The Instigator
A341
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
YYW
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,741 times Debate No: 52926
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

A341

Pro

First round is acceptance.
YYW

Con

Brilliant! Many, many, many thanks to my opponent for what I assume will be an extraordinarily intellectually titillating exercise in untangling the mysteries of executive power's intersection with constitutional law!

I'll expect opening arguments in this next round! Let's have some fun!
Debate Round No. 1
A341

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Under Obama a coordinated attack on occupy movement throughout the united states occurred orchestrated by the CIA [1], either Obama has breached the constitution or he has proved a completely ineffective president who has lost control over his own administration in which case impeachment of an ineffective commander in chief seems necessary.

Fourth Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Under Obama the NSA were able to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures on most of the population [2] Obama knew about this, had the power to stop it and didn't, even approved the program [3], this constitutes possibly the single greatest breach of the constitution in the history of the United States.

Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The national defence authorisation act, supported by Obama allows the indefinite detention of a US citizen by the military without trial [4], nothing, nothing could be a clearer breach of the amendment that grantees trial by jury than allowing the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or any right to confront their accusers (though it does just say "accused" in the amendment so citizenship doesn't seem to matter).

Obama has not made any attempt to close guantanamo bay (despite promising otherwise [5]). Guantanamo bay holds prisoners without trial and even without charge, clearly in breach of "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed", furthermore Obama has expanded guantanamo bay by esentually franchising it. Parwan detention facility in Afghanistan is another guantanamo where torture and detention without trial are performed by US military [6] [7] [8].

Summery

As we can see Obama has violated three of the ten amendments in the bill or rights, in order to insure that these amendments still carry meaning Obama should be impeached.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com...

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[3] http://rt.com...

[4] http://www.policymic.com...

[5] http://www.closeguantanamo.org...

[6] http://www.wired.com...

[7] http://www.theguardian.com...

[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
YYW

Con

Resolved: "Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached."

PRO is making the claim, therefore PRO has the burden of proof. First, it is necessary to clarify what impeachment is, what it is not and outline the circumstances under which impeachment is appropriate. Second, I'll explain why what my opponent has argued is insufficient to justify impeachment. Let's get started, then!

Impeachment

Article II, Sec. 4 of the US Constitution states that "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale described high crimes and misdemeanors as established conduct which amounts to "an assault on the constitutional foundation of the republic," such that only wrongs committed against the federal government are sufficient to justify impeachment. (1) Impeachment, then, is only for "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

Understanding the inherently political nature of the impeachment process, in The Federalist 65, Hamilton cautioned that:

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." (2)

It is salient to note, then, that "Hamilton's capitalization of political, more than one legal commentator noted, signified that the Founders meant impeachment to deal with official misdeeds of a high order, not with petty squabbles." (3) Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert and a professor at the College of William and Mary School of Law further explained that "people should not be concerned with reading the tea leaves of partisan politics." (3) Accordingly, there are "strict limits" on Congress's authority to initiate impeachment proceedings such that, "the expectation is Congress will rise above everyday politics and render a constitutional decision" meaning that "the process does not exist simply to vindicate political whims." (1)
At the time of the constitutional convention, the framer's "debates indicated a sharply limited notion of impeachment—one that was limited to abuses of “public trust” or of the “executive power,” such as procuring office by unlawful means or using presidential authority for ends that are treasonous." (4)

The effect of this limitation, then, was to strike a balance between "competing extremes" where on the one hand, impeachment proceedings could be initiated for something as light and transient as ostensible "malpractice, or negligence or duty" or an alternative which would effectively shield the president from impeachment while in office, on the other. (5) By implication, the framers agreed that the impeachment power ought to be narrow, meaning that the president could only be removed for "gross abuses of public authority" such as "the kind of misconduct that someone could engage in only by virtue of holding public office," and impeachment proceedings, absolutely require proof of such abuse that extends beyond mere political differences. (4,5) Differing political philosophies, policy opinions and the like can in no circumstance be used to justify impeachment. (6)

