XO and Consult Congress CPs - Michigan7 2013 BFJR

XO & Consult Congress CPs
BFJR 7wk
Executive Order CP
1NC
Text: The president of the United States should
The CP solves
Hsu 12 (David T. Hsu - Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Pennsylvanias Browne Center for International
Politics, Executive Discretion, Domestic Constraints, and Patterns of Post-9/11 U.S. Foreign Economic Policy,
September 2012, Pg 6, http://davidthsu.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/hsu-patterns-of-post911-us-foreign-economic-
policy-september-2012.pdf) MaxL
The specific empirical puzzle, howto explain the pattern of U.S. foreign economic
engagement in the context of post-9/11 security pressures, relates to the broader theoretical
debate about the politics of foreign economic policy (Krasner 1978; Ikenberry, et al.
1988). Much of the previous research maintains that the president has strategic advantages
in controlling foreign policy. Informational advantages enable the
president to mobilize pressure in favor of a preferred policy agenda with
greater knowledge of strategic imperatives and alternative relative to legislators. 11 In
tandem with the ability to exercise unilateral powers (via executive order,
memorandum, and other directives), presidents are in a unique position to lead at
the front-end of the policy-making process. 12 This reasoning justifies an analytical focus
on the presidents strategic motivations for manipulating foreign economic policies.
<Insert prez powers net benefit and/or run politics and insert doesnt link
to politics card>
XO Solvency
Generic
XO solves best- 5 reasons
Pauly and Lansford 3 (Robert and Tom, professor of history and political Science at Norwich University
and assistant professor of political science, University of Southern Mississippi, American Diplomacy, National
Security Policy and the Strong Executive: The French and American Presidents and the War on Terror, June, 2003
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_04-06/lansfordpauly_exec/lansfordpauly_exec.html) SC
France and the United States have presidential systems which give their nations
highest elected official wide powers to conduct foreign and security policy. To
different degrees, the division of responsibilities for both nations highest office
reflects Wildavskys concept of two-presidencies in which one facet represents
domestic policy and one represents foreign policy.1 In writing about the U.S. chief
executive, Wildavsky summarized contemporary scholarship on the foreign policy
powers of the presidency and identified five main reasons for the concentration of
power: 1) since foreign policy and security issues often need fast action, the
executive rather than the legislative branch of government is the more appropriate
decision-making structure; 2) the Constitution grants the president broad formal
powers; 3) because of the complexities involved voters tend to delegate to the
president their trust and confidence to act; 4) the interest group structure is
weak, unstable and thin; and 5) the legislature follows a self-denying ordinance
since tradition and practicality reinforce the power of the chief executive.2
Wildavskys work is echoed by many scholars, including Logan, who contends that
in Western democracies, the mass public consciously or unconsciously cedes
influence to politicians and policy elites.3
Cuba
Executive orders should be first steps to lifting restrictions against Cuba
Richardson 10 (Bill Richardson Governor and former UN ambassador, The Washington Post, Time for
Western Hemisphere countries to collaborate, 8-14-10, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304982.html) MaxL
as a first step to changing our policy toward Cuba, the president
-- Second,
should issue an executive order to lift as much of the travel ban as possible. The
travel ban penalizes U.S. businesses, lowers our credibility in Latin
America and fuels anti-U.S. propaganda. Lifting the ban would also be a reciprocal gesture for
Cuba's recent agreement, negotiated among the Catholic Church, the Spanish government and President Ra?l
Obama has taken significant steps to loosen
Castro, to release political dissidents.
restrictions on family travel, remove limits for remittance and expand
cooperation in other areas such as expanding the export of humanitarian goods
from the United States into Cuba. Loosening travel restrictions is in U.S. interests and would be
a bold move toward normalization of relations with Cuba.
An executive order can remove embargo provisions it wont be rolled

back
ASCE 09 (Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, Lifting the Cuban Embargo:
The New Labors of Hercules?, Cuba in Transition, 2009,
http://www.ascecuba.org/publications/proceedings/volume19/pdfs/traviesodiaz.pdf) MaxL
The actions taken by the United States in the past to remove trade
embargoes against foreign countries appear to show that, unless such lifting is specifically limited by
the legislation, Presidential decisions and determinations are sufficient authority to lift
trade embargoes. On that basis, removing the TWEA as a source of the Cuban
trade embargo would be straightforward. The simplest procedure would be for the President
to abstain from issuing the required annual Determination that exercise of the TWEA authority with respect to Cuba
An alternative, but perhaps more controversial, course
is in the national interest of the United States.
of action would be for the President to issue an executive order expressly
ending the state of emergency with regard to Cuba. The same document
could repeal other elements of the embargo, such as some of the CACR issued after March
1996. Alternatively, the Treasury Department could take administrative action to rescind the post-1996 CACR.64 In
the case of the Foreign Assistance Act, Section 620(a)(1) of the FAA, 22 U.S.C. 2370(a)(1), authorizes the President
This section is
to establish and maintain a total embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba.
leaves the President free to determine whether to
clearly permissive and
maintain the embargo, and consequently whether to lift it. The
President could remove the embargo, to the extent it is imposed under this provision, by an
executive order that rescinds President Kennedys Proclamation and revokes all subsequent
executive orders and regulations thereunder implementing aspects of the
embargo. The President could also take this action unilaterally , without reference
to any external events.
The CP solves for Cuba and avoids the link to politics

Progreso 10 (Progreso Weekly, Why President Obama should Issue and Executive
Order on Travel to Cuba, 11/24/10, http://progreso-
weekly.com/ini/index.php/cuba/144-angelicas-eyes-on-washington-blogs/angelicas-
eyes-on-washington/495-why-president-obama-should-issue-an-executive-order-on-
travel-to-cuba)//LA
The administration is considering an Executive Order to be issued by the
President that would broaden the scope of whats generally called people to people non-
tourist travel to Cuba. This is the same authority President Obama used in
April 2009 to restore the unrestricted rights of Cuban Americans to visit
their families on the island. Issuing the executive order is in the economic
interest, the foreign policy interest, and the national security interest of
the U.S. It fulfills the Presidents commitment to seek new openings with
Cuba, and encourages and responds to the processes of change going on
in Cuba itself. There is broad support for these changes among U.S.
organizations and constituencies. Announcing an executive order to
permit more travel to Cuba and more engagement would not harm the
President politically. In fact, it would strengthen the President at home
and position the U.S. on the side of the Cuban people at a critical moment
in their history. 1. Opening up Cuba to non-tourist travel is the right thing to do U.S. citizens should interact
more with the Cuban people, and so the U.S. government should reduce restrictions on purposeful travel by
Americans to Cuba. Religious groups visiting congregations on the island, and students engaged in academic
programs and research, are positive examples of how Americans can engage the Cuban people directly. The
Implementing the
Executive Order will remove the senseless and onerous barriers to those interactions. 2.
EO fulfills the Presidents commitment on policy toward Cuba In the campaign and
later at the Summit of the Americas, President Obama promised to engage Cuba if Cubas government took steps to
reform its economy and release political prisoners. Cuba is in the process of laying off 500,000 state workers and
expanding self-employment and the small business sector in order to absorb the unemployed workers. It has also
Issuing the Executive Order now would
freed more than 50 political prisoners since July 2010.
demonstrate recognition of the important changes taking place in Cuba
and the U.S.s interest in encouraging continued reforms. It would fulfill
the commitment the President made. 3. There is substantial support in
Congress More than 180 Members of the 111th Congress have
cosponsored Cuba travel and agricultural trade legislation, including at
least 16 Republicans. In the Senate, 44 Senators have cosponsored
legislation to ease Cuba travel and trade restrictions and many more would vote in favor of such proposals
today. There will still be substantial support for ending the travel ban in the
next Congress, in both the Senate and the House. 4. Its in the economic interests of the
United States to support this change While the President cannot lift the travel ban outright, the administration can
issue regulations that significantly increase travel to Cuba, and also reduce transactional barriers to U.S. food
exports, both of which will be welcomed by agriculture and business groups as a step in the right direction. Thats
why business groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Foreign Trade Council urged the
Administration earlier this month to support expanded travel and agricultural trade opportunities. The AFL-CIOs last
convention approved a resolution in support of ending the travel ban. Both business groups and labor recognize
that its in our interest to increase travel and expand exports to Cuba. 5. Its in the national security interest of the
United States. Within the last year, a group retired generals and flag officers called on the President to relax
restrictions on trade and travel with Cuba. 6. Respected faith, human rights and foreign policy groups support the
change Progressive groups, the religious community, academics, and the human rights community are vigorously
pressing for policy change in a stronger, more visible way than in the past, and would be pleased to see the
President do all he can to end the travel ban. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, U.S. Catholic Conference
of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches and Church World Service, the Council on Foreign Relations,
and many other groups that follow foreign policy and human rights support increasing engagement with the Cuban
people. 7. Cuban Americans support travel for all Americans Polls of Cuban Americans
nation-wide, and Cuban-American registered voters in south Florida, confirm that the majority support ending the
ban on travel to Cuba for all Americans. In a Bendixen & Associates poll taken in April 2009, two-thirds (67%) of
Cuban and Cuban-American adults nationally support lifting travel restrictions for all Americans. Increasing
purposeful travel is consistent with this view. 8. There is no downside in Florida The conventional
wisdom is that easing the travel ban will hurt the President in Florida. But in 2008, President Obama won Florida
and carried Miami Dade County. With a pragmatic engagement-oriented message on Cuba, he actually won more
Cuban-American support in Florida than did previous Democratic Presidential candidates, who took a more hardline
position. In fact, there is no evidence that Democrats gain any advantage in Florida by taking a hardline on Cuba.
Many Democratic candidates in Florida who adopted a more hardline position on Cuba in the 2010 mid-term lost
their elections, due to the larger political climate. 9. It would demonstrate political strength
and independence by the President Moving confidently forward with Cuba
travel and food sales regulations would fulfill the Presidents principled call for a new
beginning with Cuba which has to date gone unfulfilled. And it would make clear that
the President will take principled positions, rather than backing down in
the face of hardliners in the Congress . At the same time, failing to respond to Cubas release
of more than 50 political prisoners and major economic reforms underway on the island undermine the Presidents
credibility not only in Havana, but among allies who will see the Presidents inaction as a foreign policy cowardice
caused by nothing more than domestic politics.
Executive orders can solve for Cuba policies and address human rights
violations
Huffington Post 9 (Huffington Post, Cuba Policy: Obama Should Extend Right To Travel To All Americans,
4-13-9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/human-rights-watch/cuba-policy-obama-should_b_186374.html) MaxL
(Washington, DC, April 13, 2009) - President Barack Obama's executive order ending restrictions on Cuban-
the US
Americans' travel and remittances to Cuba is a major break from an ineffective and unjust policy, but
government should take further steps to adopt a new approach toward
Cuba, Human Rights Watch said today. Congress should promptly extend to all Americans the right to travel to
Cuba, Human Rights Watch said. At the same time, the Obama administration should work
with allies in Europe and Latin America to forge a targeted, multilateral
approach toward addressing human rights violations by the Cuban
government. "If President Obama is serious about promoting change in Cuba, this executive order
must be part of a larger shift away from the US's unilateral approach
toward the Cuban government," said Jos Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights
Watch. "Only by working with its allies in Latin American and Europe will the US be able to chip away at Castro's
repressive machinery."
Presidential action solves Cuba

Huddleston and Pascual 9 (Vicki and Carlos, Miami Herald Op Ed, Presidential
Authority to Lift Most of Embargo, 2/24/9,
http://uscubanormalization.blogspot.com/2012/11/presidential-authority-to-lift-most-
of.html)//LA
Contrary to popular myth and public misunderstanding, if President Barack Obama wishes to change
the U.S. policy toward Cuba, he has ample authority to do so. If he takes
charge of Cuba policy, he can turn the embargo into an effective
instrument of ''smart power'' to achieve the United States' policy
objectives in Cuba. Obama's leadership is needed to change the dynamic
between the United States and Cuba. The status quo is no longer an
option. Not only has it failed to achieve its goals; it has tarnished our
image in the hemisphere and throughout the world. Waiting for Congress
to act will only further delay change. Fortunately, even in the case of Cuba, Congress
has not materially impaired this country's venerable constitutional
arrangement under which the president has the ultimate authority to
conduct our foreign affairs. Executive authority Again and again we hear that the
embargo can't be changed because the Helms-Burton law codified it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you agree or disagree with the current
commercial embargo, the president can effectively dismantle it by using his
executive authority. Helms-Burton codified the embargo regulation, but those regulations provide that
``all transactions are prohibited except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of
This means that the president's power
regulations, rulings, instructions, and licenses.''
remains unfettered. He can instruct the secretary to extend, revise or
modify embargo regulations. The proof of this statement is that President Bill Clinton issued new
regulations for expanded travel and remittances in order to help individuals and grow civil society.
Removal of Sanctions
Presidential waver authority solves
Haass 98 (Richard N., Brookings Institute, Economic Sanctions: Too Much of a Bad
Thing, Brookings policy brief series #33, 6/98,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1998/06/sanctions-haass)//LA
All sanctions embedded in legislation should provide for presidential
discretion in the form of a waiver authority. Discretion would allow the
President to suspend or terminate a sanction if he judged it was in the
interests of national security to do so. Such latitude is needed if relationships
are not to become hostage to one interest and if the executive is to have
the flexibility needed to explore whether the introduction of limited
incentives can bring about a desired policy end. Waivers (exercised in May 1998) in laws
calling for secondary sanctions against non-American firms doing business with Iran, Libya, and Cuba had a salutary
effect on U.S. foreign policy, although they did nothing for U.S. firms still precluded from operating in these
countries by the primary sanctions. The absence of waivers is likely to haunt U.S. policy
toward India and Pakistan. Sanctions will make it more difficult to influence future Indian and Pakistani decisions
involving the deployment or even use of nuclear weaponsand could contribute to instability inside Pakistan,
thereby eroding control over these weapons.
Trafficking
Executive orders solve human trafficking full implementation is key
ACLU 12 (Devon Chaffee, American Civil Liberties Union, President Issues Executive Order to Stop Human
Trafficking in Government Contracts, 9-25-12, http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/president-issues-
executive-order-stop-human-trafficking-government-contracts) MaxL
Obama signed an executive order that will give better
Today, President Barack
protections to vulnerable workers employed by government contractors. The order, announced
on the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, lays out new requirements for U.S. government
to prevent human trafficking and
contractors and their subcontractors operating overseas
forced labor. In a powerful speech this morning announcing the order, President Obama recognized
that U.S. tax payer dollars should never be used to support human
trafficking, a form of modern day slavery. For many years, U.S. government contractors
providing services to the military and U.S. diplomatic missions overseas have engaged in the trafficking and forced
labor of reportedly thousands of men and women from low-wage countries such as Nepal, India and the Philippines.
In June, the ACLU released a joint report with Yale Law School, Victims of Complacency, which documents this
ongoing problem. Recruited from impoverished villages overseas, these workers (known as Third Country Nationals
or TCNs) are charged exorbitant recruitment fees, often lied to about what country they will be taken to and how
much they will be paid. Many are left with no choice but to live and work in unacceptable and unsafe conditions
serving as security personnel, cooks, janitors, cleaners and construction workers on U.S. military bases and
embassies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Media reports, government audits, and other official government documents
obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that trafficking and forced labor of TCNs
by government contractors is a pervasive and ongoing problem. Todays executive order will help
ensure that workers who provide valuable services to our troops and embassies are
not trafficked or forced into indentured servitude on the taxpayers dime. It prohibits
contractors and subcontractors from charging recruitment fees and requires
prime contractors to take responsibility for ensuring that their subcontractors are
not engaging in trafficking or forced labor. It also mandates the creation of
new guidance and training for contract officers responsible for enforcing the new anti-
trafficking provisions. Of course, there is still work to be done. Todays order
needs to be fully implemented, which will be challenging given the burdens already on the
contracting officers tasked with ensuring that contractors comply with U.S. regulations. It also remains to
be seen whether the administration will be more willing than it has been in the past to
pursue criminal prosecutions and administrative penalties against those
contractors who are found to have engaged in human trafficking and forced labor. This is why the ACLU
will continue to urge Congress to adopt critical pending legislation, the End Trafficking in Government Contracting
Act, that would create new criminal penalties for contractors who employ fraudulent recruitment tactics. Adoption of
this statute will also make it harder for a future administration to reverse the executive orders requirements. Click
here to tell your Senator to support this important piece of legislation today.
Human Rights
Obama should issue executive orders regarding human rights policies
CNS 10 (Susan Jones, CNS News, Obama Urged to Issue Executive Order on Human Right to Ensure U.S.
Compliance With U.N. Treaties, 4-19-10, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-urged-issue-executive-order-
human-right-ensure-us-compliance-un-treaties) MaxL
(CNSNews.com) The U.S. State Department is asking state and local human rights commissions to help it prepare
an obligatory report to the United Nations on how the U.S. is advancing the human rights set forth in various
treaties. The Human Rights at Home Campaign a coalition of more than 50 U.S.-based groups, including the
American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International on Wednesday applauded the State Departments
state and
unprecedented outreach to human rights commissions and agencies across the country. Those
local groups are now pressing President Obama to issue an executive order
establishing a domestic human rights infrastructure that would help the
U.S. meet its obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights for
all. The Human Rights at Home Campaign says more than 150 commissions or agencies
have been established by state, county or city governments to promote and enforce
human and civil rights, further positive race and intergroup relations, and/or to conduct
research, training and public education and issue policy
recommendations. Those state and local groups can play and important role in ensuring broad human
rights compliance within the United States, the Human Rights at Home Campaign said in a news release. As an
example of the work being done by state and local groups, the Human Rights at Home Campaign pointed to the Los
Angeles County Human Relations Commission, which produces an annual report analyzing hate crimes in Los
Angeles County, and is now launching a campaign to address rising violence against people who are homeless.
Butto do their job more effectively, state and local human rights agencies
want federal assistance in form of dedicated staff, education and
training, and funding. More manpower and money would allow state and local commissions and
agencies to engage more fully with the federal government in the human
rights reporting and implementation efforts. The Human Rights at Home
Campaign is urging President Obama to issue an executive order creating a
federal inter-agency working group on human rights. A petition posted on the
American Civil Liberties Union Web site says President Obama, by issuing an executive order,
would reinforce the message human rights must begin at home and that
the U.S. should lead by example. The petition calls for: -- an explicit
commitment implementing the full spectrum of human rights as envisioned in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing that every human being is entitled not only to civil and political
mechanisms to ensure human rights
rights but also to economic, social and cultural rights. --
standards are integrated and enforced across the government; -- human rights
impact assessments and studies to ensure that government policies, pending legislation and regulations are
consistent with human rights commitments; -- a requirement that inspectors general, civil rights and civil liberties
offices within departments, and the Government Accountability Office incorporate human rights obligations and
a plan of
analysis in their reviews and investigations of government agencies, policies and programs; --
action to fully implement and incorporate human rights obligations into
domestic and foreign policy, including following up on recommendations made by human rights bodies such
as the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the U.N. Human Rights Council. --
meaningful periodic consultations with civil society and enhanced collaboration between federal, state and local
governments on implementation and enforcement of human rights obligations. Help us urge the President to
issue a strong, comprehensive Executive Order that will result in meaningful progress on domestic human rights,
the petition says. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-urged-issue-executive-order-human-right-
ensure-us-compliance-un-treaties#sthash.qBW7FgCJ.dpuf
Normal Means Is Congress
Generic
Normal means includes Congress they have oversight on key Latin
American policies
Sullivan 13 (Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service, Latin
America and the Caribbean: Key Issues for the 113th Congress, 2-8-13,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42956.pdf) MaxL
Congress plays an active role in policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean. In
the 112th Congress, legislative and oversight attention focused on the continued increase
in drug trafficking-related violence in Mexico and assistance under the Mrida
Initiative; efforts to help Central American and Caribbean countries contend with drug trafficking and violent
crime; as well as continued counternarcotics and security support to Colombia. The
2010 earthquake that devastated Haiti focused attention on the enormous task of disaster recovery and
reconstruction. As in past years, U.S. sanctions on Cuba, particularly restrictions on travel and remittances, remained a
contentious issue in the debate over how to support change in one of the worlds last remaining communist nations.
Another area of congressional oversight was the deterioration of
democracy in several Latin American countries, especially Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Congressional concern also increased over Irans growing relations in the region, especially with Venezuela, and about the activities
of Hezbollah. In the 113th Congress, these issues are likely to continue to be the focus of congressional attention. Congress may
also complete action on FY2013 appropriations for foreign assistance, and soon will begin consideration of the Administrations
FY2014 foreign aid budget request, allowing for examination of ongoing and proposed foreign assistance and counternarcotics
programs for the region. Other issues that could receive congressional attention include relations with Mexico under the new
administration of President Enrique Pea Nieto and consideration of a trans-boundary energy agreement; the health status of
Venezuelan President Hugo Chvez and implications for the United States; prospects of Colombias peace negotiations with the FARC
and implications for U.S. policy; whether and how to strengthen relations with Brazil; progress on negotiations for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) that includes three Latin American countries (Chile, Mexico, and Peru); whether to extend trade preferences for
Ecuador; and review of the operation and activities of the Organization of American States. Potential U.S. legislative action on
comprehensive immigration reform and gun control efforts would likely be wellreceived in the region, especially in neighboring
Mexico.
Congress has oversight over Latin American policy

