Should Obama be impeached for NDAA and Benghazi cover-up?
This has been one of the greatest scandals in American history; some in the media have called this Benghazi-Gate. The president has flip-flopped and lied to the American people and now the media is not covering it. I am astonished that this president can get away with lying, but Clinton and Nixon didn't. I would ask the "con" to please give a good argument why he should NOT be impeached. The NDAA or the National Defense Authorization Act is a law signed in by Obama under the Congress that infringes on the Bill of Rights and I don't think Obama should be trampelling over our rights.
1. No trolling, semantics, etc.
2. Give sources.
3. Don't stray from topic.
2. Opening argument
4. Closing argument
I am just a passionate American that cares about the truth. Please comment if you want more details. Thank you and to the "con" have fun.
I accept your invitation and thank you for the challenge it presents in debating the Con position. I am new to Debate.org and this will be my first debate. I am open to correction on any misstep of proper debate form.
I contend that the President of the United States should not be impeached for the NDAA and Benghazi cover-up. For the purposes of my argument I will refer to Pro’s “Benghazi cover-up” as the Benghazi attack.
First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope this debate will shed light on some topics that hopefully effect people's views. Secondly I would like my opponent and the voters to know that I am not bashing the president, but he has severely screwed up, but to be fair I am going to say however signed this bill and helped the cover-up of Benghazi get impeached as well.
Resolution: Barack Obama should be impeached over NDAA and Beghazi cover-up.
Definition(s): As defined in merriam-websters dictionary.
1. Impeachment: to cast doubt on; especially: to challenge the credibility or validity of
First, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), or more specifically the Indefinite detention Act, is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency without a trial. It is a controversial practice on the part of any government or agency that is in violation of many national and international laws, including human rights laws.  The Indefinte Detention Act (NDAA is the correct term, but for the sake of the debate. Addressing this Act.), signed under President Obama and the 112th Congress, limits the rights of the first and fifth amendment. As well as suspending habeas corpus (No cruel or unjust punishment.). The debate is not about wheter it had been repealed or not, but if it is right or wrong. In my opinion, the Indefinite Detention Act is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that limits our rights. The ACLU claimed that this was unconstitutional and infringed on people's rights on freedom of expression and habeas corpus.  The fact that Obama signed this under his watch is astounding. Look I don't need to tell you that our freedom has been dwindling over the past 10-12 years. After all we are the ninth freest place on earth at the moment , because acts like the Indefinite Detention Clause are passed and the Patriot Act. I mean do you want the government intruding on your life? We have a right to privacy in this country don't we. Now this may sound like my opinion, but we have natural rights. Natural rights in the Declaration and are defended with the Constitution. The presidents in this country now adays stomp on the very document that gives them power. Though this debate is about the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act (Indefinite Detention Act)], I do believe that our freedom is in danger. The bill's name is Senate Bill 1867. Please read the legislation it says it clearly in the law:  Start on page 359.
Now I will begin on Benghazi. The raid on the consulate in Benghazi is one of the most tragic events in American history. I would like to first give respects to those who died from this terrible attack. We now know that Obama and his security team knew within two hours, while the raid was still going on, that the Ambassador was in trouble. They received emails a few hours after the attack.  As time progressed we learned that he DENIED to send in help to the four men.  As we have seen on the media, whenever this question is brought up President Obama gets defensive and frozen. Alright I believe that there are some questions that need answering. NOTE: These are my questions:
So for this round my argument firmly stands: President Obama should be impeached because of the Indefinite Detention Act and Benghazi.
Definition(s): As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1. Impeach (transitive verb): to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically: to charge (a public official) before a
competent tribunal with misconduct in office 
There are many reasons why a citizen might deem the President of the United States unfit to retain his Office. Perhaps he signed a piece of legislation that contained a provision that is unconstitutional and subverts our rights as citizens. Perhaps he has lied to the American people or even grossly mishandled a situation that resulted in 4 American deaths. No matter what charge is levied against the President (by any number of citizens) as grounds for removal from Office, the only way that he can be removed from Office by the will of the people is by being voted out in a General Election.
The United States Congress is however, granted the power to remove a President from Office before his term is expired as stated in Article 2, Section 4 of the US 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." 
