Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached

The First Amendment: In the previous round, I mentioned that PRO left unanswered the question of "what first amendment rights were violated" and "who violated them." PRO responded by stating that "As I stated in my opening argument protesters around the country were dispersed by police in coordinated action and this is not disputed by any news organisation (or any right wing nut job propaganda mills as I have included fox news)." But, PRO hasn't demonstrated that the Occupier's first amendment rights were violated. He's just shown that a band of protesters was dispersed by authorities. Moreover, neither the First Amendment's protection of free speech nor protection of the freedom to assemble sanctions the kind of activities that Occupiers were disbanded for in Boston, Oakland and New York -as PRO seems to believe. PRO is mistaken in his assumption that the first amendment protects disturbing the peace, violating content neutral local ordinances regulating assembly and lodging, hampering public commerce and creating concerns for public health and safety. It assuredly does not. In Boston, the Occupiers activities had become corrosive to public good. In PRO's own source, Boston's then mayor Tom Menino is quoted as saying "I agree with them on the issues. Foreclosure. Corporate greed. These are issues I've been working on my entire career. But you can't tie up a city." Likewise, in Oakland, citing PRO's second source, "police arrested 102 people overnight for unlawful assembly and unlawful lodging." In New York, Occupiers were warned that "that physical assaults on police officers will not be tolerated" after a series of hostile interchanges among unlawful occupiers and police and unlawfully causing unrest. While not all occupiers had been violent or unlawful and likewise not all faced arrest, those who broke the law were subject to arrest -and their being arrested did not violate their rights because the first amendment does not sanction the activity which led to those Occupiers being arrested. The Fourth Amendment PRO says that "It seems that con has accepted Obama knew about the NSA spying and has decided to argue that Obama lacked the power to NSA policy." I have said no such thing. Once more, 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 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. Accountability for those violations, then, cannot fall on the Oval Office. Accordingly, PRO's argument that Obama violated the fourth amendment fails and PRO has made no attempt to rebut this point. The Sixth Amendment PRO claims that there was a US Citizen on his DOD list of names. Maybe there was, but absent any way to verify that, his point can't carry. And, even if he were to supply sufficient evidence that someone on that list was an American citizen, it wouldn't matter, because merely 'being detained' at Guantanamo Bay isn't sufficient to prove that a person's sixth amendment rights were violated. And, even if he could prove that a US citizen was unlawfully detained in Guantanamo Bay whose sixth amendment rights were violated, that doesn't mean that Obama should be impeached because the president is not personally accountable Guantanamo Bay detentions. But, even if the president were accountable for Guantanamo Bay detentions, it would be irrelevant because his list only includes names of persons who were detained at Gitmo from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 -BEFORE Barack Obama even took office -meaning that even if we accepted every one of PRO's mistaken contentions, it would be Bush, not Obama, who would be accountable for those detentions. And likewise, PRO essentially ignores every previous argument I've made against everything he's said. To reiterate, PRO has failed to even offer evidence that Barack Obama has violated the US constitution, so by his own logic President Obama can not be impeached. PRO has made no attempt to resound to my charge that he likewise still fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights. As I have stated before, speculation (which is the beginning and end of PRO's sixth amendment argument) is not sufficient to justify presidential impeachment in the United States. But even given such evidence, that alone could not justify impeachment because it does not rise to the constitutionally required threshold for impeachment as stipulated by Art. II, Sec 4. 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. In summation, PRO has not even attempted to counter my theory of why he seeks Obama's impeachment. Perhaps this is because he realizes that his motives for seeking it extend no further than mere political whim. Once more, "impeachment" is "to deal with official misdeeds of a high order, not with petty squabbles" -and perhaps especially not spurious and ungrounded allegations of constitutional violation. In the absence of sufficient grounds to justify Obama's impeachment, it is reasonable to infer that motivations for calls of impeachment are partisan in nature. And yet, impeachment is not a political tool that exists to "vindicate political whims" but is something that is sharply limited, and reserved only for 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) PRO has failed to even begin to justify his claim that our president has violated the constitution, and PRO has similarly failed to justify his claim that Obama should be impeached. As such, I have won this debate. Peace out.