Congress plays an active role in policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.
Legislative and oversight attention to the region during the 112th Congress focused on
the increase in drug trafficking-related violence in Mexico and U.S. assistance to Mexico under
the Mrida Initiative; efforts to help Central American and Caribbean countries contend
with drug trafficking and violent crime; as well as continued
counternarcotics and security support to Colombia. The 2010 earthquake that devastated Port-
au-Prince, Haiti, continued to focus congressional attention on the enormous task of disaster recovery and
sanctions on Cuba, particularly restrictions on
reconstruction. As in past years, U.S.
travel and remittances, remained a contentious issue in the debate over how to
support change in one of the worlds last remaining communist nations. Another
area of congressional oversight was the deterioration of democracy in
several Latin American countries, especially Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Congressional concern also increased about Irans growing relations in the
region, especially with Venezuela, and about the activities of Hezbollah. Many of these same
issues are likely to continue to be the focus of congressional oversight and
potential legislative action in the 113th Congress. At the beginning of a new Congress and President
Obamas second term, the relevant congressional committees may examine the current
status of U.S. relations and policy toward Latin America and the
Caribbean. Early in the first session, Congress will face action on FY2013 appropriations for foreign assistance,
and soon will begin consideration of the Administrations FY2014 foreign aid budget request. Congressional
hearings on the Presidents budget request, and subsequent consideration of appropriations legislation, can be an
important means for Congress to examine ongoing and proposed foreign assistance programs for the region.
PotentialU.S. legislative action on comprehensive immigration reform would
likelybe well received in Latin America and the Caribbean, but especially in neighboring
Mexico. U.S. gun control efforts would also likely be welcomed by Mexico, along with Caribbean and Central
American countries concerned about the illicit flow of arms from the United States Other issues that
could be the subject of oversight in the new Congress, and are addressed in the sections below,
include relations with Mexico, and the status of reforms, under the new administration of
President Enrique Pea Nieto; potential consideration of a trans-boundary energy agreement
with Mexico; the health status of President Hugo Chvez and the potential effect of a
government change on U.S. relations; prospects of Colombias peace negotiations with the FARC and the
potential ramifications for U.S. policy and foreign aid; whether and how to strengthen relations with Brazil, including
boosting U.S. exports; progress on negotiations for the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) that includes three Latin American countries (Chile, Mexico, and Peru); whether to extend
Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) benefits for Ecuador; the scope and direction of the regions
counternarcotics relationship with the United States; and the operation and activities of the
Organization of American States.
Trade
Congress has oversight over commerce
Hornbeck and Irace 13 (J. F. Hornbeck Coordinator Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Mary
A. Irace Coordinator Section Research Manager, Congressional Review Service, International Trade and Finance:
Key Policy Issues for the 113th Congress, 4-15-13, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41553.pdf) MaxL
The U.S. Constitution grants authority over the regulation of foreign
commerce to Congress, which it exercises in a variety of ways. These include the
oversight of trade policy generally, and more particularly, the consideration of legislation
to approve trade agreements and authorize trade programs. Policy issues cover
such areas as: U.S. trade negotiations; tariffs; nontariff barriers; worker dislocation from trade
liberalization, trade remedy laws; import and export policies; international
investment, economic sanctions; and the trade policy functions of the
federal government. Congress also has an important role in international finance. It has the
authority over U.S. financial commitments to international financial institutions
and oversight responsibilities for trade- and finance-related agencies of the
U.S. Government.
Aid
Congressional funding is normal means for foreign aid
Key Policy Issues: Members face a number of policy choices early in the
113th Congress that could have significant implications for U.S. foreign
assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean. On March 1, 2013, across-the-
board spending cuts resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) are
scheduled to take effect. If Congress allows the cuts (known as sequestration) to go
forward as currently formulated, most foreign assistance accounts could see an
estimated 5.3% reduction in gross budget authority.34 Likewise, the FY2013
Continuing Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 112-175), which is currently
funding foreign aid programs, is scheduled to expire on March 27, 2013.
Funding for aid programs for the second half of FY2013 will depend on a
new appropriations measure. Congress will also face consideration of the
Administrations forthcoming FY2014 request for foreign aid. These congressional
decisions would set broad budget outlines, which in turn would likely influence the
amount of foreign aid dedicated to specific countries and programs in Latin America
and the Caribbean. As Congress deliberates on these issues, questions may
arise regarding how constraints on the aid budget could affect U.S. foreign
policy and national security interests, which countries and programs are the
highest priorities for U.S. foreign aid, and how U.S. assistance might be used more
effectively
Mexico
Congress has oversight over Mexico policy
Key Policy Issues: This year, Congress is likely to closely follow the policies implemented by the Pea Nieto
Congress is likely to continue funding and
government, particularly in the security realm. The 113th
overseeing the Mrida Initiative and related domestic initiatives , but may also consider
supporting new programs. Congressional action may soon be required in order for the U.S.-
Mexico Trans-boundary Hydrocarbons Agreement to take effect . Migration and border
security cooperation could also be substantially overhauled should Congress consider comprehensive immigration
reform. Mexicos role in the negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and what that agreement might
mean for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is also likely to generate congressional interest.
oversight questions that Congress might consider include How effectively is
Potential
Nieto government implementing its reformist agenda? Will the government be
the Pea
able to reduce violence in Mexico while still combating organized crime? How might this
government support efforts to enact comprehensive immigration reform in the United States?
Will the Mexican economy perform better under this PRI government than under the PAN?
Venezuela
Congress has oversight over Venezuelan policies
The 113th Congress may continue strong congressional oversight on the status of
human rights and democracy in Venezuela as well as drug trafficking and
terrorism concerns, including the extent of Venezuelas relations with Iran. Of
particular interest will be the ramifications of President Chvezs health status on
Venezuelas political future and on U.S.- Venezuelan relations. Early in the first session, Congress
will face action on State Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations for the second half
of FY2013, which includes funding for Venezuela democracy projects, while Congress will also soon be considering
the Administrations FY2014 foreign aid funding for such assistance.
XO Warming Adv CP
1NC
TEXT: The President of the United States should issue an executive order
instructing the administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency to create regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources.
Thats the key step to resolving global warming all political barriers have
been resolved
Westmoreland 10 (Joshua K. Westmoreland, Senior Articles Editor, Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review, 1/1/2010, Global Warming and Originalism: The
Role of the EPA in the Obama
Administrationhttp://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1027&context=ealr&sei-redir=1#search=%22presidential%20power
%20global%20warming%20obama%22 | JJ)
Global warming is becoming an emergency that warrants immediate action by the United States.275 President
Obama has an obligation to lead the United States response to the
climate crisis because there is currently no viable GHG reduction policy
especially one targeting mobile sourcesunder the existing federal environmental law
regime.276 President Obama can and should issue an executive order instructing
EPA Administrator Jackson to create regulations pursuant to the CAA to
drastically reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources .277 Constitutionally, Justice
Jacksons Youngstown framework justifies an executive order initiating EPA action; consequently, the Court
would afford Obamas order the highest degree of judicial deference .278
There is authority for such an executive order. 279 The Vesting Clause of Article II of the
Constitution specifically grants executive power to the President.280 Agencies and their
Administratorsincluding the EPA and Administrator Jacksontake their direction
from the President as subordinate members of the executive branch .281
Therefore, statutory grants of authority to the Administrator can be interpreted as grants of authority to the chief
executive to use the specified agency to implement the policy goals set forth by Congress in the statute.282 In the
the CAA authorizes the EPA Administrator to create regulations
proposed action,
to curb air pollution from mobile sources when it states that regulations
shall be prescribed to any air pollutant that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.283 However, the CAA does not state
precisely what the regulations should entail.284 The CAA delegates this responsibly to the EPA Administrator,
provided that the rulemaking process is followed and that certain standardsincluding the requirement that only
pollutants reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare can be targetedregarding the content
of the regulations are met.285 The relationship between the President and the EPA Administrator and the CAAs
grant of broad authority to the Administrator supports the conclusion that Congresss grant of power to the
Administrator to design and implement pollution regulations is an implied grant of authority to the executive branch
to use the EPA as a vehicle for creating an air pollution control scheme.286 Therefore, under Justice Jacksons
an executive order from President Obama instructing the
Youngstown framework,
EPA to begin curbing mobile sources of GHGs per the CAA properly fits
within the first category of presidential action because authorization is
implied from Congresss grant of authority to an executive officer who
has cabinet-level status.287 Moreover, an executive order would not violate any constitutionally
protected rights, including rights upheld by separation of powers principles.288 The APA protects both substantive
and procedural due process rights.289 In particular, an order instructing the Administrator to act pursuant to the
CAA is by definition an order to abide by the APA.290 The CAA delegates authority to the Executive Branch via the
instruction that the Administrator shall regulate air pollution.291 Agencies must abide by the rulemaking process
specified in the APA.292 The administrative requirements, including notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities
for comment, and the EPAs written response to comments, secure the publics substantive and procedural due
process rights.293 Additionally, such an order would not jeopardize separation of
powers principles because Congress delegated legislative duties to the
executive in the CAA. 294 Examples of executive orders that President Obama
may issue could direct the EPA Administrator to (1) set strict emission
standards for future automobiles that will compel technological
innovations; (2) propose regulations that compel or encourage states to set
strict emissions targets; or (3) establish an innovative permit scheme
designed to both limit the use of mobile sources in the short-term and to
fund research and development of new energy sources over the medium
to long-terms.295 Regardless of the avenue he pursues, President Obama has wide
constitutional latitude to prescribe regulatory standards under the CAA to
reduce GHGs from mobile sources. Conclusion Mapping the national and international response to
global warming poses a major challenge to President Obama. Given the climate crisis, President Obama
should not wait for Congress to take action . He should initiate the United States climate
the CAA may not be an ideal vehicle for launching a
policy through existing tools, particularly the CAA. While
national campaign to reduce GHG emissions, it is a vehicle that already exists and has
congressional approval.296 Conservatives opposed to a progressive climate policy will challenge the
Presidents agenda in the courts, where conservative judges who rely on originalist readings of the Constitution
predominate. Therefore, the Obama Administration needs to justify its regulatory proposals in light of the judiciarys
Obama has the
conservative jurisprudence. Based on a unitary executive theory, President
constitutional authority to issue an executive order instructing the EPA
Administrator to issue GHG-emission-limiting regulations pursuant to the
CAA.
2NC Solvency/Doesnt Link to Politics
The counterplan is key to solve and it doesnt link to politics
Human-induced-global warming is mostly attributable to the utilization of combustion-powered machines.31 One
way to categorize combustion- powered machines is by distinguishing whether the machine is stationary or
mobile.32 Stationary sources of GHGs include factories, power plants, and refineries.33 Mobile sources, which are
generally found in the transportation sector, include passenger cars and light trucks, heavy duty trucks and off-
road vehicles, and rail, marine, and air transport.34 The latest research indicates that mobile sources account for
Conservative projections
at least one third of the total GHG emissions in the United States.35
indicate that global warming is happening rapidly and is irreparably
changing the earths ecosystems.36 Many species will become extinct or will be pushed to the
brink of extinction as a result of human-induced climate change.37 James E. Hansen, Director of NASAs Goddard
the global climate system is approaching various
Institute for Space Studies, noted that
tipping points.38 If human emission rates continue at their current pace, the
results could be very grim: sea levels will rise due to melting ice caps and hundreds
of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands .39 Mass
extinctions will be as likely as they were during the previous warming
periods in the earths history.40 Even assuming a gradual phase-out of all GHG emissions by the
year 2300, scientific models predict dire consequences unless immediate action is taken.41 Reports show that some
effects of global warming are already irreversible.42 The effects of global warming also have the potential to spill
over into the realm of national security and politics.43 Global warming may deplete precious resources; result in
infrastructure-destroying weather that will wreak economic havoc; create large numbers of refugees and migrants;
and make weak governments susceptible to extremist takeovers. 44 Consequently, civil, regional, and international
war may become more common.45 Presently, the American public is divided on the importance of global
warming,46 and the governments position on international climate agreements has hurt the United States
credibility abroad.47 Domestically, the lack of a concerted effort to change Americans consumption patterns has
eviscerated the possibility of climate consciousness for most of the population.48 A new Pew Center survey of
Furthermore, since
twenty national priorities for 2009 indicates that global warming ranks lowest.49
global warming is a worldwide problem, international cooperation will be
imperative in order to achieve any meaningful reduction in GHG
emissions.50 The United States refusal to commit to any binding
international climate treaties or agreements compromises its credibility and
interferes with global efforts to combat global warming.51 Other major GHG-emitting countries
simply will not take action without such commitments from the United
States .52 Current proposals to address global warming fail to take immediate action to curb U.S. emissions
from mobile sources.53 A recent congressional proposal dealing with climate
change was the Boxer- Lieberman-Warner Resolution.54 Two problems were
immediately evident with this proposal. First, the proposed action would have been
gradual, unfolding over the course of years, and GHG emissions would not
have immediately been impacted.55 Second, the proposal completely
ignored mobile sources of GHGs, focusing exclusively on implementing a cap-and-trade program
for stationary sources.56 The severity of global warming demands that the
government act quickly, and mobile sources are prime targets for emission reductions given their
substantial contributions to warming.57 Furthermore, the American publics ambivalence
toward global warming58 and its opponents successful filibuster of the
Boxer-Lieberman-Warner proposal, suggests that any proposal will face a
tough battle in Congress.59
2NC - Congress Fails
The AFF will fail falls victim to cost overruns and legislative dilutions
Barack Obama has assumed the presidency at a time when the consequences
of global warming demand immediate action .1 Unfortunately, immediate
action is not likely to come in the form of legislation, 2 as any
congressional climate change proposal will likely be thwarted because it
is too costly to society, or it will be so diluted by legislative compromise
that it will be ineffective. 3 A recent Gallup Poll highlighted that there is a growing
number of Americans who are skep-tical of the science underlying global
warming.4 Such polling is spurring some members of Congress to oppose
climate legislation.5 However, the Obama Administration is aware of the threats posed by global
warming.6 The Administration is poised to act following on endangerment
finding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declaring greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from mobile sources to be a type of pollutant that is dangerous
to public health and welfare.7 In the wake of the endangerment finding, President Obama will
most likely build on the Supreme Courts decision in Massachusetts v. EPA8 by
initiating the regulatory process to control GHG emissions in the United
States under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA).9
Prez Power Good
XOs = Prez Powers
Unilateral executive policies let the president take credibility from
Congress
Howell and Pevehouse 7 (William G. Howell - Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics in the Harris
School And Jon C. Pevehouse - associate professor at the University of Chicago's Irving B. Harris School of Public
Policy, Princeton University Press, While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers, 2007,
Pg. 7) MaxL
There is, at present, a burgeoning body of work within American politics that documents the strategic
advantages presidents enjoy when they exercise their unilateral powers , or
what elsewhere we have called "power without persuasion, which very much embodies the deployment of troops
When
abroad, Two features of this unilateral politics literature are worth noting. The first concerns sequence.
presidents act unilaterally, they stand at the front end of the policy-
making process and thereby place on Congress and the courts the burden of
revising a new political landscape. lf adjoining branches of government choose not to retaliate,
either by passing a law or ruling against the president, then the presidents order stands. Only by taking
(or credibly threatening to take) positive action can either adjoining
institution limit the presidents unilateral powers.
Prez Power Good Conflict
A strong presidency solves a laundry list of wars and outweighs your turns
South China Morning Post 2K (South China Morning Post, 12/11/2000, ProQuest |
JJ) <MODIFIED FOR GENDERED LANGUAGE>
A weak president with an unclear mandate is bad news for the rest of the world. For
better or worse, the person who rules the United States influences events far
beyond the shores of his [or her] own country. Both the global economy and
international politics will feel the effect of political instability in the US.
The first impact will be on American financial markets, which will have a
ripple effect on markets and growth across the world. A weakened US
presidency will also be felt in global hotspots across the world. The Middle East,
the conflict between India and Pakistan, peace on the Korean peninsula, and even the
way relations between China and Taiwan play out, will be influenced by the
authority the next US president brings to his [or her] job. There are those who
would welcome a weakening of US global influence. Many Palestinians, for example, feel they would benefit
from a less interventionist American policy in the Middle East. Even within the Western alliance, there are those who
would probably see opportunities in a weakened US presidency. France , for
example, might feel that a less assertive US might force the European Union
to be more outward looking. But the dangers of having a weak , insecure US
presidency outweigh any benefits that it might bring. US global economic and
military power cannot be wished away. A president with a shaky mandate
will still command great power and influence, only he [or she] will be constrained by his
domestic weakness and less certain about how to use his authority. This
brings with it the risks of miscalculation and the use of US power in a
way that heightens conflict . There are very few conflicts in the world
today which can be solved without US influence. The rest of the world needs the United
States to use its power deftly and decisively. Unfortunately, as the election saga continues, it seems increasingly
unlikely that the next US president will be in a position to do so.
Prez Power Good Hegemony
Weak presidents are comparatively worse they cause incoherent foreign
policy and spark conflicts
Koh 95 (Harold Hongju, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of
International Law and Director, Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human
Rights, Yale Law School, 1995, War and Responsibility in the Dole-Gingrich
Congress, 50 U. Miami L. Review 1, Hein Online | JJ)
Both precedents have obvious parallels today, not to mention a third possibility: that temptation might draw the
executive branch into a "splendid little war" - like Grenada or Panama - with an eye toward a possible presidential
bounce in the polls. That possibility raises Maxim Two: that weak presidents are more
dangerous than strong ones . Jimmy Carter, for example, in the last two years of his presidency,
engaged in perhaps the most dramatic nonwartime exercise of emergency
foreign power ever seen, not because he was strong but because he was so politically weak. 43
In foreign policy, weak presidents all too often have something to prove . 44
In a gridlock situation, the president's difficulty exhibiting strength in domestic
affairs - where Congress exercises greater oversight and must initiate funding proposals - makes it far
easier for him to show leadership in foreign affairs . At the same time, weak
presidents may underreact to looming crises that demand strong action ,
for fear that they cannot muster the legislative support necessary to generate the appropriate response. But
when these weak presidents do finally respond, they tend to overreact :
either to compensate for their earlier underreaction, or because by that
time, the untended problem has escalated into a full-blown crisis , Bosnia and
Haiti being the two prime Clinton Administration examples. 45 When private parties bring suits to challenge these
presidential policies, courts tend to defer to weak presidents, because they view them not as willful, so much as
weak presidents are more prone to
stuck in a jam, [*12] lacking other political options. Finally,
give away the store, namely, to undercut their own foreign policy program in order to
preserve their domestic agenda. This raises the question of whether this Democratic president
may be forced to sign restrictive congressional legislation - or whether Congress might pass such legislation over
presidential veto, as Congress did with the War Powers Resolution in 1974 - which may later come back to haunt
every
future presidents. Nor, in this media age, is any president's strength truly secure. These days
president, whatever his current popularity rating, is potentially weak. We sometimes forget that just
after the Gulf War, George Bush's popularity rating stood at 91%, only ten months before he lost reelection, and five
years before he recanted about his actions during the war itself.
A strong executive is vital to a successful American foreign policy

Mallaby 2K (Sebastian Mallaby, member of The Washington Post's Editorial Board,
The Bullied Pulpit: A Weak Chief Executive Makes Worse Foreign Policy, Foreign
Affairs Jan/Feb 2000 Edition, JSTOR | JJ)
Finally, some will object that the weakness of the presidency as an institution is not
the main explanation for the inadequacies of American diplomacy , even if it is a
secondary one. The ad hominem school of thought argues instead that Bill Clinton and his advisers have simply
been incompetent.Others make various sociological claims that isolationism or
multiculturalism lies at the root of America's diplomatic troubles . All of these
arguments may have merit. But the evidence cited by both camps can be better
explained by the structural weakness of the presidency . Take, for example, one
celebrated error: President Clinton's declaration at the start of the Kosovo war that the Serbs need not fear NATO
ground troops. This announcement almost certainly cost lives by encouraging the Serbs to believe that America was
not serious about stopping ethnic cleansing. The ad hominem school sees in this example proof of Clinton's
incompetence; the sociological school sees in it proof of isolationist pressure, which made the option of ground
troops untenable. But a third explanation, offered privately by a top architect of the Kosovo policy, is more
plausible. According to this official, the president knew that pundits and Congress would criticize whichever policy
he chose. Clinton therefore preemptively took ground troops off the table, aware that his critics would then urge
him on to a ground war -- and also aware that these urgings would convince Belgrade that Washington's resolve
would stiffen with time, rather than weaken. The president's stand against ground troops was therefore the logical,
tactical move of a leader feeling vulnerable to his critics. Other failings of American diplomacy
can likewise be accounted for by the advent of the nonexecutive
presidency. Several commentators, notably Samuel Huntington and Garry Wills in these pages, have
attacked the arrogance of America's presumption to offer moral leadership to the world. But American leaders
resort to moral rhetoric largely out of weakness. They fear that their policy will be blocked unless they generate
moral momentum powerful enough to overcome domestic opponents. Likewise, critics point to the hypocrisy of the
United States on the world stage. America seeks U.N. endorsement when convenient but is slow to pay its U.N.
dues; America practices legal abortion at home but denies funds to organizations that do the same abroad. Again,
The president has a favored policy
this hypocrisy has everything to do with the weak executive.
but is powerless to make Congress follow it. Still other critics decry American diplomacy as
a rag-bag of narrow agendas: Boeing lobbies for China trade while Cuban-Americans demand sanctions on Cuba.
presidential power is the issue. A strong presidency might see to it
Here, too,
that America pursues its broader national interest, but a weak one cannot .
This is why Clinton signed the Helms-Burton sanctions on Cuba even though he knew that these would do
disproportionate harm to U.S. relations with Canada and Europe. What if America's nonexecutive
presidency is indeed at the root of its diplomatic inadequacy ? First, it follows that
it is too optimistic to blame America's foreign policy drift on the weak character of the current president. The
institution of the presidency itself is weak, and we would be unwise to assume that a President Gore or Bradley or
it is too pessimistic to blame America's
Bush will perform much better. But it also follows that
foreign policy drift on cultural forces that nobody can change, such as
isolationism or multiculturalism.
Presidential power is key to hegemony

