motion and permanently enjoins enforcement of " 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA "

Repealing these sections would simply be the start of a governmental renovation so to speak because it would not be possible to repeal the entirety of unconstitutional laws at once.
Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start.
The administration has been losing support for its tactics and are under a great deal of scrutiny for their actions. I did not state that we should
Feelinsofly

Con

Feelinsofly forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Pro

I await my opponents return
Feelinsofly

Con

See, this is what happens when you don't check your email for a few days. An idea for Debate.org mods: Add text notifications as an option for debate alerts....

I credit my opponent for having a serious working knowledge of both pieces of legislation, something very few debaters, and indeed, activists, have. Unfortunately, since my opponent did not address my points consecutively or concretely, my further answers may be a bit muddied. I will attempt to keep this debate as linear as possible.

Looking back on my closing summary in Round #1:

1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional.
2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort.
3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized.

In my opponent's opening statements, they concede that neither the entirety of the "NDAA" (I will again assume my opponent means the 2012 NDAA) nor the USA PATRIOT Act is unConstitutional. My opponent only argues that certain sections are unConstitutional, lining up with my first point of contention.

This directly contradicts my opponent's statement in Round 1:

"These are in direct violation of the constitution"

Thus, my opponent concedes that "these" meaning the entire acts, are not wholly in direct violation of the Constitution.

In response to my second point of contention, my opponent states:

"To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the claimed powers is a fallacy."

To back up his assertion, he claims that, though the AUMF requires the President to tie any individual he chooses to use force against to 9-11, President Obama did not claim Anwar-Al-Awlaki, an American citizen assassinated via drone strike, was tied to 9-11.Therefore, the AUMF was not all they needed to commit such acts. This means repealing the detention provisions, section 1021 and 1022, of the 2012 NDAA would actually "hinder" Presidential power.

This is a confusing leap in logic, and my opponent is incorrect.

1. Since it seems my opponent assumes that proving the AUMF was no real authority for a military assassination counters my point, I never asserted that the Authorization for Use of Military Force was the ONLY authority the President could pull on to use the powers behind the 2012 NDAA. In fact, I claimed the opposite in Round #1:

"In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Bush Administration argued that it could detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield under two premises: the 2001 AUMF, AND plenary, or inherent, Commander-In-Chief authority under Article II of the Constitution (Emphasis added.)"

2. Anwar-Al-Awlaki's assassination was in September 2011. A military type assassination is allowed under the 2012 NDAA. Yet, the 2012 NDAA was signed on December 31st, 2011...3 months after Awlaki's assassination.

Yasir Hamdi, an American citizen militarily detained by the United States, was captured in 2001. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that he could be detained under the 2001 AUMF. The 2012 NDAA was signed 10 years later.

Jose Padilla', another American citizen, was detained by the U.S. Military in 2002, and denied a civilian trial as an Enemy Combatant. The 2012 NDAA was signed 9 years later.

It is undeniable that the powers statutorily authorized in the 2012 NDAA were claimed, and exercised, before the statute went into effect.

As if any further proof is needed, the Federal government issued a memorandum in March 2009, and cited by Federal Judge Katherine Forrest in her May 2012 temporary injunction against Section 1021, claiming the authority to do everything now in the 2012 NDAA:

"The President has the authority to detain persons that
the President determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those
responsible for those attacks. The President also has
the authority to detain persons who were part of or
substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or
associated forces that are engaged in hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent
act, or has directly supported hostilities, in the aid
of such enemy forces. "

http://pandaunite.org...

Compare this to Section 1021 (b) 1 and (b) 2 of the 2012 NDAA, which defines who can be targeted with military action:

"(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

It is evidently clear that, although the statutory authority did not yet exist, the government claimed it anyway.

3. This leads to my final point, which my opponent agrees with although they may not realize it yet.

Since my opponent rightly shows that, in a reading of the text, the 2001 AUMF did not grant the President the authority to assassinate an American citizen, as the 2012 NDAA statutorily does, there must be some other authority he claimed. After all, the guy WAS assassinated by an American drone.