My opponent makes three essential arguments. None of them are sufficient to justify impeachment. Let's explore them, now:

PRO begins by arguing that President Obama "coordinated" an "attack on [the] Occupy movement throughout the United States. He cites an article by Naomi Wolf, writing for the Guardian. The article itself makes no mention of the Obama administration. Neither by accusation nor implication does the article accuse either the president or his administration of violating anyone's first amendment rights. Rather, Wolf argues that it was the FBI which "coordinated the crackdown on Occupy." The article does not demonstrate that the president was accountable for the FBI's actions. After all, the FBI's being a distinct entity from Barack Obama and his administration render's incoherent PRO's argument even if Occupier's First Amendment rights were violated, because the FBI rather than the president and his administration is even accountable.

PRO's second point centralizes on the Fourth Amendment. He argues that "under Obama" the NSA was "able to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures." PRO contends that the President knew of the NSA's activities, and that Obama is culpable because he "had the power to stop it and didn't." PRO's second source from the BBC just reports on some of what the public learned following Edward Snowden's releases. While it may very well be the case that the scope and magnitude of the NSA's surveillance of American citizens manifestly violates the constitution, the NSA's authority to do so was not conferred by the President, nor could Barack Obama have reasonably been expected to stop it. This is because the NSA's authority to conduct the vast surveillance that it does stems from a perniciously broad interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress. (7, 8) Section 215 is ambiguously worded and its interpretation in FISA courts is startlingly obtuse. Insofar as the president lacks the authority to legislate and the authority to review, and is only constitutionally authorized to execute laws passed, the president cannot be held responsible for the NSA's having the authority in question nor can he be held responsible for failing to restrict the NSA's use of congressionally granted authority. Those duties fall chiefly with our nation's legislature and judiciary, respectively.

PRO's third and final point focuses on the 6th Amendment. PRO claims that because Obama has allowed for the "indefinite detention of a US Citizen without trial" he has violated the 6th Amendment's guarantee of "trial by jury." He further alleges that the president's failure to make "any attempt to close Guantanamo bay" which "holds prisoners without trial." But, PRO fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights. Mere speculation that a law might violate citizen's rights, absent proof of such violations, is not sufficient to justify presidential impeachment in the United States. Even given such evidence, that alone would still be insufficient because it does not rise to the constitutionally required threshold as stipulated by Art. II, Sec 4 because such an offense would not necessarily constitute public misconduct, abuse or violation of public trust. Likewise, in the event that a US citizen were to be unconstitutionally deprived of his or her 6th amendment rights, his or her remedy lies not with the president's impeachment but with a plea for review of his case by the judiciary. It should also be said, at this point, that President Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay. (9, 10, 11) Indeed, the president's efforts to close Gitmo were blocked by House Republicans. (9,10,11) Responsibility for Guantanamo's remaining open, then, lies not with the White House but with congress which "has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North". (12)

I'll await my opponent's responses in subsequent rounds. Many thanks to him, judges and any potential readers of the debate.





Sources:

(1) http://www.nytimes.com...
(2) http://avalon.law.yale.edu...
(3) http://articles.baltimoresun.com...
(4) http://www.law2.byu.edu...
(5) Cass R. Sunstein, Impeaching the President, 147 U. PA. L. REV. 279, 285- 89 (1998) (can't find a PDF. Sorry!)
(6) http://pegasus.rutgers.edu...
(7) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
(8) http://www.forbes.com...
(9) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(10) http://www.reuters.com...
(11) http://www.washingtontimes.com...
(12) http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
Debate Round No. 2
A341

Pro

Impeachment

I'm fairly sure violation of the constitution constitutes "abuse or violation of some public trust.".

First Amendment

My opponent created an elaborate strawman claiming that when I said:
"a coordinated attack on [the] occupy movement throughout the united states occurred orchestrated by the CIA".
I meant this:
"President Obama "coordinated" an "attack on [the] Occupy movement".
I'm sorry but there was no way you could have got the second from the first you have blatantly misquoted me in order to further your own argument.