Deans 2K (Bob Deans, Associate Director of Communications, Washington DC,
1/23/2000, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY: White House power growing, The Atlanta
Journal the Atlanta Constitution, ProQuest | JJ)
Yet the U.S. presidency, long regarded as the most powerful institution in
the world, arguably has assumed more authority and reach than at any time in
its history. While no one can doubt the growing impact of the Internet, Silicon Valley and Wall Street on the
daily lives of all Americans, only the president can rally truly global resources
around American ideals to further the quest for equality and to combat
the timeless ills of poverty and war. It is that unique ability to build and
harness a worldwide consensus that is widening the circle of presidential
power. "The presidency will remain as important as it is or will become more important," predicted presidential
scholar Michael Nelson, professor of political science at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn. The voice of all
Americans The taproot of presidential power is the Constitution, which
designates the chief executive, the only official elected in a national vote,
as the sole representative of all the American people. That conferred authority reflects
the state of the nation, and it would be hard to argue that any country in history has
possessed the military, economic and political pre-eminence that this
country now holds. And yet, the nation's greatest strength as a global power
lies in its ability to build an international consensus around values and
interests important to most Americans. On Clinton's watch, that ability has been almost
constantly on display as he has patched together multinational responses to war in the Balkans, despotism in Haiti,
The
economic crises in Mexico, Russia, Indonesia and South Korea, and natural disasters in Turkey and Venezuela.
institutions for putting together coalition-type action --- the United Nations, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization
among them --- are hardly tools of American policy. But the United States
commands a dominant, in some cases decisive, position in each of those
institutions. And it is the president , far more than Congress, who determines how
the United States wants those institutions to be structured and to
perform . "Congress is a clunky institution of 535 people that can't negotiate as a unit with global corporations
or entities," said Alan Ehrenhalt, editor of Governing magazine. " It's the president who is capable
of making deals with global institutions." It is the president, indeed, who
appoints envoys to those institutions, negotiates the treaties that bind
them and delivers the public and private counsel that helps guide them,
leaving the indelible imprint of American priorities on every major
initiative they undertake. "That means, for example, that we can advance our interests in resolving
ethnic conflicts, in helping address the problems of AIDS in Africa, of contributing to the world's economic
development, of promoting human rights," said Emory University's Robert Pastor, editor of a new book, "A Century's
Journey," that elaborates on the theme.
Strong president key to preserve heg

Deans 2k (Bob The American Presidency: White House Power Growing, The Atlanta Journal
Constitution, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/247246574 1/23/00) SC
Yet the U.S. presidency, long regarded as the most powerful institution in the world,
arguably has assumed more authority and reach than at any time in its history . While
no one can doubt the growing impact of the Internet, Silicon Valley and Wall Street on the daily lives of all
Americans, only the president can rally truly global resources around American ideals
to further the quest for equality and to combat the timeless ills of poverty and war.
It is that unique ability to build and harness a worldwide consensus that is widening
the circle of presidential power. "The presidency will remain as important as it is or will become more
important," predicted presidential scholar Michael Nelson, professor of political science at Rhodes College in
The taproot of presidential power is the
Memphis, Tenn. The voice of all Americans
Constitution, which designates the chief executive, the only official elected in a
national vote, as the sole representative of all the American people . That conferred
authority reflects the state of the nation, and it would be hard to argue that any country in history has possessed
the nation's
the military, economic and political pre-eminence that this country now holds. And yet,
greatest strength as a global power lies in its ability to build an international
consensus around values and interests important to most Americans . On Clinton's watch,
that ability has been almost constantly on display as he has patched together multinational responses to war in the
Balkans, despotism in Haiti, economic crises in Mexico, Russia, Indonesia and South Korea, and natural disasters in
Turkey and Venezuela. The institutions for putting together coalition-type action --- the United
Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World
are hardly tools of American policy. But the United States
Trade Organization among them ---
commands a dominant, in some cases decisive, position in each of those
institutions. And it is the president , far more than Congress, who determines how the
United States wants those institutions to be structured and to perform. "Congress is
a clunky institution of 535 people that can't negotiate as a unit with global
corporations or entities," said Alan Ehrenhalt, editor of Governing magazine. "It's
the president who is capable of making deals with global institutions."
Forceful president k2 heg - empirics prove

Will 99 (George is an American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winner best
known for his commentary on politics. Strong president needed to reshape foreign policy
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/429595573 2/13/1999)
George Shultz, President Reagan's secretary of state, believes Reagan bolstered foreign policy
by an act of domestic policy - the 1981 confrontation with the air traffic controllers . Reagan
warned that if the controllers struck they would be fired. They struck. They were
fired. And, says Shultz, leaders around the world noted Reagan's forcefulness. Now
leaders may have drawn some conclusions from President Clinton's domestic difficulties, may have noted his self-
absorption, his willingness to sacrifice anyone and anything to his short-term calculations of personal convenience,
his inattention to anything (including everything in foreign policy) unrelated to opinion polls that regulate his
constant campaigning. U.S. intelligence agencies often are the last to learn things. They consistently exaggerated
the size of the Soviet economy. In 1986 the CIA wrongly said per capita production was larger in East Germany than
in West Germany. In 1990 the CIA wrongly suggested that per capita milk production was higher in the Soviet Union
than in America, and that meat output was about what it had been in America in 1960. And so on.
Prez Power Good Nuke Terror
Strong executive authority is key to solve nuclear terrorism
Taylor 9 (Stuart Taylor Jr., staff writer for Newsweek magazine, 1/9/2009, Obamas
Cheney Dilemma, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/09/obama-s-
cheney-dilemma.html | JJ)
In times of war and crisis, as presidents such as Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt discovered, the
nation needs a strong chief executive. The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have
been less in what it did than in the way it did itflaunting executive power, ignoring Congress, showing scorn for
anyone who waved the banner of civil liberties. Arguably, there has been an overreaction to the alleged arrogance
and heedlessness of Bush and Cheneyespecially Cheney, who almost seemed to take a grim satisfaction in his
The courts, at first slow to respond to arrogations of
Darth Vader-esque image.
executive power after September 11, have pushed back. Many federal
officials have grown risk-averse, fearing that they will be prosecuted or
dragged before a congressional committee for fighting too hard against
terrorism. (A growing number of CIA officials buy insurance policies to cover legal fees.) Obama, who has been
receiving intelligence briefings for weeks, already knows what a scary world it is out there. It is unlikely he will
wildly overcorrect for the Bush administration's abuses. A very senior incoming official, who refused to be quoted
discussing internal policy debates, indicated that the new administration will try to find a middle road that will
Obama's team has some strong
protect civil liberties without leaving the nation defenseless. But
critics of the old order, including his choice for director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has spoken out
strongly against coercive interrogation methods. In Obama's spirit of nonpartisanship, the
new crowd would do well to listen to Jack Goldsmith, formerly a Bush Justice
Department official, now a Harvard Law School professor. At Justice, Goldsmith was the head of an
obscure but critically important unit called the Office of Legal Counsel.
OLC acts as a kind of lawyer for the executive branch, offering opinions
close to bindingon what the executive branch can and cannot do. It was an OLC lawyer,
John Yoo, who in 2001 and 2002 drafted many of the memos that first gave the Cheneyites permission to do pretty
much whatever they wanted in the way of interrogating and detaining suspected terrorists (and eavesdropping on
Americans to catch terrorists). Goldsmith, who became head of OLC in 2003, quietly began to revoke some of these
permissions as illegal or unconstitutional. The revolt of Goldsmith and some other principled Justice lawyers was a
heroic story, kept secret at the time. Now Goldsmith worries about the pendulum swinging too far, as it often does
in American democracy. "The
presidency has already been diminished in ways that
would be hard to reverse" and may be losing its capability to fight
terrorism, he says. He argues that Americans should now be "less worried
about an out-of-control presidency than an enfeebled one. "
A strong executive is key to resolve terrorism

Sulmasy 9 (Glenn Sulmasy, law faculty of the United States Coast Guard Academy, 2009, Executive Power:
The Last Thirty Years, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 30 Issue 4,
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1944-sulmasyexecutive-power | JJ)
Since the attacks of 9/11, the original concerns noted by Hamilton, Jay,
and Madison have been heightened. Never before in the young history of
the United States has the need for an energetic executive been more vital
to its national security . The need for quick action in this arena requires an
executive response -particularly when fighting a shadowy enemy like al Qaeda-
not the deliberative bodies opining on what and how to conduct warfare or determining how and when to respond.
The threats from non-state actors, such as al Qaeda, make the need for dispatch
and rapid response even greater. Jefferson's concerns about the slow and deliberative institution
of Congress being prone to informational leaks are even more relevant in the twenty first century. The advent
of the twenty-four hour media only leads to an increased need for
retaining enhanced levels of executive control of foreign policy . This is
particularly true in modern warfare. In the war on international terror, intelligence is
vital to ongoing operations and successful prevention of attacks. Al Qaeda now
has both the will and the ability to strike with the equivalent force and might of a nation's armed forces. The
need to identify these individuals before they can operationalize an attack
is vital. Often international terror cells consist of only a small number of
individuals - making intelligence that much more difficult to obtain and
even more vital than in previous conflicts. The normal movements of tanks, ships, and
aircrafts that, in traditional armed conflict are indicia of a pending attack are not the case in the current "fourth
the need for intelligence becomes an even greater concern
generation" war. Thus,
for the commanders in the field as well as the Commander-in-Chief.
Prez Power Good Prolif
Pres power K2 prevent proliferation - empirics prove
Thompson 94 (Kenneth is an author of many US policy books. PRESIDENTS AND ARMS CONTROL
1994, p. 63-64. http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/002901933 ) SC
Kissinger believed that the role of the NSC staff was to develop a set of options for the President. Kissinger
restructured the staff, creating interdepartmental groups to study problem areas and formulate policy choices;
the groups would develop and assess alternatives. he [or she]created a verification panel and a senior review
group at the undersecretary level-which he [or she]chaired-to deal with recommendations coming up the ladder
the
from the interdepartmental groups, various departments, and various government agencies. In this manner
control of national security decision making was centered in the White House,
which dearly the President wanted, as well as Kissinger, because President Nixon, like President
Kennedy, without question gave top priority to foreign affairs. Kissinger also created various special groups that
were subordinate to the NSC-such as the Vietnam Special Studies Group-which strengthened the NSC and
helped the NSC staff attempt to dominate the Department of State. Kissinger's success in this regard can be
seen in a statement made at that time by President Nixon to the effect that, "Kissinger covers not only foreign
policy, but national security policy-the coordination of those policies." Of course, Kissinger remained a key
player in the Ford administration. During both administrations, while Kissinger's personal influence was virtually
unassailable, the NSC staff had markedly less power during the Ford administration, with no direct access to the
president. Arms control during this period, while conducted by ACDA negotiators, was not removed from the
intervention of the powerful Henry Kissinger. Although career diplomats might have felt neglected during the
it can be argued that the positive outcome of that
Kissinger era, or indeed stung by it,
period was an extraordinary set of arms control agreements based on the
premise that arms control really worked. Only a strong president could have
brought such an ambitious arms control agenda through congressional
ratification. During the height of the Nixon years, the agreements reflected the
power of the President, his [or her] international interests, and the power of
Henry Kissinger. Presidents Ford and Carter, who for very different reasons had single-term
presidencies, were unable to achieve the depth and the span of the Nixon arms
control initiatives. As an example, the SALT I agreements represented the first U.S.-Soviet agreements to
place limits and restraints on some of those countries' central and most important strategic offensive and
defensive weapons. The agreements were a diplomatic achievement because there were large asymmetries in
the Soviet and American weapon systems, and material differences in the two countries'defense needs and
defense commitments.
Prez Power Good - War on Terror
Pres powers k2 war on terror
Pauly and Lansford 3 (Robert and Tom, professor of history and political Science at Norwich University
and assistant professor of political science, University of Southern Mississippi, American Diplomacy, National
Security Policy and the Strong Executive: The French and American Presidents and the War on Terror, June, 2003
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_04-06/lansfordpauly_exec/lansfordpauly_exec.html) SC
The result of this concentration of power has been the repeated presidential use of
the U.S. military throughout the nations history without a formal congressional
declaration of war and an increased preference by both the executive and the
legislature for such actions.17 One feature of this trend was consistency in U.S.
foreign policy, especially during the Cold War era. Even during periods when the
United States experienced divided government, with the White House controlled by
one political party and all or half of the Congress controlled by the party in
opposition, the executive was able to develop and implement foreign and security
policy with only limited constraints.18 Given the nature of the terrorist groups that
attacked the United States on 11 September 2001, such policy habits proved useful
since a formal declaration of war was seen as problematic in terms of the specific
identification of the foe and the ability of the Bush administration to expand combat
operations beyond Afghanistan to countries such as Iraq.
Prez Power Good Trade Wars
Prez powers is key to resolve trade wars
Mead 2K (Walter Russell Mead, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and
Humanities at Bard College, 11/12/2000, American Influence Abroad May Shrink
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/12/opinion/op-50619 | JJ)
A serious crisis could flare up in this region at a moment's notice, and those
who remember the controversies over Central American policy in the 1980s--and the continuing
bitter battles over Cuba today--know how hard it can be for the United States to
develop a political consensus concerning neighborhood policy . Expanding NAFTA
or pushing harder to establish a free trade area of the Americas are proposals most of the Washington
it is hard to see a
establishment think have the best chances for stabilizing the region but, again,
politically enfeebled president and a divided Congress mustering the
determination to move far down either road. Trade gridlock could have
repercussions beyond the Western Hemisphere . It will be harder for a
weak president to make the kinds of creative concessions and
compromises necessary to resolve trade disputes at the World Trade
Organization , thereby increasing the risk of trade wars with partners like the
Fast-track authority for new trade rounds will be difficult, if not
European Union.
impossible to get.
Prez Power Good Cyberwar
Presidential powers is key to avert cyberwarfare
Kastenberg 9 (Lieutenant Colonel Joshua E, B.A. Kastenberg, the Staff Judge
Advocate, 332d Air Expeditionary Wing, Balad Air Base, Iraq, 2009, CYBERLAW
EDITION: NON-INTERVENTION AND NEUTRALITY IN CYBERSPACE: AN EMERGING
PRINCIPLE IN THE NATIONAL PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 64 A.F. L. Rev. 43,
Lexis | JJ)
Of all the recent legal literature examining the role of nations and corporations in cyberspace, very little has been
devoted to the relationship between state-sponsored information operations--the roles and uses of cyberspace in
Most of the legal scholarship has been devoted to
interstate conflict--and neutrality.
applying the laws of war to cyberspace operations. Issues such as
proportionality, lawful targeting, and when an action constitutes a hostile
act, appear to have taken preeminence over other matters. This article
departs from that construct and addresses a related and equally
important issue: the enforcement of neutrality in cyberspace. The United States
will not always be a party to a conflict, and the executive branch's official stated policy may be to adhere to a
position of non-intervention or even strict neutrality. Admittedly, unlike in mid-twentieth century conflicts, it has
become increasingly difficult for a state to regulate commerce, particularly electronic commerce, because of the
internationalization of global business and the worldwide transit of electronic information across cyberspace. At
present, roughly eighty percent of the Interact traffic traverses through the United States, chiefly through servers
owned by private enterprise. (2) As a result, transactions which occur between London and Tokyo will still likely
travel through the United States. Electronic information which flows through cyberspace is unlike any other type of
physical transaction. Physical mails and shipped goods may leave London and reach Tokyo without ever traversing
the geographic territory of a third state. Even an undersea telephone wire cable theoretically enables a predictable
Historically, national governments
flow between two points, without transiting a third state.
tried to remain neutral in third-party conflicts because conflict eroded
commerce and the addition of interested states into a conflict tended to
lengthen wars, thereby increasing the loss of lives. Neutrality, as discussed
below, was recognized as a set of behavioral norms that limited the damage
of warfare to warring states, notwithstanding commercial losses attendant
with warfare. The United States, since its existence, has both recognized
the importance of neutrality principles and demanded that other states
act similarly. But, while it is well-understood that the behavioral
requirements of neutral states are usually enforceable in the physical
realm, the advent of cyberspace makes this more difficult , particularly in
the realm of information and electronic warfare . The executive branch of
the United States , with legislative checks, is the arm of government charged with
determining and enforcing foreign policy. The executive branch may conclude that it is not
in the best interests of the nation to remain fully neutral. Certainly, the enforcement of neutrality in cyberspace has
not yet occurred, and there appears to be no policy for enforcement. This article suggests a rubric using existing
laws for exerting executive authority. Section I of this article discusses the emergence of conflict in cyberspace.
Importantly, this article does not address either criminal enforcement or a state's duty in that realm but instead
focuses on the executive branch's authority to enforce neutrality in cyberspace. Section II provides a basic rubric of
neutrality rules as applied to conflict in cyberspace. Section III analyzes the most recent cyberconflict, the Georgian-
Russian War of 2008, and the potential consequences the United States risked because it lacked a cyber neutral
position. Finally,the article concludes with an assessment of the need for a
greater exertion of authority from the executive branch to police
cyberspace. Importantly, this article does not advocate that the United States must take a wholly neutral
position in conflicts which do not involve it. However, the executive branch should make clear
that it has the authority to enforce cyber neutrality when it is determined
by that branch to be necessary to national policy.
AT PP Bad Constitution
The affs retreat toward the Constitution only creates a more volatile
government and halts the transformation into a modern society
Skowronek 11 (Stephen Skowronek, Pelatiah Perit Professor of Political and Social Science at Yale University,
2011, Shall We Cast Our Lot with the Constitution?, from Presidency in the Twenty-first Century by Charles W.
Dunn, University Press of Kentucky | JJ)
The arguments of the
But there is no mistaking the cutting edge of their new formulation.
unitarians do not just scoop up the progressives legacy of national and
executive power; they also marginalize and stigmatize the extraconstitutional
mechanisms on which the progressives had relied to surround and
regulate their presidency-centered system. Public opinion, publicity,
pluralism, empiricism, science, openness, technical expertise, professional
judgment, administrative independence, freedom of information all the
operating norms on which the progressives pegged their faith in building
the modern presidency are sidelined by this appeal back to the
Constitution . When Theodore Roosevelt addressed the question of how to limit his heady notion of a
presidential stewardship, he endorsed the idea of a popular recall of presidents who had lost the confidence of the
public. 48 When an interviewer pressed Vice President Cheney on the decisive turn of public opinion against Bush-
administration war policies, the quick retort So?offered a pointed lesson on the distance that has been
Democracys claims on presidential power
traveled between these two constructions. 49
now end with the administration of the oath of office . Had the ambitions of the
conservative insurgency not met such stubborn resistance for so long, it might be harder to credit its heavy
investment in the exclusivity of presidential control. As it stands, the unitary theory is a high-stakes gamble that
the theorys
leaves movement priorities no more secure than the next election cycle. More striking still is
pretension to upholding constitutional intent, for a more personalized and
internalized form of modern executive power threatens to render the
whole of modern American government more volatile . 50 When the notion of a
presidential stewardship is stripped of progressive provisions for collective oversight by the nations prudentes;
when the notion of a politicized bureaucracy is stripped of Jacksonian provisions for collective oversight by the
party; when the notion of a concert of power is stripped of Jeffersonian provisions for collective oversight by the
Congresswhen the extraconstitutional ballast for presidential government is
all stripped away and the idea is formalized as fundamental law, the
original value of stability in government is all but lost from view.
AT PP Bad Separation of Powers
TURN an expansive executive is necessary to preserve separation of
powers
Mansfield 89 (Harvey Mansfield, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Government at
Harvard University, 1989, Taming the Prince,
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/pcg/files/taming_the_prince.pdf | JJ)
Leaving aside consideration of the American presidency for a moment, we find two notable works by M. J. C. Vile
and W. B. Gwyn on the history of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Here again we encounter the
doctrine of separation of powers
ambivalence of executive power. Both authors insist that the
must be understood as connected with-or, as they say, confused with-the notion of
the mixed or balanced constitution. 35 The cause of this confusion, it would seem, is the
problem of executive power. Because the separation of powers, according to them, is based
on an analysis of functions, and because the executive function is
considered subordinate to the legislative, the result is a weak executive.
Yet the powers do not remain separate operationally unless they are
strong enough to defend themselves against each other, and thus are
independent. In such circumstances a strong executive is required.
Obviously because no formal dictionary or functional definition of
''executive'' power can produce equality with legislative power, a
supplementary and informal reality must be found and justified by the
doctrine of the mixed or balanced constitution. This in itself requires only an informal mix
or balance of functions and not a formal demarcation of them. To secure an actual separation of
powers, therefore, the doctrine of separation of powers must reach
outside its formal justification for that separation and necessarily grasp
some notion of expansive, informal, executive powe r. A recognition, more or less
understood, of this necessity has produced the supposed confusion of the separation of powers and the mixed
constitution. Accordingly, the history of the doctrine of separation of powers needs to be considered with special
emphasis on executive power.
AT AFF Args
AT Links to Politics
CP shields congress
Milner and Tingley 11 (Helen V. and Dustin H., Profs @ Princeton U, Who Supports
Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign
Economic Policy, International Organization 65, Winter 2011, p. 37-68,
http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley
%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global%20Economic%20Engagement.pdf, p.
37-8)//LA
Governments pursue their international goals through the setting of
foreign policy+ Chief executives endeavor to choose foreign policies that
respond to the exi- gencies of the international system; they seek to respond optimally to external circumstances
and to the policies chosen by other countries to advance their goals+ But the tools of foreign policy
have domestic consequences+ Military interventions, trade policy, foreign aid,
economic sanctions, and alliance commitments, for instance, all exact costs from
and provide benefits to different sectors of the domestic polity+ To use
these tools to advance a countrys international goals means that some
domestic groups benefit and others are harmed: For any choice of foreign policy,
there will be winners and losers at the domestic level ; what one player values,
another may discount+1 Foreign policy tools thus have a domestic political
component+ In democracies, governments have to build domestic support for the use of foreign policy
tools+ In the United States, which we focus on in this article, presidents must build
legislative coalitions because of the separation of powers system+
Presidents are not free to simply design the optimal policy for foreign
engagement; instead they must obtain domestic approval+ Legislators
may have their own preferences about foreign policy , given the impact policy has on
their local constituencies and therefore their re-election prospects+ Legislators may find it
politically costly to yield to the presidents foreign policy concerns + Foreign
policy, then, results from some combination of these domestic and international pressures.
Executive orders are protected from encroachment and avoid the link to
politics
Howell and Pevehouse 7 (William G. Howell - Sydney Stein Professor in American Politics in the Harris
School And Jon C. Pevehouse - associate professor at the University of Chicago's Irving B. Harris School of Public
Policy, Princeton University Press, While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers, 2007,
Pg. 8) MaxL
when the president acts, he
The second feature of unilateral powers that deserves attention is that
acts alone. Of course, he relies on numerous advisors to formulate the policy, to devise
ways of protecting it against congressional or judicial encroachment, and
to oversee its implantation. But to issue the actual policy, as either an
executive order or memorandum or any other kind of directive, the president need not rally
majorities, compromise with adversaries or wait for some interest group to
bring a case to court. The president, instead, can strike out on his own, placing on
others the onus of coordinating an effective response. Doing so, the modern president is in a unique
position to lead, break through the stasis that pervades the federal
government, and impose his will in more and more areas of governance.
Obama can pass policies to bypass partisan congress

