The US president should have the authority to execute American citizens without judicial oversight.

1. "If the president can"t protect our country, who can? It is the president"s responsibility to protect America from all threats. He is the head of our country, and it is only right to allow him to be able to protect us. It is in his "job description" that he shall protect his country, our country from any and all threats, according to the Constitution and Scholastic."The president is commander in chief of the military, not civilian law. Only during Martial Law does the president have the right to assassinate American citizens. Also, you cannot protect a free nation by assassinating it's citizens, much less without a trial!2. " We chose the president, we awarded him power, and it is completely fair to let him use it"That is not true. Not everybody in the nation voted. Any convicted felon cannot vote. Also, we chose a president that preached about separation of powers. We did not chose a president based on him wanting to assassinate American citizens, because as far as we knew, he didn't.3. "This right would be very difficult to abolish because Obama and the Attorney General support executing citizens with reasonable cause". This is circular logic. Of course a president would support the expanding of his own power! Also, the debate is not about difficulty to abolish; rather, the resolution was "The president should have the authority to execute citizens with reasonable cause". 4. "Another thing, judge, is that the president must have reasonable cause to execute a citizen. Police use reasonable suspicion, so it is something the government is familiar with".This is a false-analogy fallacy. First of all, I don't believe the police have the right to do so either, however, their are still differences. When a police officer searches your car without a warrant, he is not hurting you. He is not interfering with your life. He is denying you a constitutional right, but not necessarily committing a moral wrong. Also, that could be brought up in a trial. However, when the president decides to execute an American citizen, their is no trial afterwards. Their is no judge denying something obtained by a search as submissible evidence. You see, when a police officer searches without a warrant, he is denying you rights. He is not acting as a judge, jury, and executioner. When the president decided to kill someone, he is doing just that. He is gathering the evidence, and judging the evidence and punishment by himself. 5. "I know if we can trust the president to make our laws, we can trust him with protecting us"The president does not make our laws. The Congress does. Also, we only trust the president because their are certain limitations on his power, as with the congress and the judicial branch. 6. Future TyrannyThis is my own argument. Even if the president is a reasonable man, who is truly looking out for the best interests of the American people, that will not always be the case. Adolph Hitler was elected through a democracy, and became a tyrant. If we grant the Executive office the power to do these things now, we are going to regret it down the road when a president decides to kill political opponents, protesters, members of a certain religion, etc. The fact of the matter is, we must put safeguards down now, to avoid tyranny and wrongful deaths in the future.