My argument was that one of two possibilities is likely to be correct:

1. Obama knew about the CIA plot to crack down on the occupy movement but hid behind the CIA for public relations reasons in which case he has violated first amendment freedom of speech rights and should be impeached in order to insure constitution still carries meaning.

2. Obama has lost control of the CIA in a way than no previous president has. In this case impeachment (while not necessarily legal) is necessary so an effective commander in chief that can bring the CIA back under control.

[Additional note] Even if Obama knew about the crack down it doesn't mean that he hasn't lost control of the CIA.

Fourth Amendment

My opponent again misleads any potential readers by claiming that I sourced claim that Obama knew about NSA spying to the BBC article whereas in reality I sourced it to an RT article in which an anonymous "high-ranking NSA official" is quoted as stating: "Obama did not halt the operation but rather let it continue," [1].

To claim that Obama was powerless to stop the program is false at the very least he had the power to arrange for a leak of the program which would lead to a similar outcome to the Snowden revelations but as the high-ranking NSA official quoted by Russia Today stated "Obama did not halt the operation" implies that he had the authority to do so.

Sixth Amendment

"PRO fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights."

(At least) One US citizen has been detained without due process in Guantanamo [2] and many more are at least alleged (mainstream media doesn't like to cover the NDAA and so it's difficult to decipher exactly what's going on) to have been detained under the NDAA [3] this should be enough to call a constitutional breach.

"in the event that a US citizen were to be unconstitutionally deprived of his or her 6th amendment rights, his or her remedy lies not with the president's impeachment but with a plea for review of his case by the judiciary."

Just pointing out that this is totally irrelevant.

[1] http://rt.com...

[2] http://www.dod.mil...

[3]http://www.newsfollowup.com...
YYW

Con

I'm going to rebut PRO point by point.

PRO's fundamental argument is that if President Obama has violated the US constitution, then he should be impeached. If PRO fails to offer evidence that Barack Obama has violated the US constitution, then President Obama should not be impeached. PRO has offered no evidence whatsoever that President Obama or his administration has violated the US constitution. Therefore, President Obama should not be impeached. Now, let's explore where PRO's logic falls short...

The First Amendment

PRO has claimed that I straw-manned his first amendment argument. I simplified it, but have not straw-manned it. In the interest of further explicating what I said, let's revisit the previous round. PRO implied Obama's culpability for actions taken against the occupy movement, without evidence. This is the case because (1) there is no mention of anyone's first amendment rights being violated in the article, (2) even if there was a mention of first amendment rights being violated, there is no evidence to suggest that Obama is or would be culpable for that violation. But, the question of 'what first amendment rights were violated' and 'whose rights were violated', PRO leaves unanswered. PRO has not even proven 'that' first amendment rights were violated, PRO's suggestion that Obama was accountable either for his complicity or obliviousness to a CIA plot (if that plot even existed) is moot. PRO has lost this argument.

(And let's talk about the CIA plot PRO refers to. Wolf's article makes no mention of the CIA, but rather focuses principally on the FBI -as I said. PRO complains about my "blatant" misquoting... when he should focus on what his own sources actually say.)

In any event, PRO ignores my argument that even if 'someone's' first amendment rights were violated, culpability for that violation falls not on the president, but elsewhere, because the president is not accountable for the FBI's actions. After all, the FBI's being a distinct entity from Barack Obama and his administration render's incoherent PRO's argument. This is the case because even if Occupier's First Amendment rights were violated, because the FBI rather than the president and his administration is even accountable.