Indeed there was. Attorney General Eric Holder cited the AUMF as the Presidential authority to do so:

"The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)..."

http://townhall.com...

Although the AUMF does not statutorily allow the President to use military force against an American citizen, Holder claimed it gave the President that authority. Thus, my opponent is wrong when he says "To claim that eliminating these two sections would do nothing to hinder the CLAIMED POWERS is a fallacy (Emphasis added.)" Holder literally does not reference the 2012 NDAA when claiming the same power.

The claimed powers, even in the one case my opponent picked, existed months before the 2012 NDAA, and will continue to exist long after the 2012 NDAA is repealed.

This leads us to my final contention. Repealing these laws is wasted effort and ineffective, and state or local legislation is a better way to go. Since my opponent offers no facts to challenge this, and even partially agrees "Seeking cooperation from state governments would be a great way to start.", I conclusively win this point.

My foremost apologies for missing round #2, and I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Debate Round No. 3
Letsdebate24

Pro

I agree text notifications would be very efficient.

1. As I corrected myself in my original response, I do not believe both laws are unconstitutional in the entirety just particular sections as named previously.
2. To say that it would have no power is simply false, if it were true these laws would never have come into effect. If it did nothing to expand their power they would not have created them.
3. True a state may refuse to enforce any law that is believed to be unconstitutional but the problem is the federal government is not going to declare when the unconstitutional provisions of these laws are going to be used. They happen and the American public may never know it was the federal government that is responsible. They have become quite infamous for having zero accountability. There would be nothing a state could do to keep the federal government from executing the laws within their state borders except file complaints and the federal government is not likely to halt their operations because of complaints.

1. My opponent made the statement "it allows the military to detain a person under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It merely expands who can be targeted, statutorily" and yet claims that repealing these sections will do nothing to hinder their power. By limiting who can be targeted it will directly affect the scope of their power. Though not a one fix all it is a good start. The AUMF is the ultimate source of power needed for section 1021 and 1022 to be used but that does not negate that the two provisions are an expansion of that power.

To compare this scenario to a normal everyday scenario
Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source.

Removing these two provisions would slow the power of the federal government.

2. My opponent correctly states that the 2012 NDAA was signed after his assassination but I believe he is still missing the main point. While eliminating these provisions to the NDAA will not completely stop the federal government from doing as they please but it is the first step in hindering their power. You cannot chop down a tree with one swing of your axe, it takes repetitive swings at the base of the tree. Cut its foundation out from under it.
I never made a claim that if these laws were repealed these situations would come to a halt. The federal government is creating laws faster than we can read them so we have to do the best we can to slow them down.

They create different avenues for their actions to be justified so to allow them to continue creating them would be a threat to the American people. They create "branch laws" which are laws that are created for the sole purpose of giving them multiple methods of justifications making it nearly impossible to prove any illegal act was committed. Apologies for the short response but I am not sure if I will be back in time for a full length response.
Feelinsofly

Con

1. That is otherwise known as a concession, and I agree.

2. This requires a brief explanation of the difference between "statutory authority" and "claimed authority"

If the President has "statutory authority" then he is acting within the limits of a specific law, and the law is narrowly read to give him that authority.

If the President has "claimed authority" then he is acting only on his word. He could cite the AUMF, NDAA, Article 2 of the Constitution, or the Mona Lisa for that matter, all that is required is that he "claims" he has authority.

Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA will do nothing, as I have already said, to affect his claimed authority. In reality, his claimed authority is all that matters if he executes an American citizen with it. He already has.

The only reason the 2012 NDAA was put into place was because it is a legislative "fix" for the power both recent Presidents have already used. It makes legal now what the Executive branch has been doing for years. Repealing it only removes the veneer of legality, it will not, cannot, and does not affect the claimed powers.