Controversy Surrounding NDAA
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a federal law passed every year that pertains to the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense. Other provisions are included in the Act but vary from year to year. The NDAA in question is from fiscal year 2012.
I concede that the NDAA 2012 includes a provision that is regarded by some individuals as unconstitutional; specifically, Section 1021(b)(2). It states that the President has the power to detain US citizens indefinitely if they can be linked to, or are suspected of being linked to a terrorist organization. The President"s decision to sign NDAA 2012 into law though, in no way qualifies him as having committed treason, engaged in bribery, or committed any other high crimes and misdemeanors.
It can be argued that the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" refers to a broad range of offenses that can be brought against the President as grounds for impeachment. Even so, the ultimate authority in making this determination rests with Congress. Considering that NDAA 2012 was passed in both the House and Senate before the President signed it into law, it is doubtful that the very same Congress would determine any part of it as grounds for impeachment. Since Congress would have to convict the President of an impeachment charge regarding subversion of the Constitution, the latest Court ruling on Section 1021(b)(2) protects him against such action as it ruled in favor of the President. The Court granted his appeal to strike down a previous ruling that put an injunction against the enforcement of the disputed provision on grounds of being unconstitutional. 
Since no other arguments can be made against the President in regards to NDAA 2012, I argue that the President should not be impeached.
First and foremost, I wish to express my support for the families of the 4 Americans who died in the attack in Benghazi. Let no one construe my arguments for the Con position as diminutive to or reflective of anything but the highest praise of these men.
My argument that the President should not be impeached for the Benghazi "cover-up" first contends that no "cover-up" exists currently that levels charges against the President as having committed treason, engaged in bribery, or committed any other high crime or misdemeanor. I further argue that while there are vital questions that need to be answered regarding the events surrounding the Benghazi attack, unsupported answers to those questions that implicate the President cannot be provided as facts to warrant official action.
The source I claim in support of my argument is simply the grounds for impeachment (or the lack of in this case) as stated in the Constitution. 
As required by the definition of impeachment, I have successfully argued that the President should not be impeached for NDAA or the Benghazi Attack.
Sources in this section:
I would like to thank my partner for his response.
1. "I concede that the NDAA 2012 includes a provision that is regarded by some individuals as unconstitutional;..." First this is a huge deal because this proves the first half of my argument. There is this oath that any president states at the beginning of each inauguration, which is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  Now this oath cannot be more important to my argument because of the grounds for impeachment, laid out by my partner, are "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Now the meaning of high Crimes and Misdemeanors is crimes that only high officials in Congress, Bureaus, Supreme Court, or the President can do.  So according to a Constitution analyzing website, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are broken oaths.  My argment is that President Obama lied, under oath, to preserve the Constitution due to the NDAA. From the statement he made here it proves my case.
2. "It can be argued that the phrase "high Crims and Misdemeanors" refers to a broad range of offenses that can be brought against the president as grounds for impachment." First of all, this statement also supports my argument. These reasons were stated in my previous rebut in claim 1. Now this argument is that the president is impeached, but I believe the people who signed this law should under-go trials the same as the president.
3. "My argument that the president should not be impached for the Benghazi "cover-up" first contends that no "cover-up" exists currently that levels charges against the President as having committed treason, engaged in bribery, or committed any other high crime or misdemeanor." First my partner failed to give any legitimate argument towards my claim. Second I would like to bring up a question: Why don't we know everything when the president has all the information? As we now know, the consulate in Benghazi was already under watch , the State Department and intelligence community confirmed terrorist attack while Obama administration blamed it on Youtube video (Refer back to the videos in my previous argument.) , Libyan president confirmed it was a terrorist attack, while our administration didn't , the Navy SEALs were denied support , and finally, the press confirmed that the on September 20 the White House started to call the attack on the consulate an act of terror . All of these point to a cover-up that I believe should be able to get the president impeached.
Lastly I would like to reitterate the questions you should ask about Libya:
My argument for this round is that due to lying under oath, not defendeing the Constitution, and the cover-up, as evidenced by in citations 3-7, as grounds for impeachment.
kylelund forfeited this round.
Through my arguments, I firmly believe that president Obama should be impeached for signing our fifth and first amendment right, and dishonorably lying about Benghazi. Please vote "Pro."
kylelund forfeited this round.