NYT 12 (Charlie Savage, New York Times Politics, Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals, 4-22-
12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/politics/shift-on-executive-powers-let-obama-bypass-congress.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0) MaxL
Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on
WASHINGTON One Saturday last fall, President
declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively
the agenda. He
use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional
obstructionism. We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything, recalled William M.
Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour
everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own. For Mr. Obama, that meeting was a turning point. As a
senator and presidential candidate, he had criticized George W. Bush for flouting the role of Congress. And during his first two years
in the White House, when Democrats controlled Congress, Mr. Obama largely worked through the legislative process to achieve his
the administration has been seeking ways
domestic policy goals. But increasingly in recent months,
to act without Congress. Branding its unilateral efforts We Cant Wait, a slogan that aides said Mr. Obama
coined at that strategy meeting, the White House has rolled out dozens of new policies on creating jobs for veterans, preventing
drug shortages, raising fuel economy standards, curbing domestic violence and more. Each time, Mr. Obama has emphasized
is bypassing lawmakers. When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured
the fact that he
mortgages last month, for example, he said: If
Congress refuses to act, Ive said that Ill continue to do
everything in my power to act without them. Aides say many more such moves are coming. Not
just a short-term shift in governing style and a re-election strategy, Mr. Obamas increasingly assertive use of executive action could
foreshadow pitched battles over the separation of powers in his second term, should he win and Republicans consolidate their power
in Congress. Many conservatives have denounced Mr. Obamas new approach. But William G. Howell, a University of Chicago
political science professor and author of Power Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action, said Mr.
Obamas use of executive power to advance domestic policies that could not
pass Congress was not new historically. Still, he said, because of Mr. Obamas past as a critic of
executive unilateralism, his transformation is remarkable. What is surprising is that he is coming around to responding to the
incentives that are built into the institution of the presidency, Mr. Howell said. Even someone who has studied the Constitution and
holds it in high regard he, too, is going to exercise these unilateral powers because his long-term legacy and his standing in the
polls crucially depend upon action. Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints
rejecting as unconstitutional Congresss attempt to prevent him from having White House czars on certain issues, for example. But
for the most part, Mr. Obamas increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the
sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessors administration: Mr. Bushs frequent assertion of a right to override
statutes on matters like surveillance and torture. Obamas not saying he has the right to defy a Congressional statute, said
Richard H. Pildes, a New York University law professor. But if the legislative path is blocked and he otherwise has the legal authority
to issue an executive order on an issue, they are clearly much more willing to do that now than two years ago. The Obama
administration started down this path soon after Republicans took over the House of Representatives last year. In February 2011, Mr.
Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex
marriages, against constitutional challenges. Previously, the administration had urged lawmakers to repeal it, but had defended
their right to enact it. In the following months, the administration increased efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions through
environmental regulations, gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls, and refocused
deportation policy in a way that in effect granted relief to some illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Each step
substituted for a faltered legislative proposal. But those moves were isolated and cut against the administrations broader political
messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the
summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nations
borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course. First, he proposed a jobs package and gave speeches urging lawmakers to
pass this bill knowing they would not. A few weeks later, at the policy and campaign strategy meeting in the White Houses
Roosevelt Room, the president told aides that highlighting Congressional gridlock was not enough. He wanted to continue down the
path of being bold with Congress and flexing our muscle a little bit, and showing a contrast to the American people of a Congress
that was completely stuck, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, a deputy chief of staff assigned to lead the effort to come up with ideas. Ms.
DeParle met twice a week with members of the domestic policy council to brainstorm. She met with cabinet secretaries in the fall,
and again in February with their chiefs of staff. No one opposed doing more; the challenge was coming up with workable ideas, aides
said. The focus, said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, was what we could do on our own to help the
economy in areas Congress was failing to act, so the list was not necessarily the highest priority actions, but instead steps that did
not require legislation. Republican lawmakers watched warily. One of Mr. Obamas first We Cant Wait announcements was the
moving up of plans to ease terms on student loans. After Republican complaints that the executive branch had no authority to
change the timing, it appeared to back off. The sharpest legal criticism, however, came in January after Mr. Obama bypassed the
Senate confirmation process to install four officials using his recess appointment powers, even though House Republicans had been
forcing the Senate to hold pro forma sessions through its winter break to block such appointments. Mr. Obama declared the
sessions a sham, saying the Senate was really in the midst of a lengthy recess. His appointments are facing a legal challenge, and
some liberals and many conservatives have warned that he set a dangerous precedent. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate
Democratic leader, who essentially invented the pro forma session tactic late in Mr. Bushs presidency, has not objected, however.
Senate aides said Mr. Reid had told the White House that he would not oppose such appointments based on a memorandum from
his counsel, Serena Hoy. She concluded that the longer the tactic went unchallenged, the harder it would be for any president to
make recess appointments a significant shift in the historic balance of power between the branches. The White House counsel,
Kathryn Ruemmler, said the Obama administrations legal team had begun examining the issue in early 2011 including an
internal Bush administration memo criticizing the notion that such sessions could block a presidents recess powers and
seriously considered making some appointments during Congresss August break. But Mr. Obama decided to move ahead in
January 2012, including installing Richard Cordray to head the new consumer financial protection bureau, after Senate Republicans
I refuse to take no for an answer, Mr. Obama declared, beneath a We
blocked a confirmation vote.
Cant Wait banner. When
Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts
people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without
them. The unilateralist strategy carries political risks. Mr. Obama cannot blame the Republicans when he adopts policies that
liberals oppose, like when he overruled the Environmental Protection Agencys proposal to strengthen antismog rules or decided not
to sign an order banning discrimination by federal contractors based on sexual orientation. The approach also exposes Mr. Obama to
accusations that he is concentrating too much power in the White House. Earlier this year, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican
of Iowa, delivered a series of floor speeches accusing Mr. Obama of acting more and more like a king that the Constitution was
designed to replace and imploring colleagues of both parties to push back against his power grabs. But Democratic lawmakers
have been largely quiet; many of them accuse Republicans of engaging in an unprecedented level of obstructionism and say that Mr.
Obama has to do what he can to make the government work. The pattern adds to a bipartisan history in which lawmakers from
presidents own parties have tended not to object to invocations of executive power. For their part, Republicans appear to have
largely acquiesced. Mr. Grassley said in an interview that his colleagues were reluctant to block even more bills and nominations in
response to Mr. Obamas chutzpah, lest they play into his effort to portray them as making Congress dysfunctional. Some of the
most conservative people in our caucus would adamantly disagree with what Obama did on recess appointments, but they said its
not a winner for us, he said. Mr. Obamas new approach puts him in the company of his recent predecessors. Mr. Bush, for example,
failed to persuade Congress to pass a bill allowing religiously affiliated groups to receive taxpayer grants and then issued an
executive order making the change. President Bill Clinton increased White House involvement in
agency rule making, using regulations and executive orders to show that he was getting things
done despite opposition from a Republican Congress on matters like land
conservation, gun control, tobacco advertising and treaties. (He was assisted by a White House lawyer, Elena Kagan, who later
won tenure at Harvard based on scholarship analyzing such efforts and who is now on the Supreme Court.) And both the
Reagan and George Bush administrations increased their control over executive
agencies to advance a deregulatory agenda, despite opposition from Democratic
lawmakers, while also developing legal theories and tactics to increase executive power, like issuing signing statements
more frequently.
Executive orders get past congressional gridlock avoiding the link to

politics
Koenig 12 (Brian Koenig, Yahoo News, Obama Uses Executive Orders to Bypass Congress
Obama Uses Executive Orders to Bypass Congress, 4-23-12, http://news.yahoo.com/obama-uses-executive-orders-
bypass-congress-192700126.html) MaxL
President Barack Obama's agenda, particularly involving legislative proposals like his ambitious "Buffett
Rule" tax plan, has been stunted by a polarized Congress now toiling in gridlock.
Consequently, the White House is resorting to its purported "executive authority" -- specifically, by
issuing a flurry of new executive orders. To put it lightly, the president's view of Congress has been
unpalatable, at least, since the Republicans captured the House of Representatives in the 2010 election. And
Obama's solution? Bypass Congress altogether. "We had been attempting to highlight the
inability of Congress to do anything," asserted former White House chief of staff William M. Daley, referring to a
we have got to scour
strategy meeting carried out last fall. "The president expressed frustration, saying
everything andpush the envelope in finding things we can do on our own." Indeed,
the Obama administration is now launching its "We Can't Wait" campaign , a
seemingly despotic ploy to work around Obama's congressional foes and enact a
catalog of new executive-ordained policies. On Monday, for example, Obama issued an
executive order that would grant U.S. officials the authority to decree sanctions on foreign nationals who have used
internet tracking and cellphone monitoring -- among other technologies -- to perform human-rights abuses.
Furthermore, the White House released another executive order earlier this month that would establish an oversight
group consisting of 12 federal agencies charged with supporting "safe and responsible unconventional domestic
natural gas development." One more executive order -- entitled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness" --
quietly issued on March 16, granted unprecedented power to the president to control "critical resource and
production sources," including energy production. In effect, this insatiable product of Obama's "We Can't Wait"
campaign granted the president unbounded authority to seize control of all U.S. resources as long as his intention is
the White
"to promote the national defense" -- an obscure maxim that bolsters countless meanings. All in all,
House's agenda is clear. "I refuse to take 'no' for an answer," Obama professed in a
speech carried out earlier this year. "When Congress refuses to act and -- as a result -- hurts our
economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I
can without them."
Administration efforts solve Latin American policy bypasses Congress

Hallow 13 (Ralph Z. Hallow, The Washington Times, A Top 10 list for the new Congress:
Issues, trends to watch on Capitol Hill in 2013, beyond, 1-7-13,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/7/top-10-list-for-the-new-congress/) MaxL
Despite the administrations best efforts, the problems in
4) Benghazi and the world:
foreign policy exposed by the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, will get a
security and
fresh airing in the new Congress. Other overseas events likely to be felt
strongly at home include the potential shifts in Latin America with the passing
from the scene of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, who is battling cancer, and the
European Unions never-ending efforts to get its arms around the euro crisis. The ability of Europes elite to find political Band-Aids
to cover over ever-expanding economic wounds is truly impressive, but not without bounds, said Heritage Foundation fellow J.D.
Foster. 5) Alien nation: Watch for Republicans, stung by huge losses among Hispanic voters Nov. 6, to tear themselves apart in a
struggle to reach a bipartisan immigration deal. Mr. Obama has vowed to get more involved in drafting legislation to overhaul the
nations immigration policies, but any final compromise could wind up alienating the ideological wings of both parties. One element
both sides likely will agree on is a move to reverse the brain drain of talented immigrants, said Brookings Institutions Governance
Studies Fellow John Hudak, easing rules for visa-bearing foreign graduates of U.S. universities who have high-tech savvy to stay and
work in the country. Many GOP leaders say they recognize the need to refine the partys message on immigration, but Sen. Marco
Rubios efforts to draft a Republican version of the Dream Act could prove problematic with the party base if the freshman Floridian
makes a 2016 presidential run. 6) Economic blame game: As in Mr. Obamas first term, a potential economic slowdown this year
would leave the two parties fighting over who bears the blame for the failure of the economy to recover fully. Mr. Obama was able to
blame predecessor George W. Bush for much of his first terms woes, but that argument is unlikely to fly in the next four years. 7)
Waging war on wages: Whatever the pace of economic growth in the next four years, an equally important political debate is
shaping up over pocketbooks and paychecks. After years of unimpressive wage growth, labor unions will pressure Mr. Obama to do
something to boost paychecks, extending the fight already begun over higher taxes for the rich passed in the fiscal cliff
compromise. In his first term, Mr. Obama condemned wage stagnation but offered no concrete solutions. If he does so in 2013,
Republicans face a question of how to position their opposition. 8) Governors on the ballot: Two very different Republicans will be
carrying the banner in the only two states holding gubernatorial contests this year. In Virginia, state Attorney General Kenneth T.
Cuccinelli II, a favorite of movement conservatives, will test his appeal as the GOP nominee in an increasingly purple state that
voted once again for Mr. Obama in November. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie seeks a second term while facing anger from some
on the right over his performance in the Superstorm Sandy aftermath and seeking to enhance his national profile ahead of a
With divided government and
possible 2016 presidential bid. 9) Congressional bypass operation:
partisan gridlock returning to Capitol Hill in 2013, conservatives will be on the watch for efforts by
the administration to bypass Congress to implement Mr. Obamas liberal agenda. The expectation on both sides is
for agency action and executive orders that bypass Congress, moves that
cant be blocked legislatively but pile more regulations on the private
sector.
AT XO Gets Rolled Back
Executive orders rarely get rolled back in fact, they force Congressional
action
Fine and Warber 12 (JEFFREY A. FINE and ADAM L. WARBER, Associate Professor
of Political Science at Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Science, 4/13/12,
Circumventing Adversity: Executive Orders and Divided Government, Presidential
Studies Quarterly Vol. 42, Issue 2, 256-274, Wiley Online | JJ)
We also should expect presidents to prioritize and be strategic in the types of executive orders that they create to
maneuver around a hostile Congress. There are a variety of reasons that can drive a president's decision. For
presidents can use an executive order to move the status quo of a
example,
policy issue to a position that is closer to their ideal point . By doing so,
presidents are able to pressure Congress to respond , perhaps by passing
a new law that represents a compromise between the preferences of the
president and Congress. Forcing Congress's hand to enact legislation
might be a preferred option for the president, if he perceives Congress to
be unable or unwilling to pass meaningful legislation in the first place.
While it is possible that such unilateral actions might spur Congress to
pass a law to modify or reverse a president's order, such responses by
Congress are rare (Howell 2003, 113-117; Warber 2006, 119). Enacting a major policy executive order
allows the president to move the equilibrium toward his preferred outcome without having to spend time lining up
votes or forming coalitions with legislators. As a result, and since reversal from Congress is
unlikely , presidents have a greater incentive to issue major policy orders
to overcome legislative hurdles.
Executive orders are fast and fear little checks from the other branches
Fisher 7 (Louis Fisher, Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project, 2007, A
review of Executive Orders and the Modern Presidency: Legislating from the Oval
Office by Adam Warber, Political Science Quarterly Vol. 121 Issue 4, 712-713,
ProQuest | JJ)
A reader may draw the erroneous conclusion that the significance of executive orders is not growing. Looking at
executive orders are being used
total numbers, there has been no significant increase, but
more frequently for policy purposes. From the administration of Franklin Roosevelt to
that of John Kennedy, the percentage of policy executive orders ranged from 22.2
percent to 38.8 percent, or an average of 25.7 percent. That percentage increased to 42.8 percent from the
administration of Lyndon Johnson to that of Gerald Ford, and climbed still further, to 65.6 percent from the
administration of Jimmy Carter to that of Bill Clinton (p. 39). Also, Warber makes clear that presidents are
at liberty to issue executive orders with little fear of legislative or judicial

checks . Without pushback from other branches, executive orders remain
a potent weapon.
AT SOP Disad
The prez has got the powercomparative evidence
Propst 11 (Stephen F., The Brookings Institution, Presidential Authority To Modify
Economic Sanctions Against Cuba, 2/15/11,
http://www.hoganlovells.com/files/Publication/57d34e80-51b8-4ee0-ae64-
750f65ee7642/Preview/PublicationAttachment/55896b90-840a-42bf-8744-
752a7a206333/Cuba%20Aritcle%20FINAL.pdf)//LA
Through a complex series of federal statutes, Congress has codified the comprehensive
U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba and restricted the Presidents
authority to suspend or terminate those sanctions until a transition government is in power in Cuba.
Notwithstanding these statutory requirements , the President maintains
broad authority and discretion to significantly ease specific provisions of
the Cuba sanctions regime in support of particular U.S. foreign policy
objectives recognized by Congress, including the provision of humanitarian support for the
Cuban people and the promotion of democratic reforms. In fact, since Congress codified of the
Cuba sanctions in 1996, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have each
exercised this authority to ease the scope of restrictions applicable to Cuba, without action or approval
by Congress. This executive authority to modify the Cuba sanctions is grounded in
Constitutional, statutory and regulatory provisions that empower the
President and the responsible executive branch agencies to grant
exceptions to the sanctions through executive actions, regulations and
licenses. The authority is particularly broad in certain areas , such as
telecommunications-related transactions and humanitarian donations, where Congress has
explicitly granted discretion to the President under existing statutes.
Consistent with the relevant statutory authorities and restrictions, as well as statutory statements of U.S. policy
the President arguably has sufficient legal authority to make the
objectives,
following types of additional changes to the current U.S. sanctions against
Cuba: Establishing general licenses for existing categories of travel to Cuba that are currently authorized
only by specific licenses; Expanding existing categories of authorized travel to include new travel provisions
(along the same lines as the new authorization announced on January 14, 2011 for travel related to non-academic
clinics and workshops in Cuba); Revising existing general and specific license provisions to ease or eliminate
current limitations and conditions applicable to travel and remittances to Cuba; Establishing a new general
license for the provision of services to Cuba (along the same lines as the March 2010 revision that authorized
services to facilitate Internet communications); Establishing a general license for entry into U.S. ports
of vessels engaged in trade with Cuba; Permitting payment for authorized
transactions with Cuba (except sales of agricultural commodities or products) to be financed
through letters of credit or other financing arrangements issued, confirmed or advised by U.S. financial
institutions (but subject to statutory restrictions on the extension of credit for transactions involving confiscated
property); Authorizing imports of certain goods and services from Cuba;
Modifying current export control regulations to establish more favorable licensing policies
for additional categories of items that may be exported under specific licenses; Establishing additional
license exceptions for exports of U.S.-origin goods to Cuba ; and Expanding
the availability of existing license exceptions to cover additional categories of exports and easing
conditions and limitations on the use of those exceptions.
Only the CP is constitutional

