Morsi Should Not Have Been Removed From Power by the Military

Egyptian Constitution on ImpeachmentArticle 152 of the Egyptian Constitution states:"The President of the Republic is impeached for felony or high treason if at least a third of the members of the House of Representatives sponsor a motion of impeachment, and the House passes the motion with a two-thirds majority. As soon as the impeachment is in effect, the President of the Republic stops all work. This stoppage is treated as the result of a temporary hindrance that prevents the President of the Republic from assuming his responsibilities. It ends once the verdict is announced. The President of the Republic is to be tried before a special tribunal headed by the President of the High Council of Judges and staffed by the senior deputies of the President of the High Constitutional Court and the State Council, and the two most senior presidents of the appeals courts. The Public Prosecutor assumes the role of prosecutor. If the most senior person is unable to play his part, the person next in seniority takes his place. The law specifies the procedures of the trial as well as the sentence. If found guilty, the President of the Republic is relieved of his duties. This does not preclude additional penalties." [1]As I said before my opponent keeps claiming there was no formal or legal way to remove the President and yet there was. In removing the regime from office by for the military threw the Constitution by the wayside by ignoring it completely, the very thing my opponent says Morsi should have been removed from power for, thus undermining my opponents entire argument. You cannot argue that Group A is in the wrong and yet hold up Group B's actions when the actions of Group B are in the same shade as Group A. It is contradictory and illogical.That is where my opponent's argument falls flat. He says Moris should have been removed for abusing power and ignoring the Constitution by supporting a group who used their military power to ignore the Constitution. The only, and the I mean the only, reason my opponent supports the military's action is because they see it as morally greater than Mrosi's actions when in fact that is merely a perception. The two groups share the same crime.Therefore, I affirm again, if Egypt is to be ruled by the people and by democracy and not by whoever has the most power then you MUST start by respecting the institutions of democracy. By allowing the military to do this once, you have sent a message to them saying they can do it whenever they please. They are guilty of the same crimes of Morsi. Final ConclusionAgain, I say that Morsi was NOT in the right and that indeed he SHOULD have been impeached and tried for breaching the Constitution just not in the way that was conductive. The way that it went down was completely against the principles and goals of the democracy movement in Egypt. What's stopping the military from removing a "good" president? Nothing. The only way to ensure that all presidents are safe from removal is to instill respect for democratic institutions in the military, the government and the people. You can't do this if the country is ruled by the military. The ousting of Morsi has undermined democracy, thrown the Constitution out the window and put people in power who did the very thing Morsi did: use power to ignore the Constitution. Other avenues of removal were available and ignored. The president wasn't even allowed to finish his term. If Morsi tried to OVERSTAY his term as president then you'd have a more legitimate claim to removal by force. Until Morsi was allowed to fill out his full term all other options are mere speculation and thus you have defended the destruction of a Constitution and a democratic institution based on mere speculation. There are plenty of bad presidents in the world. Power hungry leaders. Shady politicians. Yet until they are impeached they must be respected and allowed to stay their term without fear of military removal or else there is no true democracy anywhere. Morsi should not have been removed from office by the military. Letting him remain would have saved lives. It would have respected the fragile Egyptian democracy. The Constitution allowed impeachment but was ignored by the military who abused their power in the name of "the people" to throw the Constitution away. The fact that Morsi was not allowed to serve out his term spoke volumes about the military and the people, until then he should have been dealt with politically. Thus, the resolution is affirmed.Thank you.[1] http://niviensaleh.info...