Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

Thanks Pro! Although I enjoyed reading my opponent's offering, to be candid, I found his claims to be lacking. Below you will find my response to what he said. I use capitalization for emphasis only. OVERVIEW Although my opponent cited the petition2congress website, the text of the "crimes" were copied and pasted from the website without providing quotation marks before and after the copy/paste. In the future, in order to avoid plagiarism, I humbly suggest my opponent use quotation marks when quoting directly from a source. WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING In round one, my opponent describes HOW a President can be impeached. This isn't what we're debating. Both my opponent and I agree that any President CAN be impeached. The topic we are debating here is if President Obama SHOULD be impeached. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS My opponent mentioned that a President can be impeached for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors", but surprisingly didn't give us any barometer on how to judge if an action rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". Simply listing a bunch of alleged "crimes" is not good enough. As he has the burden of proof, he needs to show us where the "high crimes" threshold is, and how President Obama has breached this threshold. PRO'S QUESTIONABLE SOURCES With all due respect to my opponent, his source, petition2congress.com is just that... a petition. Anyone can go on there and say anything they want without offering any evidence. If you notice, none of the alleged "crimes" the petitioner is claiming have any accompanying source. How do we know we can trust the accusations the petitioner is laying without any evidence? The answer is, we can't. As the person arguing that President Obama SHOULD be impeached, it's my opponent's job to provide actual evidence, and not just empty claims. WHAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED? BURDEN OF PROOF Several of the "crimes" Pro accuses President Obama of committing have no obvious connection to what anyone would call a crime. Again, since my opponent has the full burden of proof of this debate, in order to win this debate, he has to provide evidence of the following: 1. Demonstrate that President Obama committed a crime. 2. Illustrate how the crime rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". 3. That impeachment would be the best course of action. 4. That impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good. It is this last one I would like to expand on. If President Obama is such a bad President, I'm not sure impeachment wouldn't do more harm than good. After all, when Bill Clinton was brought up on impeachment charges, the public turned defend him. They saw it merely as a vindictive witch hunt by the Republicans. Clinton's approval ratings were 60% before the investigation, and jumped to 64% during the trial. [1] Afterwards, Republicans failed to gain any seats in Congress, which in turn only served to increase President Clinton's power. [2] If history is a good guide to future events (in my experience it is), the same thing would happen if Obama went through the impeachment process. [3] This is the last thing anyone who thinks President Obama is a bad President wants to happen. BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT "Crimes" 1 and 2 took place before Obama became President. Impeachment is for actions taken by the President while he/she is President. So with that in mind, 1 and 2 are irrelevant to this debate. Sources: 1. http://www.gallup.com... 2.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.foxnews.com...