Powell 99 (H. Jefferson, Prof @ Duke Law School, The Presidents Authority over
Foreign Affairs: An Executive Branch Perspective, The George Washington Law
Review March 99 Vol. 67 No. 3, p. 527,
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1391&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522executive
%2522%2520%2522responsibility%2522%2520%2522foreign%2520policy
%2522%2520%2522congress%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved
%3D0CEgQFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu
%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1391%2526context
%253Dfaculty_scholarship%26ei%3D3kfcUcLeCeT98AH04IH4Bw%26usg
%3DAFQjCNHoPUm0q3wf09AANmj7ZMANxtDmLw#search=%22executive
%20responsibility%20foreign%20policy%20congress%22)//LA
As the preceding discussion of conditional spending indicates, the executive branch perspective
involves challenging questions of how to reconcile the existence of the
President'-s broad authority as constitutional representative of the
United States in foreign affairs with Congress's far-reaching powers. It is
as unacceptable to allow Congress to seize control of the executive's
responsibilities for foreign policy and national security as it is to give crabbed
readings to the authority of the national legislature to provide for the common defense and general welfare.
Responsible constitutional reasoning from the executive branch
perspective seeks to serve both of these goals: "we fully acknowledge the
broad sweep of Congress's powers while insisting, as we must, that those
powers cannot be legitimately employed so as to undermine the
constitutional authority of the executive branch."127 Understood from the executive
branch perspective, in other words, executive primacy in foreign affairs and national
security is a faithful exposition not only of judicial precedent and
historical practice, but also of the fundamental notion that the
Constitution is meant to provide checks on the tendency of power,
including executive power, to become arbitrary. As I noted in the Introduction, executive
primacy is a persuasive interpretation of the Constitution only if it can generate a set of doctrines concerning power
over foreign affairs and national security that makes sense in light of the whole of constitutional law. The next Part
of this Essay provides a schematic outline of those doctrines, a descrip- tion of the executive primacy position
rather than a direct defense of its supe- riority over competing views of the Constitution.
---XO Action on Cuba Constitutional
The CP is constitutional
AS-COA 2/20 (Americas SocietyCouncil of the Americas, Seven Steps the U.S.
President Can Take to Promote Change in Cuba by Adapting the Embargo, 2/20/13,
http://www.as-coa.org/articles/seven-steps-us-president-can-take-promote-change-
cuba-adapting-embargo)//LA
A careful reading of U.S. policy goals toward Cuba and the set of
regulations and laws governing the U.S. embargo on Cuba reveal a series
of changes that are essential to ensuring the U.S. administrations goal of
encouraging independent economic and political activity in Cuba. More
important, they are also legally possible and within the Presidents
authority under existing regulations. To that end, we propose the
following steps that President Obama can take to encourage private
organizations and individuals to directly and indirectly serve as catalysts
for meaningful economic change in Cuba.
Grant exceptions for commerceincluding sales and importsfor businesses and
individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state) economic activity.
Allow for the export and sale of goods and services to businesses and
individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state) economic
activity.
Allow licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba to have access to U.S.-issued pre-
paid cards and other financial servicesincluding travelers insurance.
Expand general licensed travel to include U.S. executives and their duly appointed
agents to Cuba in financial services, travel and hospitality-related industries, such as banking, insurance, credit
cards, and consumer products related to travel.
Expand general licensed travel to include: law, real estate and land titling,
financial services and credit, and any area defined as supporting
independent economic activity.
Allow for the sale of telecommunications hardware including cell towers, satellite
dishes, and handsetsin Cuba.
Allow for the possibility for Cuba to request technical assistance from
International Financial Institutions (IFIs) in the area of economic and institutional reform.
In a separate annex (Annex I) this document lays out the legal and statutory basis for
Presidential authority to make these necessary reforms to further U.S.
policy to Cuba.
Heres a list of constitutional justifications for our CP

AS-COA 2/20 (Americas SocietyCouncil of the Americas, Seven Steps the U.S.
President Can Take to Promote Change in Cuba by Adapting the Embargo, 2/20/13,
http://www.as-coa.org/articles/seven-steps-us-president-can-take-promote-change-
cuba-adapting-embargo)//LA
Recommendations
1. Grant exceptions for commerceincluding sales and importsfor businesses and
individuals engaged in certifiably independent (i.e., non-state) economic activity.
Regulatory Prohibition(s)
31 C.F.R. 515.204 prohibits the importation of any Cuban origin goods, goods
located in or transported from Cuba, or goods derived in whole or in part from Cuba,
unless expressly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury.
31 C.F.R. 515.506(c)(3) expressly declines to authorize the importation of any
Cuban origin merchandise acquired incident to travel in Cuba.
Statutory Prohibition(s)
None
22 U.S.C. 6040(a) notes that 31 C.F.R. 515.204 prohibits the importation of
goods from Cuba, but does not codify or expressly prohibit such activity.
22 U.S.C. 7028 acknowledges that Congress did not attempt to alter any
prohibitions on the importation of goods from Cuba under 31 C.F.R. 515.204.
However, Congress did not codify or otherwise mandate the enforcement of this
regulation.
Presidential Authority
Although, multiple Congressional statutes have re-stated the regulatory prohibition
on the importation of Cuban goods, no legislation appears to codify the restriction.
Thus, the President may modify 31 C.F.R. 204s complete prohibition on the
importation of Cuban goods to permit some exceptions.
2. Allow for the export and sale of goods and services to businesses, agricultural
cooperatives and individuals engaged in certifiably (i.e., non-state) economic
activity.
15 C.F.R. 746.2 prohibits a variety of exports of U.S. goods to Cuba. This regulatory
provision sets forth various licensing exceptions and special licenses that permit the
exportation of certain goods to Cuba, however, none apply to the goods described
by the recommendation.
31 C.F.R. 515.559 prohibits the exportation of goods to Cuba which require special
licenses pursuant to 15 C.F.R. 746.2 unless the good meets a series of
requirements listed within 31 C.F.R. 515.559(a)-(b). Importantly, a special license
will only be authorized for goods relating to (1) contracts that were entered into
prior to October 23, 1992; (2) medicine or medical devices (subject to additional
restrictions); or (3) telecommunications equipment.
22 U.S.C. 6005(a)(1) codifies the restrictions for issuing special licenses for
exports to Cuba found within 31 C.F.R. 515.559.
The President will have the authority to amend 15 C.F.R. 746.2 to permit additional
licensing exceptions for the exportation of goods discussed in the recommendation.
However, the Presidents ability to create additional special licenses is restricted by
the limitations imposed by 31 C.F.R. 515.559 and 22 U.S.C. 6005(a)(1).
3. Allow licensed U.S. travelers to Cuba to have access to U.S.-issued pre-paid cards
and other financial servicesincluding travelers insurance.
31 C.F.R. 515.201(a)(1) prohibits all transfers of credit by or through any banking
institution or person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
31 C.F.R. 515.560(e) prohibits the use of credit cards, debit cards, or other
instruments for travel expenditures within Cuba.
31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(5) only permits transactions incident to travel in Cuba to be
conducted using currency, which is defined as money, cash, drafts, notes,
travelers checks, negotiable instruments, or scrip having a specific and readily
determinable face value or worth, but which does not include gold or other precious
metals in any form.
22 U.S.C. 6033(a) prohibits the financing of any transactions involving confiscated
property claimed by a U.S. national.
22 U.S.C. 7207(b) prohibits the financing of agricultural sales in terms other than
in cash.
The President may modify the current regulations to permit the use of credit cards
and other financial services in Cuba subject only to the minor limitations imposed
by 22 U.S.C. 6033(a) and 22 U.S.C. 7207(b).
4. Expand general licensed travel to include U.S. executives and their duly
appointed agents to Cuba in financial services, travel and hospitality-related
industries, such as banking, insurance, credit cards, and consumer products related
to travel.
31 C.F.R. 515.560(a) prohibits all travel to, from, or within Cuba except travel
incident to activities which fall into one of twelve different licensing categories.
31 C.F.R. 515.564(a)(2)-(3) limits travel for professional meetings to those
organized by international professional organizations or for commercial
telecommunications transactions.
31 C.F.R. 515.574 limits travel to provide support for the Cuban people to
include a non-exhaustive list of activities such as: activities for recognized human
rights organizations; activities for independent organizations supporting democracy
in Cuba; and activities by non-governmental organizations to promote independent
activity within Cuban civil society.
22 U.S.C. 7209(b) prohibits all travel to, from, or within Cuba that does not fall into
a category set forth in 31 C.F.R. 515.560(c). The President may not add any
additional travel category to 31 C.F.R. 515.560(c).
The President may permit additional general licensed travel only to the extent the
President is able to broaden the scope of one of the current twelve travel
categories.[8] Presently, none of the twelve categories directly incorporate the
activities detailed in the recommendation; however, no legislation prohibits the
President from altering the meaning of each category. The most applicable travel
categories are 31 C.F.R. 515.560(a)(4)Professional research and professional
meetingsor 31 C.F.R. 515.560(8)Support for the Cuban people. The
President may amend the provisions that define these travel categories31 C.F.R.
515.564(a)(2)-(3) and 31 C.F.R. 515.574in order to permit the desired activity.
5. Expand general licensed travel to include: law, real estate and land titling,
financial services and credit, and any area defined as supporting independent
economic activity.
The President does not have the authority to add more categories of licensed travel
as explained in Question (2). However, The President will have authority to amend
or redefine the existing travel categoriesmost specifically the categories focused
on travel in support of the Cuban people or for professional meetings.
6. Allow for the sale of telecommunications hardwareincluding cell towers,
satellite dishes, and handsetsin Cuba.
None
31 C.F.R. 515.542 currently permits all transactions of common carriers incident to
the use of cables, satellite channels, radio signals, or other means of
telecommunications for the provision of services between Cuba and the U.S.
22 USC 6004(e)(5) declines to authorize any U.S. person from investing in the
domestic telecommunications network within Cuba. Thus, U.S. individuals may not
invest funds to physically link telecommunications devices with the Cuban domestic
network.
The President has the authority to amend the current regulations in order to further
enhance telecommunications connections between the U.S. and Cuba. Importantly,
22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(5) does not prohibit investment in the Cuban
telecommunications network. Instead, the statute only states that it does not
authorize such activity. Notably, much of what this recommendation seeks to
accomplish has already been enacted by the President under 31 C.F.R. 515.542.[9]
The only additional amendments that may be necessary are those that will clarify
the ability of telecommunications providers to invest or link with the Cuban
domestic network.
7. Promote Cubas engagement with International Financial Institutions (IFIs) to
create opportunities for gradual process of confidence building through technical
and development assistance
None
22 U.S.C. 6034(a) requires the U.S. representative of any international financial
institution to oppose by voice or vote the admission of Cuba as a member of such
institution unless the President determines that a democratically elected
government has come to power in Cuba.
The President has no authority to permit Cuba to become a member of any
international financial institution (IFI), limiting the ability of the U.S. to promote
Cubas engagement with IFIs. However, 22 U.S.C. 6034(a) only applies to issues
of Cubas admission as a member of an IFI. To the extent the President wishes to
otherwise engage in a policy to increase Cubas engagement with IFIs without
seeking Cubas admission as a member, the President may do so.
AT Perm
Perm links to the net benefit it hurts prez powers
Suto 13 (Ryan J. Suto, Policymic, What is an Executive Order And is It Constitutional?, February 2013,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/27100/what-is-an-executive-order-and-is-it-constitutional) MaxL
The National Archives describes executive orders as official documents, numbered consecutively, through
which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government. These documents
are largely constitutional and uncontroversial. Despite President Obamas
relatively infrequent use of executive orders, they have become a salient
topic lately, and thus warrant more explanation. There are two relevant clauses in the U.S. Constitution regarding
executive orders: Art. I Sec. 1 and Art. II Sec. 3. The first states, All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The
second clause states that the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. Or, put more simply,
Congress makes the laws and the president enforces the laws. Thus, the deeply-rooted American concept of
"separation of powers" is what drives the controversy of executive orders. While the president cannot "legislate,"
if Congress micromanaged the
he/she must be able to control his/her branch of the government:
executive branch, that would encroach on presidential power, and thus
violate the separation of powers as much as presidential legislation would .
This is the constitutional tightrope that executive orders must walk: they cannot constitute "legislation," but must
allow the president to effectively run the executive branch of the government so that he/she can ensure the laws
are faithfully executed.
The perm fails Congress will veto unpopular executive orders if included
Abourezk 77 (James Abourezk Former US senator, Maurer School of Law: Indiana University, Indiana Law
Journal, The Congressional Veto: A Contemporary Response to Executive Encroachment on Legislative
Prerogatives, 1-1-1977, http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3235&context=ilj) MaxL
As a means of controlling and limiting the exercise of legislativ e-like power by
executive or administrative agencies, Congress has adopted the congressional veto
procedure.4 This procedure enables Congress, by action short of enactment of
new legislation, to preclude implementation of proposed executive or
administrative actions which have been advanced pursuant to statutory authority. The congressional
veto takes three forms: (1) action by one or more designated committees of Congress (committee veto); (2) a
simple resolution passed by either House of Congress (oneHouse veto); or (3) a concurrent resolution
(concurrent veto). The congressional veto customarily takes effect in the following manner. Congress enacts a
statute, either signed by the President or passed over his veto, requiring implementation by the executive or an
an affected agency
administrative agency. Pursuant to a delegation of authority in the enabling statute,
must submit to Congress whatever executive orders, rules, regulations or directives it
proposes to implement the stated congressional policy. If at the expiration of a specified time period,
usually thirty to sixty days, no disapproval action is taken by the Congress, the proposed
action becomes effective.
AT Perm Do the CP
The perm is severance
The means all parts

Merriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate
reference to a group as a whole <the elite>
USFG is all three branches

US Legal, No Date (US Legal Definitions, United States Federal Government Law & Legal Definition,
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/) MaxL
The United States Federal Government is established by the US
Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual
governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature,
which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii)
Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and checks and balances for the
smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of
the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government
are reserved to the States or to the people.
Severance is illegitimate
A. Kills neg ground allows them to spike out of links killing fairness and
in depth education
B. Makes them a moving target severing parts of the 1AC make it
impossible to have coherent debates and education
AFF XO CP
Perm
Permdo bothCongress can enact legislation granting Obama the power
to do the plan
Gosar 13 (Rep. Paul R-AZ, Breitbart.com, PRESIDENTIAL GUN BAN: EXECUTIVE
POWER OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB?, 1/10/13,
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/presidential-gun-ban-
executive-unconstitutional)//LA
Let's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by
the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all
legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the
Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are
consistent with our Constitution. The executive branch has the
Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is
well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An
executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress . The
Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3, Clause
5. Thus,executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If
we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law,
the President can't do it unilaterally. In order for the President to enact a
gun ban by executive order, he would have to have such power given to him by
Congress (we already established that the Constitution does not give him that power). Any unilateral
action by the President must rely on either a constitutional authority or a
statutory power from Congress. What laws exist for the President to enact gun bans by executive
order? The Attorney General is authorized under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to regulate the import of firearms if it is
generally suitable" for or readily adaptable to sporting purpose. Thus, the Attorney General could use a sporting
purposes test by which he can determine the types of firearms that can be imported into the United States. But
this law does not authorize a gun ban or affect domestic manufacture and sales. So it provides no Congressional
Obama may point out that
basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban. President
President Clinton issued an executive order (No. 12938) in 1994 where some Chinese
firearms and ammunition were restricted from import. If that occurred, it would have been a
serious overreach of the application of the authority set forth in that
Executive Order, which President Clinton said at the time was being implemented under the International
Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and the Arms Export Control Act. As stated in the Order itself,
"the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons of mass destruction) and of the means
of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy,
and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat." President
Clinton Executive Order 12938 (1994). How that justification, based on large scale weapons of mass destruction,
could be interpreted to include Chinese hand guns is unclear and problematic. Indeed, any fair reading of those
The bottom line is that there is
laws would conclude they could not support a domestic gun ban.
no Congressional authority enacted that would allow the President to take
unilateral action to make it unlawful for individuals to transfer or possess a rifle, handgun or other gun or a
large capacity ammunition feeding device. Nor is there any Constitutional power under Article II (the power of being
the Commander in Chief) that allows this. If the President wants a gun ban or ammunition ban he has to first
revise the Second Amendment, which is not easy, but possible. I would, of course, oppose that, as would most
Americans. But that is at least a lawful and Constitutional means to achieve this.
Executive-legislative COOPERATION solves best