3. Whether or not the Federal government declares the use of these provisions, they will be taking a BIG risk every time they use the military to indefinitely detain a person on U.S. Soil. They will want to mitigate that risk as much as possible, and advise local governments on their actions...and to turn a blind eye to them. If state and local governments refuse to turn a blind eye to the unlawful detention of a person by the military, it will cripple the federal government's ability to utilize military detention powers. Federal agents will not risk a firefight with even a lone police department saying "NO."

My opponent is close when they attempt to provide a real-world analogy for the difference between the AUMF and the 2012 NDAA. However, this:

"Imagine the AUMF is the engine of a car, it gives the car the power it needs to move so these two provisions are like adding a turbo to the car. It enhances the speed of the car but without the turbo the car would still work. It is merely an addition to a pre-existing power source."

is incorrect.

The President, whether Bush or Obama, claiming he has the power to detain/torture/execute an American citizen is what gives the car a turbo boost, because that is what the Executive branch exercised to boost the car/execute and detain American citizens. The 2012 NDAA is just Congress making the boost engine street-legal.

Finally, to my opponents last argument. Repealing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA will not slow the Federal government down. It just takes the "street-legal" sticker off the boost engine, while the American people, Guantanamo bay detainees, and citizens abroad still get fried. To believe that the government would pause something as soon as it is illegal, unfortunately requires a great bit of naivete.
Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Pro

2. Again if the 2012 was not useful in expanding the presidents power it would never have come into existence. They simply do not create laws like this that will have no benefit to their power. Removing the legality would make it harder for the president to justify illegal activities. Claimed powers are indeed a problem because the president can and has quite often lately gone outside the proper process under "claimed authority" and there is literally nothing people can do about it. Removing the 2012 NDAA would not be a one fix all but claiming that it would be of no benefit in simply false. The claim that it would fix everything was never made, only that it should be repealed. We have to examine every questionable method used by politicians and eliminate them accordingly.
The bottom line is this, repealing the 2012 NDAA and the Patriot Act would have a more positive effect than leaving them in place.

3. In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". When the president uses the NDAA it is to track down supposed terrorists so why should we believe that local governments only going to go along with the hunt for "terrorists" once? They were eager to catch the suspect. If the federal government wanted to avoid any trouble with local governments they would appeal to them the same way they did in Boston. People tend to see the hunt for terrorists as a justified cause but when a gun ban was attempted they seen it as stepping over the lines and an attack on their constitutional rights. People do not see potential terrorists as having the same rights as a law abiding citizen and this is the type of tactic the president would most likely use to avoid any conflicts.

Regarding the car example: Making it legal is exactly what expanded the presidents power. If there were no laws enforcing his claimed power executing such actions would become more difficult.
While my opponent has stated that repealing the 2012 NDAA would be of no benefit he has failed to offer any clear alternative. The more the president is able to have these laws enacted to legalize any actions taken the more difficult it is going to be for the American people to undue. The federal government is gaining power by an order of magnitude and eliminating laws that are not in the best interest of the American people is the first step to hindering their power.

As I stated before repealing these laws is not going to be a one fix all because no such fix exists. Any action the American people take is going to take time and persistence to be truly effective.
Feelinsofly

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for making this an excellent debate. I am genuinely impressed at their knowledge of war on terror legislation, and have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

With that in mind, since my opponent conceded argument number one, I would like to focus on their final two arguments.

2. Repealing the specific offending provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA would be better than leaving them in place.

I'm an avid poker player, so I think why this concept is incorrect might be best explained with a card game analogy.

The President and the American people are sitting at the poker table. There are three aces down, and one more needed to win the hand. However, the last ace in the deck has already been played, and discarded. The President makes a move to pull another ace out of his sleeve, and Casino security (Congress) catches him red-handed, throws the card away (repeals the 2012 NDAA), and then...walks away from the table.

One problem...the President has an entire deck full of aces (claimed powers) to play, and will win the hand every time. Better yet, the American people won't catch it, because they have been told by Casino security that everything is now alright.

Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA is like taking away one of the President's aces. Until an official body completely prohibits the powers of the law of war, there will always be another ace to play, and taking away one ace not only doesn't do the American people a lick of good, it gives them a false sense of security that the President has no more aces to play...which only makes it easier to play those aces at any time.

Repealing the NDAA makes it easier to detain someone using the military, because it leaves people with a false sense of security while doing nothing to prohibit the claimed powers. That's why it shouldn't be repealed.

3. My opponent states:

"In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". "

There are two parts to my opponent's statement.

The first is somewhat confusing. My opponent essentially saying that we shouldn't makes something illegal because people will just ignore it. If we were to follow this logic, there should be no laws against murder. There should be no laws against theft. There should be no laws against assault. Obviously, this is not a society any of us would want to live, because it is a society without standards. Yet my opponent wants to also repeal the offending provisions of both the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA, which would be in their mind removing the legal cover given to such unConstitutional activity. Removing the legal cover is making something (il)legal, therefore my opponent is contradicting himself.

The second is assuming that local law enforcement would cooperate regardless of the law, unlike the Federal government. Essentially, if the 2012 NDAA were repealed, the Federal government would not use the claimed power, but if a local jurisdiction were to do the same, they would ignore their own statements and help the Federal government anyway. Even though this concern stretches beyond the scope of the original debate assertion, which I have proven false by showing that repealing the provisions above was more likely to cause harm than do nothing, and definitely would not help, I it is still misguided.

It is well known that people defend the lives and liberties of those closest to them. This is why, in war, it is desirable to make the enemy faceless, evil, and nothing more than a dog in the minds of the soldier. The closer a soldier gets to interacting in a peaceful manner with those they are told are their "enemies," the less likely he is to murder, assault, and hurt them.

http://www.davidbirkin.co.uk... (P. 2-3)

Once they understand the threat, local police are much more likely to defend their citizens than a federal agent, or member of the Armed Forces. Especially in a small town. Is it easier to detain and murder your neighbor, or a faceless human being someone called a "terrorist?"

Further, it is much easier to pressure local police to uphold the law than it is to pressure a Federal agency to do the same, and much easier to punish the former for violating it. Local police will face pressure from citizens who helped make the activity unlawful in the first place. Local police will face pressure from elected officials, such as a city council, who passed the law in the first place. When and if that law is violated, local police will face angry citizens, while Federal agents will go home to a place where no one knows what they did. Local police may face a high-pressure lawsuit, and could lose the trust of the public, which they rely on, while Federal agents face no personal or professional repercussions for doing a job in a city 800 miles away.

My opponent points to Boston as the reason local police are likely to cooperate with Federal agents when asked to violate another's rights. Boston is not anywhere near a good example because:

1. There was no local law on the books banning that action, as I advocated.
2. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, the support necessary to get a law passed was not there, and thus there was little to no local opposition.
3. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, police officers assumed there would be no repercussions for the wholesale violation of rights. This led them to take these actions without the pause and second thought breaking the law ensures.

Even further, Federal agents, for the reasons I outlined above, are STILL more likely to violate our rights than a local officer. Thus, the correct, more effective, and workable tactic is to focus on local government and local police to reject the law, having a much better chance at success than repealing the law at a Federal level.

To recap, I again note my original my points of contention.

1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional.
2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort.
3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized.

Since neither of these statements has been effectively answered, and my opponent conceded the first, it is now up to the debate.org community to pick the winner. I thank my opponent for this lively debate and, especially since this is my first debate here, for making it an intellectually challenging, yet rewarding, experience.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Letsdebate24FeelinsoflyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm simply not seeing sufficient response from Pro to push back on Con's arguments regarding both of these laws. The best he's managed to convince me of is that there is some harm, it's very small, and would likely not disappear should these laws be repealed. As such, I don't see enough reason for a repeal. These are reasons to reevaluate the laws, and for the actions that Pro has pointed out as unconstitutional to be blocked from occurring on a larger level, but not reasons to repeal these. The fact that I see harms from repealing certain provisions is all I need to easily side with Con. However, Pro does get conduct due to the forfeit.