This debate has been interesting. I learned a few things, and I hope that you have too. I enjoyed having a reason to scour legal documents, because I likely wouldn't have done it given my own devices.
While reading my opponents' statements, I've also learned a few things about his relationship to the topic.
My debate opponent has made it clear in repeated instances that whatever he doesn't wish to believe, he simply denies.
For example:
- When the SCOTUS states, "Indeed, it appears that the Government "regard[s] the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled." ... my debate opponent refers to it as the irrelevant part of the ruling. Are parts of a Supreme Court ruling relevant, and are other portions irrelevant? My debate opponent thinks so.
- My debate opponent says, "your source does nothing but make claims and then backs it up by stating that 'there is substantial evidence,' unfortunately for your argument they don't present any of it." If my debate opponent were to understand that this is a big wide world beyond our debate and this website, he would know that the document I was referring to should be read before he claims knowledge of what "they" did or did not do. They, in fact, presented evidence. More about this below.
- My debate opponent says, "the President has used wiretaps without warrants during wartime since Lincoln the authority to do so is found in his executive authority as commander in chief and when FISA comes into conflict with those exclusive powers of the President it is FISA which should be overidden not the Constitution!" But I've shown that the SCOTUS has ruled that FISA is reasonable and not unconstitutional.
- My debate opponent says, "To prove my case you offer a comment from a partisan source that was made after the fact." But was the source wrong or right? My debate opponent (again) doesn't want to go there.
Furthermore, my debate opponent has made it clear in a few instances that he does not understand what it is that I have actually said or quoted.
For example:
- My debate opponent says, "Thanks for making my case for me, you addition to my original statement is much appreciated because it does nothing but further bolster my case that the FISA court itself has already ruled that the NSA program is reasonable, in accordance with FISA, and Constitutional, thanks again." But my quote from the SCOTUS actually stated that FISA is Constitutional, not the NSA program.
- My debate opponent says, "So you don't believe that speaking to known terrorist agents overseas meets the standard of probable cause?" No, I didn't say something that I didn't say. When a court is bypassed, Probably Cause is not being shown or demonstrated.
- My debate opponent says, "you are the one who wishes to violate the checks and balances by granting the legislative branch the right to infringe upon the Presidents executive authority as commander and chief." But the rights that I wish to "grant the legislative branch" are in the Constitution. Furthermore, impeachment is in the Constitution. How can I be violating Checks and Balances when I am arguing for why they are Constitutional? Remember that just a few posts ago I was trying to convince my debate opponent that they were even there. For all of these reasons, I'm not convinced that my debate opponent knows very much about Checks and Balances.
- My debate opponent says, "Do you honestly believe that the SCOTUS is going to rule that the statute can infringe upon the Presidents roll as CINC?" The funny thing here was that I gave an example where they did. And it was not acknowledged by my debate opponent.
There are two examples that I presented in my original argument, which in my opinion, render the President and/or members of his Administration impeachable. I have read no rational counterarguments to these two examples that would make the President unimpeachable.
Impeachment Reason #1: Treatment of detainees. My debate opponent feels that the evidence I have provided was from a partisan source and is therefore not worth considering. My debate opponent says that the excerpt I produced contained no evidence. All I can say is that if my debate opponent didn't dismiss partisans (seriously now, aren't we all?) he might have been curious about the link I posted that my excerpts were from. My opponent states that I wanted to mislead you all into thinking my source was non-partisan. But my link had the words "judiciary democrats" in it. My excerpts stated that there was substantial evidence. I am really not concerned with the partisanship of whomever. And neither should you. My only concern is with whether or not what they say is true or false. By my debate opponent's logic I should just wave my hand in the air, dismiss everything he says as partisan, and he would do the same with me. This is not a logical position.
I made a mistake when posting my link. It is no longer at the location that I posted, at house.gov. It used to be here:
U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Here is the same document:
http://www.truthout.org/3.122005ConRes.pdf
It is 273 pages long. And sure there is evidence there, lots of it. It begins on P. 97, and continues for about a dozen pages. It's unfortunate that in a few short posts, we've gone back and forth on the issue of the SOURCE of the report. It would've been more interesting if my debate opponent had ever addressed the substance of the report. Then, perhaps, we could've had a debate about this impeachable offense.
Dear readers, don't be prepared to hear a refutation of the evidence; be prepared to hear an earful about how anything at truthout.org isn't true.
Impeachment Reason #2: The NSA wiretapping program is illegal. My debate opponent's main counter-argument is that the Court of Review's 2002 opinion, In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001, says that "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." I've already responded to this. The Court's opinion seems to contradict itself. However, the part of
In Re Sealed Case that dealt with FISA (rather than the Fourth Amendment) was nonbinding dicta and does not restrict Congress's power to regulate the executive in general.
My debate opponent makes a lot of noise about the President's wartime powers. But did the AUMF constitute a "declaration of war by the Congress?" It really didn't, however, my debate opponent seems to believe that it did just that, and so much more.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