Eizenstat 98 (Stuart E., JD Harvard Law School, Jimmy Carters Chief Domestic
Policy Advisor, Bill Clintons Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Undersecretary of
State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, and Undersecretary of
Commerce, also was United States Ambassador to the EU from 1993-6, Very
qualified individual, Sanctions By Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, 9/8/98, http://wpobw-
res8.wpafb.af.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%2021_2/Eizenstat.pdf)//LA
Most importantly. Mr. Chairman. our foreign policy is most effective when it reflects
cooperation and consultation between the Administration and the
Congress. The decision to apply economic sanctions--or to lift or waive
potential measures or those already in place--should reflect a relationship
of comity between the Executive and Legislative branches. We must
respect the particular role that each branch plays in making foreign policy.
The Congress shares with the Executive Branch the responsibility for
helping shape our foreign policy. In the realm of economic measures.
Congress has a clear role which we respect. At the same time. the
President is responsible for conducting the nation's foreign policy and for
dealing with foreign governments. Thus. sanctions legislation needs to
take into account these respective responsibilities. Sanctions legislation
should set forth broad objectives but should allow the flexibility to
respond to a constantly changing and evolving situation and give the
President the necessary authority to tailor specific U.S. actions to meet
our foreign policy objectives. As Secretary Albright has said, there can be no "cookie-
cutter," no "one size fits all "approach to sanctions policy. Comity between
branches of government is expressed in sanctions legislation through the
inclusion of appropriate Presidential flexibility. including broad waiver
authority. Congress speaks. but ultimately only the President can weigh
all the foreign policy issues at stake at any given moment and tailor our
response to a specific situation. Congress's power of the purse and of
oversight are more-than-adequate tools with which to shape our foreign
policy: but those powers should not be used to hobble the President's
authority to act with discretion and alacrity. As a matter of general
principle. legislation that empowers the President to impose economic
sanctions should also empower him not to act and to waive or suspend
measures already in place if it is in the national interest. If our policies are
to be effective. we must work together to see that our use of sanctions is
appropriate. coherent. and designed to gain international support. There
must be more structured. systematic discussions between the Executive
Branch and Congress when sanctions are an option. The efforts of this Task Force and
this hearing itself are. Mr. Chairman. a good example of the way our two branches of government should work
together to design an effective and principled sanctions policy that can be truly effective in advancing our broad
national interests.
Perm Avoids Politics
Congress would be totally down with the perm
Weiner 1/14 (Sarah, Very good former debater, works @ Center for Strategic and
International Studies, Fast Tracking Nuclear Treaties, 1/14/13,
http://csis.org/blog/fast-tracking-nuclear-treaties)//LA
It would appear as if nuclear agreements are stuck between a rock and a hard place. President Obama could
act independently, provoking congressional backlash and raising
Constitutional objections, or he could submit agreements to the Senate for
their advice and consent, likely to receive much of the former but too little of the latter. Fortunately,
there is a third way forward, a half-step between independent executive
action and cumbersome treaty ratification in the Senate. The
Administration should consider submitting future international nuclear pacts to
Congress in the form of congressional-executive agreements. This
alternative ratification process, frequently used for trade and financial treaties, lowers the
bar for Congressional consent without excluding the legislative branch from
the treaty process.
Rollback
No solvency - risk of rollbackempirics, and appeals dont solve
Eggen 6 (Dan, Washington Post, Judge Strikes Down Parts of Executive Order on
Terrorism, 11/29/6, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801438.html)//LA
A Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that key portions of a presidential
order blocking financial assistance to terrorist groups are unconstitutional, further
complicating the Bush administration's attempts to defend its aggressive anti-terrorism
tactics in federal courts. U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins, in a ruling released late Monday, found that two
provisions of an executive order signed Sept. 23, 2001, are impermissibly vague because they allow the president
The
to unilaterally designate organizations as terrorist groups and broadly prohibit association with such groups.
ruling marks a victory for the Humanitarian Law Project and other plaintiffs in the case, who are seeking
to provide support for the "lawful, nonviolent activities" of two groups designated terrorist organizations by the U.S.
government: the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also
known as the Tamil Tigers, in Sri Lanka. They argue that federal anti-terrorism laws put charities and individual
donors at risk of prosecution for providing benign assistance to foreign groups that have been added to the
government's terrorism list. David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who is
helping to represent the plaintiffs in the case, said the executive order and a related federal statute improperly
allow President Bush to create "blacklists" and engage in "guilt by association." "The court's decision confirms that
even in fighting terror, unchecked executive authority and trampling on fundamental freedoms is not a permissible
The ruling is the latest setback for the
option," Cole said in a statement.
administration's terrorism and detention policies, in lower courts and at the Supreme Court. In August,
a federal judge in Detroit ruled that a National Security Agency warrantless wiretap program is unconstitutional. The
government has appealed that ruling. Collins has previously issued similar rulings in favor of the Humanitarian Law
Project, a Los Angeles group that has filed legal challenges to a 1996 anti-terrorism law and to the 2001 USA Patriot
Act. Those issues are still being litigated after Congress rewrote parts of the Patriot Act. The
latest case focuses on Executive Order 13224, which is aimed at cutting off financing to alleged terrorist groups and
is based on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Twenty-seven groups and individuals were
initially named as "specially designated global terrorists" under the order -- including the PKK and the Tamil Tigers --
Collins said the order is
and hundreds more since have been added to the list. In her ruling,
unconstitutional because there is "no apparent limit" on presidential
authority to designate groups or individuals as terrorists. In addition, the judge ruled, language banning those
"otherwise associated" with such groups is "unconstitutionally vague on its face." Collins rejected a number of other
The
claims by the plaintiffs, however, including that the order's definition of a terrorist group is too vague.
Justice Department said it is too early to decide on an appeal . "We are pleased
that the court rejected many of the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs," Justice Department
spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other
Fein, a Justice Department official
aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional." Bruce
in the Reagan years who has criticized the Bush administration's broad assertions of executive power,
said that appealing Collins's ruling may carry more risks for the
government than simply changing the executive order's language. "If they
take this up on appeal, they risk another repudiation of this omnipotent-
presidency theory that they have," Fein said.
CP Links to Politics
On a scale of one to ten, how much does this CP link to politics? OVER
NINE THOUSAND!!!
Weisman 9 (Jonathan, WSJ, Obamas Fiat Angers Lawmakers, [Im dead serious.
The article is ACTUALLY called Obamas Fiat Angers Lawmakerslike holy crap
right? Ermagerdermagerd], 7/15/9,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124761651200542351.html)//LA
WASHINGTON -- With $108 billion in International Monetary Fund loan guarantees in jeopardy last month, White
House economic officials begged, cajoled and cut deals with Democrats to secure
passage of legislation boosting the fund's power. Days later, President Barack Obama announced
he wasn't bound by any of the agreements. The ensuing flap over the
president's June 24 signing statement is the latest in a series of clashes
between the White House and Congress over an issue Mr. Obama once fought against
himself: presidential fiat . As a candidate, Mr. Obama pledged that he
wouldn't abuse the presidential signing statement , a declaration issued by the
president when he signs a bill to give his interpretation of that law. President George W. Bush used so many
signing statements -- more than 750 -- that the American Bar Association criticized it as an
abuse of power. After Mr. Obama's issuance of his second signing statement last month, even some
Democrats say he isn't keeping his word on reining in unilateral
presidential actions. "Of course there's a broader issue here," said House Financial Services Chairman
Barney Frank (D., Mass.), referring to the brewing battles with Mr. Obama over presidential prerogative. "It's
A White House official said the signing
outrageous. It's exactly what the Bush people did."
statement was issued "out of an abundance of caution" to preserve "core
presidential prerogatives" in the area of foreign policy. "The administration
negotiated in good faith on this bill and has every intention of living up to our commitments undertaken in the
legislation," said White House deputy press secretary Jen Psaki. The House last week reinstated the restrictions on
the IMF that were undone by the president's June signing statement, by a vote of 429-2, in a foreign-operations
House Appropriations
appropriations bill. In a letter slated for delivery on Wednesday, Mr. Frank,
Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.), and New York Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey
and Gregory Meeks will inform the president that if he issues another signing
statement on IMF and World Bank funding, Congress will cut off the funds he wants. Mr.
Obama needs good relations with congressional Democrats to help pass
his agenda on health care, energy and financial-markets regulation . At the
London summit of the Group of 20 largest economic powers in April, Mr. Obama had promised to secure
large increases in loan guarantees for the IMF. With the Group of Eight summit kicking off soon, failure to
make good on that promise would have been an embarrassment . Many
Republicans opposed the IMF loan-guarantee language, which had been inserted in a war-spending bill making its
The White House
way through Congress last month, calling it a bailout for international bankers.
needed to win over balking Democrats. Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.), negotiating for some
Jewish lawmakers, said he told White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers they needed
stronger guarantees that IMF loans wouldn't go to Iran.
Executive power is partisanit CAN be blocked by Congress and causes

backlash
Daly et al 2/8 (Matthew, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Mary Clare Jalonick, and Sam
Hananel, Associated Press, How Obama is wielding executive power in 2nd term,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-obama-is-wielding-executive-power-in-2nd-
term/article/2520953) LA [Card from last year]
Obama's campaign
WASHINGTON (AP) -- This is what "Forward" looks like. Fast forward, even. President Barack
springing to life in a surge of executive directives and agency rule-
slogan is
making that touch many of the affairs of government. They are shaping the cost and
quality of health plans, the contents of the school cafeteria, the front lines of future combat, the price of coal. They
are the leading edge of Obama's ambition to take on climate change in ways that may be unachievable in
legislation. Altogether, it's a kinetic switch from what could have been the watchword of the Obama administration
in the closing, politically hypersensitive months of his first term: pause. Whatever the merits of any particular
commandment from the president or his agencies, the perception of a government expanding its reach and hitting
business with job-killing mandates was sure to set off fireworks before November. Since Obama's re-election,
regulations giving force and detail to his health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages. To some extent
this was inevitable: The law is far-reaching and its most consequential deadlines are fast approaching. The rules are
much more than fine print, however, and they would have thickened the storm over the health care overhaul if
placed on the radar in last year's presidential campaign. That, after all, was the season when some Republicans put
the over-the-top label "death panel" on a board that could force cuts to service providers if Medicare spending
ballooned. The new health law rules provide leeway for insurers to charge smokers thousands of dollars more for
coverage. They impose a $63 per-head fee on insurance plans -- a charge that probably will be passed on to
policyholders -- to cushion the cost of covering people with medical problems. There's a new fee for insurance
companies for participating in markets that start signing customers in the fall. In short, sticker shock. It's clear from
the varied inventory of previously bottled-up directives that Obama cares about more than "Obamacare." "I'm
hearing we're going to see a lot of things moving now ," Hilda Solis told employees in her
last day as labor secretary. At the Labor Department, this could include regulations requiring that the nation's 1.8
million in-home care workers receive minimum-wage and overtime pay. Tougher limits on soot from smokestacks,
diesel trucks and other sources were announced just over a month after the November election. These were
foreseen: The administration had tried to stall until the campaign ended but released the proposed rules in June
when a judge ordered more haste. Regulations give teeth and specificity to laws are essential to their functioning
Congress-skirting executive orders and similar
even as they create bureaucratic bloat.
presidential directives are less numerous and generally have less reach
than laws. But every president uses them and often tests how far they can
go, especially in times of war and other crises. President Harry Truman signed an
executive order in 1952 directing the Commerce Department to take over the steel industry to ensure U.S. troops
fighting in Korea were kept supplied with weapons and ammunition. The Supreme Court struck it down. Other
significant actions have stood. President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an order in February 1942 to relocate more
than 110,000 Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast to internment camps after Japan's attack on the Pearl
Harbor naval base. Decades later, Congress passed legislation apologizing and providing $20,000 to each person
who was interned. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush approved a series of
executive orders that created an office of homeland security, froze the assets in U.S. banks linked to al-Qaida and
other terrorist groups, and authorized the military services to call reserve forces to active duty for as long as two
years. Bush's most contentious move came in the form of a military order approving the use of the military tribunals
to put accused terrorists on trial faster and in greater secrecy than a regular criminal court. Obama also has wielded
considerable power in secret, upsetting the more liberal wing of his own party. He has carried forward Bush's key
anti-terrorism policies and expanded the use of unmanned drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and
Yemen. When a promised immigration overhaul failed in legislation, Obama went part way there simply by ordering
that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from deportation and granted work
permits if they apply. So, too, the ban on gays serving openly in the military was repealed before the election,
Those measures did not
followed now by the order lifting the ban on women serving in combat.
prove especially contentious. Indeed, the step on immigration is thought to have helped Obama in
the election. It may be a different story as the administration moves more
forcefully across a range of policy fronts that sat quiet in much of his first term. William
Howell, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Power Without Persuasion: The
Politics of Direct Presidential Action," isn't surprised to see commandments coming at a rapid clip. "In an era of
opportunities to legislate are few and far
polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the
between," Howell said. "So presidents have powerful incentive to go it
alone. And they do." And the political opposition howls. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a
possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, said that on the gun-control front in
particular,Obama is "abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive
fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress." The Republican
reaction is to be expected, said John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the
University of California in Santa Barbara. "For years there has been a growing concern
about unchecked executive power ," Woolley said. "It tends to have a
partisan content , with contemporary complaints coming from the incumbent president's opponents."
The power isn't limitless, as was demonstrated when Obama issued one
of his first executive orders, calling for closing the military prison at the
Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and trying suspected terrorists housed there in federal courts
instead of by special military tribunals. Congress stepped in to prohibit moving any Guantanamo
prisoners to the U.S., effectively blocking Obama's plan to shutter the jail. Among recent actions: --Obama issued
presidential memoranda on guns in tandem with his legislative effort to expand background checks and ban
assault-type weapons and large capacity magazines. The steps include renewing federal gun research despite a law
that has been interpreted as barring such research since 1996. Gun control was off the table in the campaign, as it
had been for a decade, but the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December changed that overnight.
--The government proposed fat, calorie, sugar and sodium limits in almost all food sold in schools, extending federal
nutritional controls beyond subsidized lunches to include food sold in school vending machines and a la carte
cafeteria lines. The new proposals flow from a 2010 law and are among several sidelined during the campaign. The
law provoked an outcry from conservatives who said the government was empowering itself to squash school bake
sales and should not be telling kids what to eat. Updated regulations last year on subsidized school lunches
produced a backlash, too, altogether making the government shy of further food regulation until the election
passed. The new rules leave school fundraisers clear of federal regulation, alleviating fears of cupcake-crushing
edicts at bake sales and the like. --The Justice Department released an opinion that people with food allergies can
be considered to have the rights of disabled people. The finding exposes schools, restaurants and other food-
service places to more legal risk if they don't accommodate patrons with food allergies. --The White House said
Obama intends to move forward on rules controlling carbon emissions from power plants as a central part of the
effort to restrain climate change, which the president rarely talked about after global-warming legislation failed in
With a major climate bill unlikely to get though a divided
his first term.
Congress, Obama is expected to rely on his executive authority to achieve
whatever progress he makes on climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to complete the
first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants. The agency also probably will press ahead on
rules for existing power plants, despite protests from industry and Republicans that such rules would raise
electricity prices and kill off coal, the dominant U.S. energy source. Older coal-fired power plants have been shutting
across the country because of low natural gas prices and weaker demand for electricity. --In December, the
government proposed long-delayed rules requiring automakers to install event data recorders, or "black boxes," in
all new cars and light trucks beginning Sept. 1, 2014. Most new cars are already getting them. --The EPA proposed
rules to update water quality guidelines for beaches and control runoff from logging roads. As well, a new ozone
rule probably will be completed this year, which would mean finally moving forward on a smog-control standard
sidelined in 2011. A regulation directing federal contractors to hire more disabled workers is somewhere in the
offing at the Labor Department, as are ones to protect workers from lung-damaging silica and reduce the risk of
deadly factory explosions from dust produced in the making of chemicals, plastics and metals. Rules also are
overdue on genetically modified salmon, catfish inspection, the definition of gluten-free in labeling and food import
Obama could decide early this year
inspection. In one of the most closely watched cases,
whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.
Congress will have the final say over executive orders dooms solvency
and links to politics
Jones 13 (Sarah Jones, Politicus USA, Obama Cant Fix Congress Monsanto Giveaway with an Executive
Order, 3-27-13, http://www.politicususa.com/2013/03/27/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-
monstanto.html) MaxL
activists are now calling for the President to issue a signing statement and/or
Food
executive order to label our food, Today were calling on President Obama to issue an executive
order to call for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. A signing statement would have been
it
issued while signing the legislation, and would have claimed that part of the law was unconstitutional. However,
wouldnt have changed how the law was implemented. An executive order
cannot make new law; only Congress can do that. An executive order tells a
Presidents administration how he wants a law implemented; it gives direction to officers and
agencies of the executive branch. But heres the real kicker: Even if President Obama
were to sign an executive order to label our food (we have no indication as to whether he would
be inclined to do so), Congress could deny funding its execution, just as they have
with his order to close Gitmo. When it comes to laws, it always comes back
to Congress. Our food safety has been severely compromised by corporate lobbyists ever-tightening control
over our representatives. If people really want things to change, they need to be able to identify the individuals
behind these cowardly acts. Heres a hint: Republican Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) takes the most money from pro-
GMO PACs in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where this dastardly rider was secretly attached (this time, that
is. We have a certain House Republican who tries to attach a similar amendment to almost every bill that touches
his greedy fingers). Democratic Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) tried to get the amendment taken out of the spending
billto no avail. While HR 933 expires in six months, I have little hope that we will see any major changes in food
safety while our Congress is controlled by big ag/corporate money. The AP reported onMaplights analysis, Current
members of Congress have received $7,450,434 from the PACs of these organizations. No matter who is
in the White House, Congress controls the purse strings and makes the
laws, and they are more than adept at using current crises (manufactured by them, of course) to attach
corporate giveaways to big spenders. This is yet another beyond frustrating poison pill.
Political capital is low and executive orders have costs they will erode PC
Eberly 13 (Todd Eberly Coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor of Polsci @ St. Marys
college, The Baltimore Sun, The Presidential Power Trap, 1-21-13, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-
21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-support) MaxL
Obama's narrow re-
Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack
election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican
majority House and Democratic majority Senate, hardly signals a grand
resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple
executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced
with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress , the president must rely on claims
of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode
his political capital. Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power
trap. Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political
capital from eroding. When it did, their power assertions often got them into
further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to
overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill
Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them
to secure important policy changes in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax
short-term
cuts and education reform that at the time received popular approval. However,
legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as
an antidote to declining political capital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill
Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent
predecessors solved the political capital problem or avoided the power trap. It is the
central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily on the current
president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.
Failing to use the legislative process wastes political capital

Miles 13 (Chris Miles, Policymic, An Obama Gun Control Executive Order Could Sink the President's
Favorability, January 2013, http://www.policymic.com/articles/23296/an-obama-gun-control-executive-order-could-
sink-the-president-s-favorability) MaxL
Could Obama be wasting valuable political capital by issuing an executive
order on gun control? If Obama acts unilaterally on gun control, the event will
likely fire-up conservatives and pro-gun advocates, calling out the president
for failing to use the legislative process. The conservative Drudge Report compared
executive action to dictators Hitler and Stalin. The backlash could be immense and could cost
Obama leverage in future political battles, most notably the coming debt ceiling fight next
month. Obama has often pulled the "popular mandate" card, saying that his re-election in November proves the
American people are behind him ... almost unconditionally. But what do the American people really think about the
gun debate. Well, for starters, just 4% of Americans identify guns as the nation's top problem, per Gallup. Based on
that alone, Obama may think twice about pushing popcorn policies that will only splash onto headlines and divide
Any executive action could even hurt his favorability rating, and by
Americans.
extension his ability to negotiate in the future.
SOP Disad
CP kills SOP
Turner 96 (Ronald, U of Alabama, Journal of Law and Politics, Winter 96, p. 1)//LA
The increased and aggressive presidential use of executive orders can present
serious constitutional questions when there are no congressional or constitutional
bases for a particular order. Orders not tethered to or derived from
statutes or the Constitution raise issues about the legitimacy of
presidential legislation because, as noted previously, lawmaking is a legislative function. Thus,
the issuance of an executive order by a President without a clear statutory
or constitutional basis can be inconsistent with the principle of separation
of powers and the sequential trumping inherent in the constitutional system. A baseless and
unauthorized order provides a means for the President to subvert the system of checks
and balances, for she can make laws free from congressional involvement or agreement and is "able to make
sweeping policy value choices without any check by either the federal courts or by a majority of Congress." Such
unchecked executive power allows a President to "alter the distribution of the
background set of private rights entitlements" and to evade the filtering mechanisms
of the bicameral legislature and judicial review. Evasion is particularly problematic when different political parties
dominate different branches of government. An
executive order issued by the President of
one party that declares national policy that is opposed by the opposition
party with a legislative majority can result in a clash of ideologies and views as
to the law that should govern the nation. As a result "strengthening a particular institution may not only improve its
effectiveness but also the relative influence of a particular political party or ideology."
The impact is nuclear war

