The Instigator
Dunlj
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

My reasons why Obama should be impeached

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 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,774 times Debate No: 39048
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Dunlj

Pro

Hello to ever my opponent is, I am going to state my reasons why Barack Hussein Obama II the 44th president of the United States should be impeached.

You have probably noticed that this is a one round debate, I am going to state my reasons and you will have to rebut them the best you can. I look forward to the rebuttals to see your take on these issues.

Thank you.

1. Signing the annual National Defense Authorization Act it authorized, at the request of the president (https://www.youtube.com...) the indefinite military detention, without charge or trial (http://www.nytimes.com...;), of any person on U.S. soil including American citizens. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

2. Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration " Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress

3. Barack Obama signed the 2012 Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act (FAARA), which authorized 30,000 drones to begin flying over U.S. soil by 2020. These drones can spy on American citizens (http://www.wired.com...), thus violating the Fourth amendment right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures.

4. One of the key tenets of President Obama"s first election campaign was closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Once he got into office, he claimed closing the facility was "more difficult than I think a lot of people realize." (http://abcnews.go.com...) More difficult, indeed. It is now January 22, 2013, and the president has officially made it impossible for Guantanamo Bay to close under current law.

5. President Obama swore (http://www.factcheck.org...) he would repeal the dangerously named USA PATRIOT Act before his election, which allowed for the limitless, and warrantless, wiretapping of anyone considered a suspected terrorist. The wiretapping provisions of this act, which were used in 1,618 drug cases and only 15 terrorism cases, and violated the Fourth amendment entirely, were due to expire on May 27, 2011. President Obama signed an extension just in time.

6. Congress did not approve Obama"s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4.
bsh1

Con

Hello! I would like to thank Pro for initiating this debate. I will offer a brief overview, followed by a rebuttal of Pro's points.

OVERVIEW:

According to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, "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." [1] This issue that is at stake here is what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, and thus would be sufficient grounds for impeachment. I will assert that none of Pro's points actually meet this standard, and therefore, do not warrant Obama's impeachment.

REBUTTAL:

Points 1, 2, 3, and 5: It is not a high crime or misdemeanor to sign a law or promulgate an executive order. Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has been declaring laws unconstitutional. [2] Pro contends that because Obama has signed, supported, or issued questionable, unethical, or unconstitutional laws that he should be impeached. But, under that rationale, every President since Thomas Jefferson should also have been impeached. Signing into law an unethical or unconstitutional bill is bad--and clearly many of these laws should be nullified--but that is why we have a Supreme Court to evaluate the laws. If Obama signs a law which is subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court, Obama would only being committing a crime if he refused to obey the Court's decision. But, as long as the law stands, he has every legal right to support and enforce it, however unappealing that may be. The basic crux of my point here is that signing dumb or bad legislation isn't a crime, it is only a crime if you enforce it after it is struck down. The same goes for executive orders.

Points 4 and 5: Clearly, failing to deliver on campaign promises is bad, but again, it is NOT a high crime or misdemeanor.

Point 6: You could argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal, but yet GW was not impeached. More importantly though, U.S. involvement in Libya was legal because, as a full member of the UN, the U.S. was empowered to establish a no-fly zone in Libya by UN resolution 1973. [3] While the distinction may seem trivial, there is a legally relevant difference between a police action and a war--the U.S. was engaging in a police action which was legally authorized, and so did not require Congress's approval.

CONCLUSION:

While many of Obama's actions have been distasteful to many, the question here is whether or not his actions meet that standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is not a crime to sign into law a bill, even if that bill restricts rights and grants the government too much authority. It is only illegal to enforce that law after the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. Obama has so far respected the Supreme Court's rulings, and so has not committed any actual crime. Moreover, failing to deliver on campaign promises is hardly unlawful, though it may be dishonest. But, when it comes down to it, Obama was by no means the best president, and was by no means justified in all his actions. But, did he commit a crime? No, he did not. Thank you, please VOTE CON!

SOURCES:

1 - http://www.archives.gov...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LayTheologian 3 years ago
LayTheologian
Okay, show me how wrong I am. What about the 2 illegal wars Bush started?
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
ararmer1919
I can already see someone who will try and bring up the "well what about the 2 illegal wars bush started" BS. It's always funny when people try and say that cause it's always fun when you get to blow it up in their face an show them how wrong the are.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LayTheologian 3 years ago
LayTheologian
Dunljbsh1Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I think it's fairly obvious that Con won this. The criteria for impeachment are fairly specific.
Vote Placed by theHomelessPanda 4 years ago
theHomelessPanda
Dunljbsh1Tied
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: Both parties seem knowledgable, but the Pro's argument suffers from the fact that he does not seem to understand the nature of Impeachable offenses, which the Con smartly includes in his arguments and effectively uses to shutdown the pro's points. Pro would have been better off connecting each of his points to a specific high crime committed by the individual himself, and attempting to substantiate why they qualify as such. That being said, I'm absolutely no fan of Obama. For many of the reasons Pro stated, I did not vote for him, and will be glad when he is gone. However, these cries for impeachment are misguided, and in my opinion attempts to make one man a scapegoat for the actions of a monolithic federal government.
Vote Placed by LtCmdrData 4 years ago
LtCmdrData
Dunljbsh1Tied
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: Obama hasn't, as Bsh1 showed, actually done anything impeachable yet. His analysis of the BOP was definitive. Go Obama!