The Fourth Amendment

PRO alleges that I have once more misled potential readers, but his charge is incoherent because his evidence doesn't ground his claim that Obama has violated individual's fourth amendment rights. I think this is because he didn't get what I said... maybe. To reiterate, since PRO completely ignored my response, PRO argues that "under Obama" the NSA was "able to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures." PRO contends that the President knew of the NSA's activities, and that Obama is culpable because he "had the power to stop it and didn't." PRO's second source from the BBC just reports on some of what the public learned following Edward Snowden's releases. While it may very well be the case that the scope and magnitude of the NSA's surveillance of American citizens manifestly violates the constitution, the NSA's authority to do so was not conferred by the President, nor could Barack Obama have reasonably been expected to stop it.

This is because the NSA's authority to conduct the vast surveillance that it does stems from a perniciously broad interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress. (7, 8) Section 215 is ambiguously worded and its interpretation in FISA courts is startlingly obtuse. Insofar as the president lacks the authority to legislate and the authority to review, and is only constitutionally authorized to execute laws passed, the president cannot be held responsible for the NSA's having the authority in question nor can he be held responsible for failing to restrict the NSA's use of congressionally granted authority. Those duties fall chiefly with our nation's legislature and judiciary, respectively. Accountability for those violations, then, cannot fall on the Oval Office. Accordingly, PRO's argument that Obama violated the fourth amendment fails.

The Sixth Amendment

PRO argues that "(At least) One US citizen has been detained without due process in Guantanamo." To ground this claim, he cites a DOD list of all detainees at Guantanamo Bay through 2006. The list does not serve as proof that any of those detainees' 6th amendment rights were violated. And yet, PRO further speculates without evidence that there are others who have too. Maybe that's the case, but until PRO cites real evidence to prove it. But, even if he did, it wouldn't matter. This is because there are differences in due process rights between regular criminals and terror suspects, even if they are US citizens. And, even if those citizen's sixth amendment rights were violated, that doesn't make President Obama accountable.

PROs rebuttal in the previous round is more interesting for what it is not than what it is because even in this third contention PRO has consistent in that he ignores the vast preponderance of what I've said against his case. And yet, PRO still fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights. Mere speculation that a law might violate citizen's rights, absent proof of such violations, is not sufficient to justify presidential impeachment in the United States. And it is significant to reiterate that even given such evidence, that alone would still be insufficient because it does not rise to the constitutionally required threshold as stipulated by Art. II, Sec 4 because such an offense would not necessarily constitute public misconduct, abuse or violation of public trust. Likewise, in the event that a US citizen were to be unconstitutionally deprived of his or her 6th amendment rights, his or her remedy lies not with the president's impeachment but with a plea for review of his case by the judiciary. This is not irrelevant because it proscribes how a citizen whose rights were violated might seek a remedy for that violation. That remedy is not in President Obama's impeachment, but through the US court system.

Similarly, PRO doesn't even acknowledge his basic factual error in claiming that Obama "has not made any attempt to close guantanamo bay." Once more, President Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay. (9, 10, 11) But, the president's efforts to blocked by House Republicans. (9,10,11) Responsibility for Guantanamo's remaining open, then, lies not with the White House but with congress which "has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guant"namo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guant"namo North". (12)

In summation, PRO has offered no evidence that Obama has done anything worthy of impeachment.

Once more, PRO's fundamental argument is that if President Obama has violated the US constitution, then he should be impeached. But PRO has failed to even offer evidence that Barack Obama has violated the US constitution, so by his own logic President Obama can not be impeached. But, as I said in the previous round, "impeachment... is only for "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust" against the federal government. As Hamilton explained in the Federalist 65 and buttressed by Michael Gerhardt, "impeachment" is "to deal with official misdeeds of a high order, not with petty squabbles" -and perhaps especially not spurious and ungrounded allegations of constitutional violation. Hamilton's cautionary warning in the Federalist 65 resonates here, in this debate, as the intent for my opponent's argument for Obama's impeachment at least ostensibly stems more from political disagreement than an actual legal basis on which to justify his proposition. In doing so, PRO ignores the reality that impeachment is not a political tool that exists to "vindicate political whims" but is something that is sharply limited, and reserved only for abuses of "public trust" or of the "executive power," such as procuring office by unlawful means or using presidential authority for ends that are treasonous. (4)

I thank all judges who may read this, and my opponent for a unique and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
A341

Pro

First Amendment

Yes con is correct I should have said FBI instead of CIA but other than that my point still stands. You ask: "But, the question of 'what first amendment rights were violated' and 'whose rights were violated', PRO leaves unanswered.".