Forrester 89 (Ray, UC Hastings, George Washington Law Review, August 89)//LA
On the basis of this report, the startling fact is that one man alone has the ability to start a
nuclear war. A basic theory--if not the basic theory of our Constitution--is that
concentration of power in any one person, or one group, is dangerous to
mankind. The Constitution, therefore, contains a strong system of checks
and balances, starting with the separation of powers between the President, Congress,
and the Supreme Court. The message is that no one of them is safe with unchecked power.
Yet, in what is probably the most dangerous governmental power ever
possessed, we find the potential for world destruction lodged in the
discretion of one person.
---AT Constitutionally Based
No constitutional basis
Carpenter 86 (Ted Galen, the CATO Institute, Global Interventionism and a New
Imperial Presidency, Cato Policy Analyis No. 71, 5/16/86,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa071.html)//LA
Recent debate about U.S. policy with respect to Lebanon, Central America, and
South Africa suggests that the United States may be entering a new phase in
the recurring conflict between Congress and the executive branch over the
control of foreign affairs. This conflict does not merely involve
constitutional or partisan political matters--as important as those might be--but
reflects competing conceptions about substantive policy issues. The current
White House occupant is seeking to weaken or eliminate congressional
restraints imposed on the executive during the 1970s, in order to regain the
flexibility he believes is necessary to pursue America's cold war objectives.
His congressional opponents are attempting to preserve those constraints
not simply to enhance the power and prestige of the legislative branch, but because they fear that an unfettered
president may pursue policies that would contravene fundamental American values or again plunge the United
As before in our history, the conflict will likely
States into ill-advised military interventions.
determine the substance of American foreign policy, as well as which
branch shall chart its course. Constitutional Intent During the last decade and a
half, Americans have grappled frequently and intensely with the question
of legislative versus executive power over foreign affairs. The aftermath of the
disastrous and divisive Vietnam War triggered a reassessment of the executive-supremacy doctrine that had held
sway throughout the previous three decades. This change, however, was only the most recent occasion when the
Debates on the question have flared
locus of authority in foreign policy has shifted.
periodically since the founding of the American republic. Indeed, a
measure of tension is built into the structure of the Constitution itself. The
shared powers and overlapping responsibilities of the legislative and
executive branches create what renowned constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin has aptly termed
"an invitation to struggle" over foreign policy. [1] The Framers of the
Constitution invested the president with a number of powers in the arena of foreign
affairs. He was authorized to receive the diplomatic representatives of other nations and to appoint, with the
consent of the Senate, America's own diplomatic representatives. He was given the authority to negotiate treaties
with foreign states, subject to Senate concurrence in the result. The president was also invested with the power and
But the Founding Fathers also
responsibility of commander in chief of the nation's armed forces.
granted significant foreign policy powers to the legislative branch. They gave
Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war. In addition, they declared that Congress would be
responsible for authorizing the raising of military forces and providing funds for their continued operation.
Furthermore, foreign commerce was made subject to regulation by Congress, and the Senate was accorded the
The delineation of power and
right to ratify or reject treaties negotiated by the president.
responsibility between the two branches was less than precise. The delegates to
the constitutional convention apparently envisioned a partnership between Congress and the president in foreign
affairs, but they also applied the principle of checks and balances . What is clear is that
the Founding Fathers did not invest the president with the vast array of unilateral foreign policy powers--particularly
those involving U.S. armed forces--claimed by White House occupants during much of the 20th century, especially
since World War II. One expert on constitutional history, W. Taylor Reveley III, muses, "If we could find a man in the
state of nature and have him first scan the war-power provisions of the Constitution and then look at war-power
Ambitious
practice since 1789, he would marvel at how much Presidents have spun out of so little."[2]
presidents have relied upon allegedly "inherent" executive powers and the
status of commander in chief to justify this vast expansion of presidential
authority. However, the context in which the presidency was established
fails to support claims to extensive executive power in foreign policy.
Although the Founding Fathers did create several ambiguities regarding
authority over foreign affairs (perhaps because foreign policy was not a
priority concern at the time), where they did favor one branch, they
favored Congress, not the president. This tilt was entirely consistent with
their British Whig political bias, with its fear of excessive executive power.[3] While the
president was to be the principal spokesman for the republic in foreign
affairs and the focal point for diplomatic relations with other nations, the
Framers had no desire to invest him with the foreign policy prerogatives
of a monarch. Even the president's powers as commander in chief are far less extensive than most recent
presidents have alleged. The primary purpose of the constitutional provision was to assert civilian supremacy over
A
the military, lest an aggressive general succumb to Cromwellian temptations during a wartime crisis.
subsidiary objective was to restrain legislative meddling in the day-to-day
conduct of military strategy once hostilities were authorized--a concern stemming from
congressional interference during the American Revolution. In addition, it implied that the president possessed the
authority to repel attacks upon U.S. territory until Congress could act. But Congress alone was to
declare war, and in the parlance of the times, "declare" essentially meant "authorize" or "begin."[4] The
Founders would likely be mystified at recent presidential contentions that although Congress "declares" wars, the
president has the right to "wage" them with or without formal declarations. They would be astonished and probably
appalled at the assertions of such chief executives as Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon that a
president may conduct foreign policy and utilize the armed forces in any manner he deems necessary to foster his
Executive supremacy in foreign affairs was not set
own conception of U.S. "interests."
forth in the Constitution. That doctrine evolved from particular historical
circumstances
CP not constitutionaltrade
(1) Article I, Section 8 "expressly grants Congress, not the President, the
power to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' "101 As a consequence,
"Congress-whose voice, in this area, is the Nation's"102-possesses broad
power to set United States foreign policy with respect to foreign trade and
investment.103 The President has no independent power directly to
regulate, tax, or interdict foreign commerce.104 The executive branch's views on the
effect state legislation has on transnational markets, furthermore, are not dis- positive on the question of whether
the President's authority to
the state is violating the dormant foreign commerce clause,105 and
enter into executive agreements concerning commerce without
congressional approval is ex- tremely doubtful. Congress's possession of
substantive policy making authority, and the President's control over the
means and direction of negotiation, make accommodation between the
political branches over foreign commerce issues especially desirable . At least
from a constitutional perspective, fast- track legislation (which enhances the President's ability to negotiate on com-
mercial issues) and a preference for statutorily approved executive agreements over treaties (which ensures the
participation of Congress as a body in commercial agreements with other countries) are desirable means of en-
abling both branches to play appropriate roles in this area.
AT Prez Powers
---PP Decline Inevitable
Prez power decline is inevitable
Healy 11 (Gene Healy, vice president at the Cato Institute, Our Continuing Cult of the Presidency, 2011, from
Presidency in the Twenty-first Century by Charles W. Dunn, University Press of Kentucky | JJ)
Where does that leave us? After our century-long drift away from the Framers vision, can we possibly return to a
humbler set of expectations for the office and a less powerful chief executive ? Predicting the future is always a
there are two long-term trends, at least, that could improve our
dicey enterprise, but
chances of downsizing the presidency. First, one major factor that led to the growth of the
Imperial Presidency was Americas increasing global role in the twentieth century and its unrivaled dominance after
the collapse of the USSR. As neoconservative commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote in 1987, Superpower
responsibilities inevitably encourage the centralization and militarization of authority. . . . And politically, imperial
responsibility demands imperial government, which naturally encourages an imperial presidency, the executive
As the twenty-
being (in principle) a more coherent and decisive instrument than its legislative rival. 59
first century progresses, the United States is likely to distance itself from
those responsibilities and, perhaps, from the presidential powers they enabled . Fareed
Zakaria predicts that China and Indias rise, along with waning U.S. power, will in this century
usher in the Post-American World. 60 The U.S. National Intelligence Council recently released
Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. That report notes that shrinking economic and military capabilities may
force the US into a difficult set of tradeoffs between domestic versus foreign policy priorities. 61 Fifteen years from
now, the United States will retain enormous military power, but advances
by others in science
and technology, expanded adoption of irregular warfare tactics by both
state and nonstate actors, proliferation of long-range precision weapons,
and growing use of cyber warfare attacks increasingly will constrict US
freedom of action . 62 Its possible, then, that shrinking American power and the
emergence of new superpowers will result in the United States behaving more like a
normal country in the international sphere; and that that in turn will enable a shift to a normalized
presidency . The second long-term trend that may reduce the presidencys power and importance in
American life is growing distrust of government, or what Id prefer to call skepticism toward power. Its true that
too many Americans are presidential cultists. But whats easy to miss is that, on the
whole, were far less cultish than we used to be. The most important political
trend of the past fifty years is the rise in distrust of government. In the late 1950s, when
pollsters started tracking trust, nearly three quarters of Americans said they trusted
the federal government to do what is right most of the time or just about alwaysand
most of all they trusted the president. Those numbers collapsed after Vietnam and
Watergate. 63
---AT PP K2 Heg
The technological revolution and governmental checks render prez powers
obsolete we start where their evidence leaves off
Deans 2K (Bob Deans, Associate Director of Communications, Washington DC,
1/23/2000, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY: White House power growing, The Atlanta
Journal the Atlanta Constitution, ProQuest | JJ)
Many scholars argue that global shifts are undermining the authority of all sorts of traditional institutions, even
while making it possible for nontraditional groups to step in and assume important new roles. Nobel Peace Prize
winner Jody Williams, for example, used e-mail to generate a worldwide grass-roots consensus for her International
Campaign to Ban Landmines. Her high-tech end run around White House policy-makers left Clinton virtually alone
the Internet has gone
among world leaders in not supporting the ban. Under Clinton's presidency,
from an obscure tool of the Pentagon and academia to potentially the
most powerful communications medium in the history of the world. The
Internet, moreover, has both accelerated and come to symbolize a much
broader set of economic, political and social changes sweeping the world .
Nearly $7 trillion worth of goods and services will be sold across borders this year as workers from some of the
poorest countries in the world bid for a growing share of wealth. Currency traders move an estimated $1 trillion
around the world each day, making decisions about the futures of markets and entire national economies.
Nearly 4 billion people, two-thirds of the earth's population, now participate in some
form of democratic system. Put it together, and the world is undergoing a
populist revolution of historic proportions . More and more it is people, not
governments, who are taking control of the issues affecting their lives , as
politicians often appear to be watching from the sidelines. "In many respects, political systems are increasingly at
the mercy of technology," said presidential scholar Michael Genovese, political science professor at Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles. "What
it probably will do is make central
governments less important and, therefore, presidents less important ," said
Genovese, author of the forthcoming "Power and the American Presidency." Others counter that the
presidency is , by design, resilient to moments of great change . That, in fact,
is part of the genius of the founding fathers, said Nelson. "In the 20 years that I've been
teaching political science, a recurrent prophecy is that the presidency is being
weakened by this or that," said Nelson. "It just doesn't seem to happen."
Congress K2 Heg
Congressional involvement is k2 heg
Bennet 78 (Douglas J. Jr, Former Prez of Wesleyan U and Asst Secretary of State
under Clinton and Carter, Congress in Foreign Policy: Who Needs It?, JSTOR)//LA
The second benefit is that congressional attention to international issues offers
some hope of developing a public consensus which will support a positive
American role in the world. Not only are policies scrutinized by Congress more likely to reflect the
public will, but members of Congress, once engaged in the policymaking
process, should be better able to teach and lead their constituencies
through the intricacies of international issues in a world where the United States is neither
chief policeman nor economic czar. This is not to say that we can expect the rebirth of a simple cold war type of
consensus. What we can hope and work for is a consensus in which Americans,
faced with a fluid and confusing international scene, are sufficiently
confident of their governmental institutions and their own personal futures to be able to
accept the adjustment being thrust upon them. Finally, if Congress really does contribute
actively to policy formulation and if it really does help educate the public,
the result should be greater stability and predictability in American
foreign policy-a benefit not only to us but to the world. Our allies should
find us more predictable, and our opponents will find us stronger.
Vagueness Presidential Directive
Their terminology is vague there are at least 24 types of presidential
directives
Gaziano 1 (Todd F., The Heritage Foundation, The Use and Abuse of Executive
Orders and Other Presidential Directives, 2/21/1,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive-
orders-and-other-presidential-directives)//LA
Many Forms of Directives. One scholar has identified 24 different types of
presidential directives,39 although even his list is incomplete. A partial
list includes administrative orders; certificates; designations of officials;
executive orders; general licenses; interpretations; letters on tariffs and
international trade; military orders; various types of national security
instruments (such as national security action memoranda, national security decision directives, national
security directives, national security reviews, national security study memoranda, presidential review directives,
presidential announcements; presidential findings;
and presidential decision directives);
presidential reorganization plans; presidential signing statements; and
proclamations.
Prez Power Bad
Prez Power Bad Nuclear War
Excessive presidential authority makes nuclear war inevitable
Forrester 89 (Ray Forrester, Professor at the Hastings College of the Law,
University of California, Presidential Wars in the Nuclear Age: An Unresolved
Problem George Washington Law Review, August, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1636,
Lexis | JJ)
A basic theory--if not the basic theory of our Constitution--is that concentration of power in any
one person, or one group, is dangerous to mankind . The Constitution, therefore,
contains a strong system of checks and balances, starting with the separation of powers between the President,
no one of them is safe with unchecked
Congress, and the Supreme Court. The message is that
power. Yet, in what is probably the most dangerous governmental power ever possessed, we find the
potential for world destruction lodged in the discretion of one person. As a
result of public indignation aroused by the Vietnam disaster, in which tens of thousands lost their lives in military
actions initiated by a succession of Presidents, Congress in 1973 adopted, despite presidential veto, the War Powers
Resolution. Congress finally asserted its checking and balancing duties in relation to the making of presidential
wars. Congress declared in section 2(a) that its purpose was to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of
the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the
introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in
hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such
situations. The law also stated in section 3 that [t]he President in every possible instance shall consult with
Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent
involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated. . . . Other limitations not essential to this discussion are also
Congress undertook to check the President, at least
provided. The intent of the law is clear.
by prior consultation, in any executive action that might lead to hostilities and
war. [*1638] President Nixon, who initially vetoed the resolution, claimed that it was an
unconstitutional restriction on his powers as Executive and Commander in Chief of
the military. His successors have taken a similar view . Even so, some of them have at times
complied with the law by prior consultation with representatives of Congress, but obedience to the law has been
uncertain and a subject of continuing controversy between Congress and the President. Ordinarily, the issue of the
constitutionality of a law would be decided by the Supreme Court. But, despite a series of cases in which such a
decision has been sought, the Supreme Court has refused to settle the controversy .
The usual ground for such a refusal is that a "political question" is involved. The rule is well established that the
federal judiciary will decide only "justiciable" controversies. "Political questions" are not "justiciable." However,
the standards established by the Supreme Court in 1962 in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.
186, to determine the distinction between "justiciable controversies" and "political questions" are far from
clear. One writer observed that the term "political question" [a]pplies to all those matters of which the court, at a
given time, will be of the opinion that it is impolitic or inexpedient to take jurisdiction. Sometimes this idea of
inexpediency will result from the fear of the vastness of the consequences that a decision on the merits might
entail. Finkelstein, Judicial Self-Limitation, 37 HARV. L. REV. 338, 344 (1924)(footnote omitted). It is difficult to
defend the Court's refusal to assume the responsibility of decisionmaking on this most critical issue. The Court has
been fearless in deciding other issues of "vast consequences" in many historic disputes, some involving executive
war power. It is to be hoped that the Justices will finally do their duty here. But in the meantime the spectre of
single-minded power persists, fraught with all of the frailties of human nature that each human possesses, including
Even if the Court assumed its
the President. World history is filled with tragic examples.
responsibility to tell us whether the Constitution gives Congress the
necessary power to check the President, the War Powers Resolution itself
is unclear. Does the Resolution require the President to consult with
Congress before launching a nuclear attack? It has been asserted that "introducing United
States Armed Forces into hostilities" refers only to military personnel and does not include the launching of nuclear
missiles alone. In support of this interpretation, it has been argued that Congress was concerned about the human
Congress, of course, can
losses in Vietnam and in other presidential wars, rather than about the weaponry.
amend the Resolution to state explicitly that "the introduction of Armed Forces" includes missiles as
well as personnel. However, the President could continue to act without prior
consultation by renewing the claim first made by President [*1639] Nixon
that the Resolution is an unconstitutional invasion of the executive power .
Therefore, the real solution, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision, would appear to be a constitutional
amendment. All must obey a clear rule in the Constitution. The adoption of an amendment is very difficult. Wisely,
Article V requires that an amendment may be proposed only by the vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or
by the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, and the proposal must be ratified by the
legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the states. Despite the difficulty, the Constitution has been amended
twenty-six times. Amendment can be done when a problem is so important that it arouses the attention and
concern of a preponderant majority of the American people. But the people must be made aware of the problem. It
is hardly necessary to belabor the relative importance of the control of nuclear warfare. A constitutional
amendment may be, indeed, the appropriate method. But the most difficult issue remains. What should the
amendment provide? How can the problem be solved specifically? The Constitution in section 8 of Article I stipulates
that "[t]he Congress shall have power . . . To declare War. . . ." The idea seems to be that only these many
representatives of the people, reflecting the public will, should possess the power to commit the lives and the
fortunes of the nation to warfare. This approach makes much more sense in a democratic republic than entrusting
the decision to one person, even though he may be designated the "Commander in Chief" of the military forces. His
power is to command the war after the people, through their representatives, have made the basic choice to submit
themselves and their children to war. There is a recurring relevation of a paranoia of power throughout human
history that has impelled one leader after another to draw their people into wars which, in hindsight, were foolish,
Whatever may be the psychological
unnecessary, and, in some instances, downright insane.
influences that drive the single decisionmaker to these irrational
commitments of the lives and fortunes of others , the fact remains that the
behavior is a predictable one in any government that does not provide an
effective check and balance against uncontrolled power in the hands of
one human. We, naturally, like to think that our leaders are above such irrational behavior. Eventually,
however, human nature, with all its weakness, asserts itself whatever the
setting . At least that is the evidence that experience and history give us,
even in our own relatively benign society, where the Executive is subject
to the rule of law. [*1640] Vietnam and other more recent engagements show that it can happen and has
happened here. But the "nuclear football"--the ominous "black bag" --remains in
the sole possession of the President.
Prez Power Bad Separation of Powers
Presidential power destroys separation of powers
Branum 2 (Tara, Editor in Chief Texas Review of Law and Politics, Texas Review of
Law and Politics, 2002, President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders
in Modern-Day America, Lexis | JJ)
The perception of Americans that the President is not only willing, but also
able to solve their problems is reinforced by the media and by the political process Congressmen
and private citizens besiege the President with demands that action be taken on
various issues. To make matters worse, once a president has signed an executive
order, he often makes it impossible for a subsequent administration to
undo his action without enduring the political fallout of such a reversal . For
instance, President Clinton issued a slew of executive orders on environmental issues in the weeks before he left
office. Many were controversial and the need for the policies he instituted was debatable. Nevertheless, President
Bush found himself unable to reverse the orders without invoking the ire of environmentalists across the country. A
policy became law by the action of one man without the healthy debate
and discussion in Congress intended by the Framers. Subsequent
presidents undo this policy and send the matter to Congress for such
debate only at their own peril. This is not the way it is supposed to be.
Restoration of our system of separation of powers will require that the
public be educated on what doesand does notconstitute a
constitutional use of executive orders and other presidential directives.
<<<IMPACT TO SOP>>>
Prez Power Bad Terrorism
Executive powers meddle with Congressional oversight that makes the
war on terror fail
Dean 2 (John W. Dean, columnist, and commentator on contemporary politics,
former White House Counsel for Nixon, 4/12/2002, TOM RIDGE'S NON-TESTIMONIAL
APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS: Another Nixon-style Move By The Bush
Administration, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020412.html | JJ)
Congressional oversight and the collective wisdom of Congress are
essential in our dealing with terrorism. Presidents don't issue press
releases about their mistakes. Nor do they report interagency squabbles
that reduce executive effectiveness. They don't investigate how funds
have been spent poorly or unwisely. And they're not inclined to explain
even conspicuous problems in gathering national security intelligence.
When did anyone hear of a President rooting out incompetent appointees (after all, they chose them in the first
Its
place)? In contrast, Congress wants to do all these things, thereby keeping a President on his toes.
oversight is crucial - for the Presidential and Executive Branch limitations
I've suggested are only a few of the myriad problems that might hamper the
efficacy of the Executive in its efforts to deal with terrorism, and that
Congress can help to correct. Justifiably, Americans are worried, but they are getting on with their
lives. Shielding and hiding the man in charge of homeland security from answering the questions of Congress is
This talk of "separation of powers" and "executive privilege"
entirely unjustified.
is unmitigated malarkey. It is a makeshift excuse to keep the Congress
from policing the White House .
Consult Congress CP
1NC
Text: The president of the United States should enter into prior and
binding consultation with the United States Congress to [PLAN.] The
United States federal government should enact the aforementioned
legislation if and only if the United States Congress approves it after said
consultation.
It solves and avoids the link to politics

Hamilton 99 (Lee H., Former Congressman and Currently on the US Homeland
Security Advisory Council, Foreign Policy Consultation between the President and
Congress, remarks @ GW University, 10/14/99,
http://www.indiana.edu/~congress/in-depth/foreign_policy_speech.htm)//LA
This kind of tug-of-war between the President and Congress is not necessarily
bad. Foreign policy disagreements between the branches are inevitable,
and even, sometimes, constructive. Debate and tension can lead to useful
refinements and improvements of our policies. But our foreign policy is poorly served
when the executive-legislative relationship is excessively adversarial. Congress should be an
independent critic of the administration, but its criticism should always be in the
context of seeking a better partnership with the administration. Cooperation
between the branches is conducive to the formulation of a sound American foreign
policy. The importance of consultation An important element of cooperation is
consultation. Consultation is the process of discussion and mutual
exchange between the branches designed to foster cooperation in the making of policy. Foreign
policy consultation can take many forms, including executive branch testimony at congressional hearings, briefings
by foreign policy officials, and informal conversations. More important than the form of consultation is the attitude
of the parties involved. Consultation is most effective when each branch makes a
sincere effort to involve the other branch in its decision-making processes.
There are many benefits of good consultation. American foreign policy
always has more force and punch to it when the President and Congress
speak with one voice. Congress is our most representative branch of
government. It best articulates the concerns of different segments of the
population. When the President takes these views into consideratio n in
formulating foreign policy, the policy that results is more likely to have
strong public support. And foreign policy with strong domestic support
makes the U.S. more respected and effective abroad. Consultation fosters
mutual trust between the President and Congress, and encourages them
to develop our foreign policy together. It helps prevent the branches from taking our foreign
policy in two different directions, and discourages Congress from micro-managing
programs out of frustration from being excluded. Consultation does not -- and should
not -- ensure agreement between the branches. Differences will remain, especially on the toughest issues. But even
consultation will smooth some of the hard edges of
on those tough issues,
disagreement, and refine and strengthen our policy. Consultation with Congress
provides the President with a wider range of perspectives than he may receive from
his own advisers. The President is isolated in our system of government. Unlike the British Prime Minister, he rarely
faces his critics face-to-face. No one, as George Reedy once said, tells the President to go soak his head. Cabinet
officials and other high-ranking advisers serve at his pleasure. Their jobs depend on his favor, and they usually can
decipher the direction in which the President wants to go. Members of Congress do not serve at
the President's favor. Their independence from the President gives their
advice added weight. The President may not like, or take, the advice of Congress, but his consideration
of it is likely to produce better policy. Consultation is necessary because the Constitution gives
foreign policy powers to both the President and Congress. The President is the
commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch. Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the
purse. The President has the power to negotiate treaties, but the Senate must ratify them. Given this
shared responsibility for foreign policy, the branches must work together in order
for our foreign policy to have coherence. The ideal is not an identity of
views between the branches, but a creative tension out of which emerge
policies that best reflect American national interests and the views of the American
people. Edwin Corwin, the great constitutional scholar, noted that the Constitution is an invitation
for the President and Congress to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy. Seen from this
perspective, tug-of-wars between the branches are just what the founding fathers ordered. But
too often our government's battles over our policy are destructive, rather than constructive. Improved
consultation could go a long way toward strengthening American foreign
policy.
2NC Solvency
Prior consultation produces better policies and avoids the link to politics
Security Advisory Council, How to Forge Ahead, The Washington Quarterly, Spring
2001)//LA
Although Congress frequently acts irresponsibly in foreign policy, it can and often doesplay a constructive role.
Congress is the most accessible and responsive branch of government. It
can provide the president with a wider range of perspectives than he may
receive from his own advisers; ar- ticulate better than any other
institution the diverse views of the American people; and refine and
improve policy through its deliberative processes. Congress can also help the president
educate the public about foreign policy challenges. To take advantage of these congressional
strengths, Bush must make consultation with Congress a top priority .
Sustained consultation fosters mutual trust between the president and
Congress and helps prevent Congress from taking foreign policy in
different directions. Although consultation does not, and should not, ensure congressional support for
the president's proposals, it does help remove some of the disagreement and almost always strengthens policy.
To consult effectively, Bush must involve both parties in Congress in the
policymaking process. Consultation should take place, to the extent
feasible, prior to administration decisions to ensure administration
officials consider the perspectives of Congress seriously and respond to
congressional concerns.
CP is key to engagement
Hamilton 2 (Lee H., president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, serves on the
President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, previously served in the United
States House of Representatives for 34 years, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, with
Jordan Tama, formerly special assistant to the director at the Woodrow Wilson
Center, a graduate student at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs at Princeton University, A creative tension: the foreign policy roles of the
President and Congress, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, pg. 47-48)
To foster bipartisanship, the president should work with Congress to build
upon the areas of broad agreement in U.S. foreign policy . Despite significant
disagreements over tactics, there is a substantial national consensus on
several central foreign policy principles and objectives. The president should
work to solidify and expand public support and congressional coalitions
around these core principles and goals. From that solid base, he can branch out to
gain backing for his policies on more specific or controversial issues. The fundamental
principle that should guide the president's approach to foreign policy is
that U.S. engagement and leadership are essential to promote American
national interests. Most Americans recognize that the United States has a special
responsibility and opportunity to make the world a better and safer place
by marshaling the forces of peace and progress, combating international terrorism, extending the benefits of the
global economy, and strengthening democratic ideals and practices. At the same time, the president must be
sensitive to the limits of our involvement. Our engagement must be selective, closely tied to our interests and
opportunities.
2NC Normal Means
Normal means is presidential actionwe dont support gendered language
The president remains the most important foreign policy maker . Only he is
accountable to, and speaks for, all Americans, and only he can rally public or
international support to a foreign policy cause. The president's command of the
bully pulpit gives him an unrivaled power to influence the foreign policy
debate. When he vigorously takes his case on a major foreign policy issue to Congress
and the American people, he usually wins their support. Moreover, though
Congress plays an important role in formulating foreign policy, the
president is responsible for its implementation. The president directs our
nation's diplomats, intelligence agencies, and armed services, and he
negotiates with foreign leaders. He has the primary responsibility for making foreign policy work.
The United States can achieve little internationally without strong presidential leadership. On rare
occasions in recent decades, Congress has taken the lead on foreign policy, but
most actions have followed a proposal by the president . Consider the major foreign
policy initiatives of the past sixty years. The president played the central role in nearly all of them:
Normal means isnt consultation

