Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed

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 The premise of this debate was "Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed.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 The USA PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution.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 The NDAA needs to be repealed, because it is in direct violation of the Constitution.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 Were these sections to be haphazardly repealed, many in our military would lose funding, certain protections, and even military families would be seriously hurt.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.