My reasons why Obama should be impeached

Hello! I would like to thank Pro for initiating this debate. I will offer a brief overview, followed by a rebuttal of Pro's points. OVERVIEW: According to Article II, Section 4 of the 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." [1] This issue that is at stake here is what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor, and thus would be sufficient grounds for impeachment. I will assert that none of Pro's points actually meet this standard, and therefore, do not warrant Obama's impeachment. REBUTTAL: Points 1, 2, 3, and 5: It is not a high crime or misdemeanor to sign a law or promulgate an executive order. Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has been declaring laws unconstitutional. [2] Pro contends that because Obama has signed, supported, or issued questionable, unethical, or unconstitutional laws that he should be impeached. But, under that rationale, every President since Thomas Jefferson should also have been impeached. Signing into law an unethical or unconstitutional bill is bad--and clearly many of these laws should be nullified--but that is why we have a Supreme Court to evaluate the laws. If Obama signs a law which is subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court, Obama would only being committing a crime if he refused to obey the Court's decision. But, as long as the law stands, he has every legal right to support and enforce it, however unappealing that may be. The basic crux of my point here is that signing dumb or bad legislation isn't a crime, it is only a crime if you enforce it after it is struck down. The same goes for executive orders. Points 4 and 5: Clearly, failing to deliver on campaign promises is bad, but again, it is NOT a high crime or misdemeanor. Point 6: You could argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal, but yet GW was not impeached. More importantly though, U.S. involvement in Libya was legal because, as a full member of the UN, the U.S. was empowered to establish a no-fly zone in Libya by UN resolution 1973. [3] While the distinction may seem trivial, there is a legally relevant difference between a police action and a war--the U.S. was engaging in a police action which was legally authorized, and so did not require Congress's approval. CONCLUSION: While many of Obama's actions have been distasteful to many, the question here is whether or not his actions meet that standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." It is not a crime to sign into law a bill, even if that bill restricts rights and grants the government too much authority. It is only illegal to enforce that law after the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional. Obama has so far respected the Supreme Court's rulings, and so has not committed any actual crime. Moreover, failing to deliver on campaign promises is hardly unlawful, though it may be dishonest. But, when it comes down to it, Obama was by no means the best president, and was by no means justified in all his actions. But, did he commit a crime? No, he did not. Thank you, please VOTE CON! SOURCES: 1 - http://www.archives.gov... 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...