As I stated in my opening argument protesters around the country were dispersed by police in coordinated action and this is not disputed by any news organisation (or any right wing nut job propaganda mills as I have included fox news) [1] [2] [3] [4] this directly violates the freedom of speech of those involve and to claim that a midnight raid of peaceful protesters by police does not violate the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment is shear ignorance.

Yes the FBI is a distinct entity but is ultimately under the control of the Obama administration and as such Obama carries at least some responsibility and as I said last time if Obama was ignorant of a nation wide police operation then he is ineffectual and needs to be impeached (even if not necessarily legal although politicians can more or less decide the criteria for impeachment at will).

Fourth Amendment

It seems that con has accepted Obama knew about the NSA spying and has decided to argue that Obama lacked the power to NSA policy. This is obviously incoherent as it is way within the bounds of an executive order to do so.

The Sixth Amendment

First I would like to explain why I sited [5] was because there is a US citizen on that list but regardless I don't see the importance of those held without trial being US citizens, from my limited knowledge of the constitution I don't remember anywhere it stating that the rights enshrined in the bill of rights only applying to US citizens and the US government even admits itself that there are people held without trial or charge [6].

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

[2] http://edition.cnn.com...

[3] http://www.foxnews.com...

[4] http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

[5] http://www.dod.mil...

[6] https://www.aclu.org...
YYW

Con

The First Amendment:

In the previous round, I mentioned that PRO left unanswered the question of "what first amendment rights were violated" and "who violated them." PRO responded by stating that "As I stated in my opening argument protesters around the country were dispersed by police in coordinated action and this is not disputed by any news organisation (or any right wing nut job propaganda mills as I have included fox news)." But, PRO hasn't demonstrated that the Occupier's first amendment rights were violated. He's just shown that a band of protesters was dispersed by authorities. Moreover, neither the First Amendment's protection of free speech nor protection of the freedom to assemble sanctions the kind of activities that Occupiers were disbanded for in Boston, Oakland and New York -as PRO seems to believe.

PRO is mistaken in his assumption that the first amendment protects disturbing the peace, violating content neutral local ordinances regulating assembly and lodging, hampering public commerce and creating concerns for public health and safety. It assuredly does not. In Boston, the Occupiers activities had become corrosive to public good. In PRO's own source, Boston's then mayor Tom Menino is quoted as saying "I agree with them on the issues. Foreclosure. Corporate greed. These are issues I've been working on my entire career. But you can't tie up a city." Likewise, in Oakland, citing PRO's second source, "police arrested 102 people overnight for unlawful assembly and unlawful lodging." In New York, Occupiers were warned that "that physical assaults on police officers will not be tolerated" after a series of hostile interchanges among unlawful occupiers and police and unlawfully causing unrest. While not all occupiers had been violent or unlawful and likewise not all faced arrest, those who broke the law were subject to arrest -and their being arrested did not violate their rights because the first amendment does not sanction the activity which led to those Occupiers being arrested.

The Fourth Amendment

PRO says that "It seems that con has accepted Obama knew about the NSA spying and has decided to argue that Obama lacked the power to NSA policy." I have said no such thing. Once more, while it may very well be the case that the scope and magnitude of the NSA's surveillance of American citizens manifestly violates the constitution, the NSA's authority to do so was not conferred by the President, nor could Barack Obama have reasonably been expected to stop it because the NSA's authority to conduct the vast surveillance that it does stems from a perniciously broad interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress. (7, 8) Section 215 is ambiguously worded and its interpretation in FISA courts is startlingly obtuse. Insofar as the president lacks the authority to legislate and the authority to review, and is only constitutionally authorized to execute laws passed, the president cannot be held responsible for the NSA's having the authority in question nor can he be held responsible for failing to restrict the NSA's use of congressionally granted authority. Those duties fall chiefly with our nation's legislature and judiciary, respectively. Accountability for those violations, then, cannot fall on the Oval Office. Accordingly, PRO's argument that Obama violated the fourth amendment fails and PRO has made no attempt to rebut this point.

