Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached

Resolved: "Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached."PRO is making the claim, therefore PRO has the burden of proof. First, it is necessary to clarify what impeachment is, what it is not and outline the circumstances under which impeachment is appropriate. Second, I'll explain why what my opponent has argued is insufficient to justify impeachment. Let's get started, then!ImpeachmentArticle II, Sec. 4 of the US Constitution states that "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." Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale described high crimes and misdemeanors as established conduct which amounts to "an assault on the constitutional foundation of the republic," such that only wrongs committed against the federal government are sufficient to justify impeachment. (1) Impeachment, then, is only for "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."Understanding the inherently political nature of the impeachment process, in The Federalist 65, Hamilton cautioned that:"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." (2)It is salient to note, then, that "Hamilton's capitalization of political, more than one legal commentator noted, signified that the Founders meant impeachment to deal with official misdeeds of a high order, not with petty squabbles." (3) Michael Gerhardt, an impeachment expert and a professor at the College of William and Mary School of Law further explained that "people should not be concerned with reading the tea leaves of partisan politics." (3) Accordingly, there are "strict limits" on Congress's authority to initiate impeachment proceedings such that, "the expectation is Congress will rise above everyday politics and render a constitutional decision" meaning that "the process does not exist simply to vindicate political whims." (1) At the time of the constitutional convention, the framer's "debates indicated a sharply limited notion of impeachment—one that was limited to abuses of “public trust” or of the “executive power,” such as procuring office by unlawful means or using presidential authority for ends that are treasonous." (4)The effect of this limitation, then, was to strike a balance between "competing extremes" where on the one hand, impeachment proceedings could be initiated for something as light and transient as ostensible "malpractice, or negligence or duty" or an alternative which would effectively shield the president from impeachment while in office, on the other. (5) By implication, the framers agreed that the impeachment power ought to be narrow, meaning that the president could only be removed for "gross abuses of public authority" such as "the kind of misconduct that someone could engage in only by virtue of holding public office," and impeachment proceedings, absolutely require proof of such abuse that extends beyond mere political differences. (4,5) Differing political philosophies, policy opinions and the like can in no circumstance be used to justify impeachment. (6)My opponent makes three essential arguments. None of them are sufficient to justify impeachment. Let's explore them, now:PRO begins by arguing that President Obama "coordinated" an "attack on [the] Occupy movement throughout the United States. He cites an article by Naomi Wolf, writing for the Guardian. The article itself makes no mention of the Obama administration. Neither by accusation nor implication does the article accuse either the president or his administration of violating anyone's first amendment rights. Rather, Wolf argues that it was the FBI which "coordinated the crackdown on Occupy." The article does not demonstrate that the president was accountable for the FBI's actions. After all, the FBI's being a distinct entity from Barack Obama and his administration render's incoherent PRO's argument even if Occupier's First Amendment rights were violated, because the FBI rather than the president and his administration is even accountable. PRO's second point centralizes on the Fourth Amendment. He argues that "under Obama" the NSA was "able to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures." PRO contends that the President knew of the NSA's activities, and that Obama is culpable because he "had the power to stop it and didn't." PRO's second source from the BBC just reports on some of what the public learned following Edward Snowden's releases. While it may very well be the case that the scope and magnitude of the NSA's surveillance of American citizens manifestly violates the constitution, the NSA's authority to do so was not conferred by the President, nor could Barack Obama have reasonably been expected to stop it. This is because the NSA's authority to conduct the vast surveillance that it does stems from a perniciously broad interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress. (7, 8) Section 215 is ambiguously worded and its interpretation in FISA courts is startlingly obtuse. Insofar as the president lacks the authority to legislate and the authority to review, and is only constitutionally authorized to execute laws passed, the president cannot be held responsible for the NSA's having the authority in question nor can he be held responsible for failing to restrict the NSA's use of congressionally granted authority. Those duties fall chiefly with our nation's legislature and judiciary, respectively.PRO's third and final point focuses on the 6th Amendment. PRO claims that because Obama has allowed for the "indefinite detention of a US Citizen without trial" he has violated the 6th Amendment's guarantee of "trial by jury." He further alleges that the president's failure to make "any attempt to close Guantanamo bay" which "holds prisoners without trial." But, PRO fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights. Mere speculation that a law might violate citizen's rights, absent proof of such violations, is not sufficient to justify presidential impeachment in the United States. Even given such evidence, that alone would still be insufficient because it does not rise to the constitutionally required threshold as stipulated by Art. II, Sec 4 because such an offense would not necessarily constitute public misconduct, abuse or violation of public trust. Likewise, in the event that a US citizen were to be unconstitutionally deprived of his or her 6th amendment rights, his or her remedy lies not with the president's impeachment but with a plea for review of his case by the judiciary. It should also be said, at this point, that President Obama did try to close Guantanamo Bay. (9, 10, 11) Indeed, the president's efforts to close Gitmo were blocked by House Republicans. (9,10,11) Responsibility for Guantanamo's remaining open, then, lies not with the White House but with congress which "has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial -- a sort of Guantánamo North". (12)I'll await my opponent's responses in subsequent rounds. Many thanks to him, judges and any potential readers of the debate.Sources:(1) http://www.nytimes.com...(2) http://avalon.law.yale.edu...(3) http://articles.baltimoresun.com...(4) http://www.law2.byu.edu...(5) Cass R. Sunstein, Impeaching the President, 147 U. PA. L. REV. 279, 285- 89 (1998) (can't find a PDF. Sorry!)(6) http://pegasus.rutgers.edu...(7) http://www.law.cornell.edu...(8) http://www.forbes.com...(9) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(10) http://www.reuters.com...(11) http://www.washingtontimes.com...(12) http://www.foreignaffairs.com...