The Sixth Amendment

PRO claims that there was a US Citizen on his DOD list of names. Maybe there was, but absent any way to verify that, his point can't carry. And, even if he were to supply sufficient evidence that someone on that list was an American citizen, it wouldn't matter, because merely 'being detained' at Guantanamo Bay isn't sufficient to prove that a person's sixth amendment rights were violated. And, even if he could prove that a US citizen was unlawfully detained in Guantanamo Bay whose sixth amendment rights were violated, that doesn't mean that Obama should be impeached because the president is not personally accountable Guantanamo Bay detentions. But, even if the president were accountable for Guantanamo Bay detentions, it would be irrelevant because his list only includes names of persons who were detained at Gitmo from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 -BEFORE Barack Obama even took office -meaning that even if we accepted every one of PRO's mistaken contentions, it would be Bush, not Obama, who would be accountable for those detentions.

And likewise, PRO essentially ignores every previous argument I've made against everything he's said. To reiterate, PRO has failed to even offer evidence that Barack Obama has violated the US constitution, so by his own logic President Obama can not be impeached. PRO has made no attempt to resound to my charge that he likewise still fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights. As I have stated before, speculation (which is the beginning and end of PRO's sixth amendment argument) is not sufficient to justify presidential impeachment in the United States. But even given such evidence, that alone could not justify impeachment because it does not rise to the constitutionally required threshold for impeachment as stipulated by Art. II, Sec 4. Likewise, in the event that a US citizen were to be unconstitutionally deprived of his or her 6th amendment rights, his or her remedy lies not with the president's impeachment but with a plea for review of his case by the judiciary.

In summation, PRO has not even attempted to counter my theory of why he seeks Obama's impeachment. Perhaps this is because he realizes that his motives for seeking it extend no further than mere political whim.

Once more, "impeachment" is "to deal with official misdeeds of a high order, not with petty squabbles" -and perhaps especially not spurious and ungrounded allegations of constitutional violation. In the absence of sufficient grounds to justify Obama's impeachment, it is reasonable to infer that motivations for calls of impeachment are partisan in nature. And yet, impeachment is not a political tool that exists to "vindicate political whims" but is something that is sharply limited, and reserved only for abuses of "public trust" or of the "executive power," such as procuring office by unlawful means or using presidential authority for ends that are treasonous. (4) PRO has failed to even begin to justify his claim that our president has violated the constitution, and PRO has similarly failed to justify his claim that Obama should be impeached. As such, I have won this debate.

Peace out.
Debate Round No. 4
A341

Pro

I admit you have won the debate and convinced me that Obama should not be impeached and himself did not violate the constitution. I do still hold to the first, fourth and sixth amendments being violated by governmental entities but not by Obama himself.

All voters please give all seven points to con.
YYW

Con

Pro's said 'vote con' -so, there's really not much more to say on the debate itself. But, I will state, nonetheless, that I am personally impressed that he stuck out through the whole debate. That kind of perseverance is rare among newer members, and I'm happy to see it. Many thanks to PRO for this debate, and I look forward to seeing him continue to learn and grow on this site!

Peace and Love,

YYW
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
While you will most certainly win and pro will forfeit probably every round, I'm noting the sarcasm.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
A341YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded and admitted to Con's arguments at the end.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
A341YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Gracious concession by Pro. Pro put up a decent fight for a new member and for such a young debater. I encourage him to stay on the site and continue to debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
A341YYWTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
A341YYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Honorable concession on Pro's part.