There are few signs of improvement under President George W. Bush. During his first
months in office, members of Congress criticized his administration for consulting
inadequately on its plans to transform the military and withdraw U.S. support for the
Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks,
members generally praised the president's leadership, but some complained that the
administration did not brief members sufficiently on its intelligence
information and its plans to respond to the attacks. Members were particularly angered by Bush's decision in
October 2001 to restrict intelligence briefings to just eight congressional leaders. A bipartisan congressional outcry
Bush also
caused the administration to restore access to the briefings to a larger number of members.
failed to involve Congress in his controversial decision to authorize
military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. As the war on terrorism entered a new phase
in early 2002 after the U.S. victories in Afghanistan, members of Congress voiced frustration
that the Bush administration was asking for huge increases in defense
spending without explaining its long-term goals for the war. Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle said, "Before we make commitments in resources, I think we need to have a clearer understanding of what
the direction [of the war] will be." Members from both parties also urged the administration to consult with
Congress more frequently on its plans to topple Saddam Hussein.
2NCPolitics NB
Empirics prove bad consultation triggers congressional backlash
More recently, the Clinton administration has consulted poorly on a number of important issues.
Perhaps the most politically damaging example involved our intervention in Somalia.
In October, 1993, eighteen American soldiers were killed in Somalia during a botched military operation. The
Les Aspin and
tragedy created a media furor, which called for some explanation. Secretary of Defense
came to Capitol Hill to brief Members on what
Secretary of State Warren Christopher
had happened, but the briefing failed to explain how the administration
planned to proceed. No real consultation took place because the
administration had no policy proposals to discuss. The briefing inflamed
congressional criticism of the administration's policy, and cost Les Aspin his job.
Consultation has not been good on our military involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo. Following the end of the war in
Bosnia, in late 1995, the Clinton administration decided the U.S. would participate in a NATO-led deployment of
The administration did not adequately consult Congress on the
peacekeepers.
decision, and the President did not explain in a comprehensive manner the purpose of our engagement. The
President also misled Congress by saying the deployment would only be for a year, even though such
a short time frame was unrealistic. Then, one year later, while Congress was out of session after the 1996 election,
Many in
the President decided to continue the deployment of U.S. troops in Bosnia for another year and a half.
Congress believed the decision was intentionally made at a time when
Congress could not oppose it. The administration managed to get its way
on this issue despite poor consultation, but it paid a high price in lost
good will of many Members. During the crisis in Kosovo, the administration only consulted
sporadically with Congress prior to the start of the NATO military action against Serb targets last spring. Once NATO
began its air campaign,the administration struggled to gain congressional
support, in part because of distrust remaining from the experience with
our policy in Bosnia. The President exerted strong public and diplomatic
leadership in support of the NATO effort, but the Congress never
authorized the action, and the lack of firm congressional backing
weakened the President's and NATO's position in the war. On other issues, poor
consultation has prevented the Clinton administration from achieving its
policy goals. This has been the case with its efforts to obtain funding for the United Nations and ratification
of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The administration has worked to build
congressional support on these issues, but the efforts have been sporadic
and occasional. They have not been sustained. The President, in particular, has not been
sufficiently involved in rallying support. On the test ban treaty, the administration did not expend enough energy
and resources on consultation over the past two years, and then was unprepared to deal with the strong
The result
congressional opposition when the Senate finally took up the treaty during the past two weeks.
was Senate rejection of one of the most important foreign policy
initiatives of the Clinton administration.
Perm link to politicsits about the process

Good consultation Despite these serious deficiencies in the consultative process, there have been a
II.
Most presidents can gain
number of times in my experience when consultation has worked well.
support for major foreign policy issues when they set their minds to it. Easy
cases of good consultation Some cases of effective consultation are easy ones
because Congress and the President are generally in agreement on policy
to begin with. Take NATO expansion. Over several years, President Clinton's administration pushed for and
achieved the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. The administration did a good
job of making the case for the expansion, but Congressional support for expansion was strong prior to the
administration's efforts, thanks in part to vigorous lobbying efforts by Polish, Czech and Hungarian-Americans.
Public opinion was generally either supportive of expansion or neutral on the issue, and in the 1996 presidential
The
campaign, both Republican leader Bob Dole and President Clinton voiced their support for expansion.
administration therefore had a favorable environment for consultation. In
such circumstances, administration officials often like to consult. Another easy
case is support for the Middle East peace process. Successive administrations have consulted extensively on this
issue because it is considered to be very important politically, Congress is keenly interested in it, and billions of
dollars in aid are at stake. When administration officials travel to the Middle East for negotiations, they almost
This
always brief Congress when they return and keep Congress well-informed of the latest developments.
consultation is important because it helps sustain congressional backing
for the administration's activities, and may discourage or deflect unhelpful
congressional initiatives. Despite some recent disruptive congressional initiatives, and difficulties
obtaining funding in support of the Wye Accords, consultation on the peace process is usually relatively easy
because most Members of Congress are strong supporters of it and of aid to Israel and other peace partners in the
More difficult cases of good consultation are
region. Tough cases of good consultation
those in which the President must work hard to build support and must
overcome strong opposition. In the late 1970s, the Carter administration consulted very effectively
in order to achieve congressional approval for turning the Panama Canal over to Panamanian control, and for arms
At
sales to Saudi Arabia. On both of these issues, the Carter administration faced heavy resistance in Congress.
the outset of discussions, most Members were generally opposed to giving up
control over the Canal, and were very concerned about arming a potential enemy of Israel. The
administration changed the minds of many Members by lobbying Congress
very aggressively and employing a variety of consultation techniques. The
administration: - briefed Members of Congress extensively, both in groups and individually; --
distributed to Members detailed notebooks on the issues; -- sent Members on visits to the
regions; -- and engaged itself at the highest level, with the President getting
personally involved. Over time, the administration's persistence paid off
as it wore down the opposition and gained congressional passage of its
proposals. The Bush and Clinton administrations consulted effectively to gain support for aid to Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union after the fall of communism. Many Members of Congress were initially
opposed to giving large amounts of aid to our former enemies, but the administrations
presented persuasive arguments for assistance and involved Congress
heavily in the process of designing the aid programs. This cooperative
approach strengthened support in Congress, and enabled the passage of
two major programs of assistance to the former communist bloc countries.
2NCLL NB
Independently, our mechanism solves a laundry list of extinction level
threats
Hamilton 2 [Lee H., president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International
President and Congress, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, pg. 3-7]
We face many dangers, however. The diversity of the security and economic threats around the globe is
daunting. Terrorism, which has already struck the United States brutally, will be a continuing
threat in the years ahead, and it may become more deadly if weapons of mass destruction proliferate and reach
the wrong hands. The greatest security threat might be the danger that nuclear weapons or
materials in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nations
and used against Americans at home or abroad. Groups and individuals that do not wish us well will
also attempt to attack us with weapons of mass disruption, such as
information warfare, which could assault our economic, financial, communications, information,
transportation, or energy infrastructures. There are numerous other threats to national security. The world's
population will increase substantially during the first half of the twenty-first century,
placing added strain on natural resources, including water, and possibly intensifying
interstate conflicts and civil strife. Economic crises will likely be a regular
occurrence, throwing some nations into turmoil and occasionally creating widespread financial instability.
International crime, the illegal drug trade, global warming, infectious
diseases, and other transnational problems will challenge national
sovereignty and threaten our security, prosperity, and health. Yet these dangerous threats are balanced by
many opportunities. As the world's most powerful nation, the United States has a
tremendous capacity to influence the world for goodto protect
international peace, root out terrorism, resolve conflicts, spread
prosperity, and advance democracy and freedom. Other nations look to us
for leadership and to set an example of responsible and principled
international action. Our values of freedom, justice, the rule of law, and equality of opportunity
are increasingly the values of peoples around the globe . In the coming decades,
the spread of these values and incredible advances in science and technology will give us
the capacity to disseminate knowledge, cure diseases, reduce poverty,
protect the environment, and create jobs in the farthest-flung corners of
the world. So our new world is as full of hope as it is of danger. To meet the threats and take
advantage of the opportunities, the United States will need strong leadership,
expertise in many fields, and large measures of foresight and resolve. Again and again,
I have been impressed with the need for U.S. leadership on the most
pressing international challenges. If something important has to be done
from fighting international terrorism to bringing peace to the Middle East
no other country can take our place. We may not get it right every time,
but our leadership is usually constructive and helpful . We must, however, be aware of
the limits to American power. The United States is neither powerful enough to cause all of the world's ills, nor
powerful enough to cure them. So it is critical that we maintain good relations with our international allies and
friends, manage prudently our sometimes difficult relationships with Russia and China, and support and strengthen
international institutions. A world that is committed to working together through effective international institutions
and partnerships will be the world most capable of protecting peace and security and advancing prosperity and
freedom. Equally important for a successful foreign policy will be cooperation
between the president and Congress. Today's moment of U.S. preeminence
has not come to this nation by chance. Sound policies shaped by past
presidents and Congresses helped to place us in this desirable position. To
remain secure, prosperous, and free, the United States must continue to lead. That leadership requires
the president and Congress to live up to their constitutional
responsibilities to work together to craft a strong foreign policy. The great
constitutional scholar Edward Corwin noted that the Constitution is an invitation for the president and Congress to
Although the president is the principal
struggle for the privilege of directing foreign policy.
foreign policy actor, the Constitution delegates more specific foreign
policy powers to Congress than to the executive. It designates the president as
commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch, whereas it gives Congress the power to declare war and the
power of the purse. The president can negotiate treaties and nominate foreign policy officials, but the Senate must
approve them. Congress is also granted the power to raise and support armies, establish rules on naturalization,
This shared
regulate foreign commerce, and define and punish offenses on the high seas.
constitutional responsibility presupposes that the president and Congress
will work together to develop foreign policy , and it leaves the door open to both of them to
assert their authority. On some basic foreign policy issues, the president and Congress agree on their respective
roles. For instance, Congress generally does not question the president's power to manage diplomatic relations with
other nations, and presidents accept that Congress must appropriate funds for diplomacy and defense. But on a
panoply of other issuesfrom oversight of foreign aid and responsibility for trade policy to authorization of military
deployments and funding for international institutionsCongress and the president battle intensely to exert
influence and advance their priorities. Of course, I approach the executivelegislative relationship from the
perspective I gained during my congressional experience. That experience has convinced me that Congress plays a
very important role in foreign policy, but does not always live up to its constitutional responsibilities. Its tendency
too often has been either to defer to the president or to engage in foreign policy haphazardly. I recognize that
political pressures, institutional dynamics, and the heavy domestic demands placed on Congress can make it
Congress could
difficult for it to exercise its foreign policy responsibilities effectively. But I believe that
improve its foreign policy performance markedly if it made a concerted effort to do so.
Although the president is the chief foreign policy maker, Congress has a responsibility to be
both an informed critic and a constructive partner of the president. The
ideal established by the founders is neither for one branch to dominate
the other nor for there to be an identity of views between them. Rather,
the founders wisely sought to encourage a creative tension between the
president and Congress that would produce policies that advance national
interests and reflect the views of the American people. Sustained
consultation between the president and Congress is the most important
mechanism for fostering an effective foreign policy with broad support at
home and respect and punch overseas. In a world of both danger and
opportunity, we need such a foreign policy to advance our interests and
values around the globe.
AT: Perm
1. PRIOR and BINDING consultation is key to avoid the net benefit
Crabb et al 0 (Cevil V. Jr, Gleen J. Antizzo, and Leila E. Sarieddine, Congress and
the Foreign Policy Process: Modes of Legislative Behavior, Baton Rouge: Louisiana
University Press, pg. 84-85)
As already emphasized, certain procedures in the decision making process are
understood by and acceptable to executive and legislative officials. As
legislators view the matter (and judging by their actions, executive officials do not always accord it
the same high priority), heading the list is the requirement of consultation
between policy makers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in arriving at
major diplomatic decisions.10 In turn, acceptable consultations must meet a
number of tests. For example, to the minds of legislators especially, they must be what are
often called "prior consultations." In Senator Vanden-berg's widely quoted phrase, if
bipartisanship is to prevail, legislators must be "in on the take-offs, as
well as the crash landings" in the foreign policy field. Bipartisan
consultations, in other words, must take place early in the decision
making process, before the president has decided on a course of action
abroad. Perhaps the most common complaint on Capitol Hill about the foreign policy process
(and unquestionably a factor leading in recent years to the kind of legislative assertiveness witnessed after the
is the belief of lawmakers that they were too often
Vietnam War, as discussed in chapter 1)
confronted with a presidential fait accompli in external affairs. Under such
conditions, as legislators view it, impassioned appeals by the White House for a
bipartisan approach to foreign affairs really amount to little more than
demands that Congress uncritically approve the actions of the president abroad.
Acceptable procedures must also entail a willingness by the president and his
diplomatic aides to listen to the ideas of legislators and to take congressional
viewpoints into account in the formulation of external policy . Time and again since
World War II, lawmakers have complained that they were summoned to the White House primarily to be informed of
legislators believe that
what actions the president had taken or intended to take overseas.12 In brief,
authentic bipartisanship demands effective and obvious "input," or
meaningful contributions by members of the House and Senate in
determining the nation's course of action abroad.13
2. If the perm doesnt link, its severanceFirst, PRIOR consultation delays

the planshould means immediacy
Summers 94 (Justice Oklahoma Supreme Court, Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of
Durant, 1994 OK 123, 11-8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?
CiteID=20287#marker3fn13)
4The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word
"should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in
praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by
the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission
(from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e.,
an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a
disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record. [CONTINUES
TO FOOTNOTE] 13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past
tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall 9, Judgments 121
(1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v.
Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra
note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as
more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury
instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory
negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California
Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring
that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean
that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo.
1958)("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the
14 In praesenti means literally
jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony").
"at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase
denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective , as opposed to
something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck
v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).
AndBINDING consultation means the plan is no longer CERTAIN

A. Should implies certainty
Nieto 9 (Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz,
240 P.3d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)
Should is used . . . to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency. Websters
Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002). Courts interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn
conflicting conclusions, although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting should in an imperative,
obligatory sense. A number of courts, confronted with the question of whether using the word should in jury
instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard,
have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the
word should in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the
defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They
the word conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be
reasoned that
misunderstood by a jury. See State v. McCloud, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 457
S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that should is directional but not instructional to be
without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts
interpreting the word should in other types of jury instructions have also found that the word conveys to
duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark.
the jury a sense of
1977),the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word should in an instruction on circumstantial
evidence as synonymous with the word must and rejected the defendants argument that the jury
may have been misled by the courts use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court
rejected a defendants argument that the court erred by not using the word should in an instruction on witness
credibility which used the word must because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d
211, 215 (Mo. 1958). In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislatures
or commissions use of the word should is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt,
49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures should be
allocated for the purpose of parents federal tax exemption to be mandatory).
B. So does increase
HEFC 4 (Higher Education Funding Council for England, Joint Committee on the
Draft Charities Bill Written Evidence, June,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtchar/167/167we98.htm
)
9.1 The Draft Bill creates an obligation on the principal regulator to do all that it "reasonably can to meet the
compliance objective in relation to the charity".[45] The Draft Bill defines the compliance objective
as "to increase compliance by the charity trustees with their legal obligations in exercising control and
management of the administration of the charity".[46] 9.2 Although the word "increase" is used in relation to the
functions of a number of statutory bodies,[47] such examples demonstrate that " increase"
is used in relation
to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective
in itself. 9.3 HEFCE is concerned that an obligation on principal regulators to "increase"
compliance per se is unworkable, in so far as it does not adequately define the limits or
nature of the statutory duty. Indeed, the obligation could be considered to be ever-
increasing .
C. Substantial too
Words & Phrases 64 (40 W&P 759)
The words outward "open," "actual." "visible "substantial," and "exclusive." In connection with a change of
possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed, not bidden, exposed to view;
free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; In full existence; denoting that
which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and
imaginary; veritable, genuine, certain, absolute, real at present time, as a matter of
fact, not merely nominal, opposed to form, actually existing, true; not Including, admitting, or pertaining to
any others; undi-vided, sole, opposed to Inclusive. Bass T. Pease, 79 IIL App. 308, 318.
[INSERT SEVERANCE BAD]

AT: Lie Perm/Nonbinding Consultation
1. Perm is intrinsicneither the plan nor the CP fiats the president lying to
congressits bad and a voting issue cuz it skews neg strategy and block
time and means they can spike competition to all CPs
2. Turnleaks
A. They happen, and congress finds out
Dean 6 (John W., former Counsel to the President of the United States, former hief
Minority Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of
Representatives, the Associate Director of a law reform commission, and Associate
Deputy Attorney General of the United States, "The Problem with Presidential
Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration," January 13,
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html)
Watergate was about abuse of power. Nixon, not unlike Bush, insisted on pushing the powers of the presidency to,
and beyond, their limits. But as Nixon headed into his second term with even grander plans than he'd had in the
Bush, who has been pushing the envelope on
first term, the Congress became concerned. (And for good reason.)
presidential powers, is just beginning to learn what kind of Congressional blowback can
result. First, there are the leaks: People within the Executive branch become
troubled by a president's overreaching. When Nixon adopted extreme measures, people
within the administration began leaking. The same is now happening to Bush, for there was
the leak about the use of torture. And, more recently, there was the leak as to the use of
warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans. Once the leaks start, they
continue, and Congressional ire is not far behind. The overwhelming Congressional
support for Senator John McCain's torture ban suggests, too, that Congress will not be happy if leaks begin to
suggest the President - as his signing statement foreshadows - is already flouting the ban.
B. Causes rollback and triggers the link to the net benefit

Hinckley 94 (Barbara, professor of political science at Perdue University, Less than
Meets the Eye: Foreign Policy Making and the Myth of the Assertive Congress,
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pg. 24)
Exaggerated views of presidential power can dismiss these policies as unimportant. Presidents, after all, are
able to spend discretionary funds or conduct secret negotiations
independently of, and even in opposition to, the legislated policy. But while
presidents can do these things, a more balanced assessment suggests that they do them at their
peril, risking relations with Congress and jeopardizing their entire
program. Institutional norms bring Republicans and Democrats together
against assaults on the congressional prerogative; and a policy frustrated
at one point will return to haunt the White House in appropriations,
authorizations, amendments other legislation, or a congressional
investigation. Certainly; Richard Nixon was in trouble in Congress well before the Watergate hearings for
what was called backdoor spending. Ronald Reagans second-term success rate in Congress, lowest of all the
modern presidents, I was clearly not helped by the Iran-contra revelations. Foreign policy legislation, we will see, is
sufficiently controversial that presidents cannot take it for granted that their own programs will prevail. They put
their reputation at stake when they take positions on these bills, winning some and losing others. Interest groups,
foreign and domestic, also appear to treat these policies seriously, given the amount of effort and money they
spend influencing the outcome. Following these cues, we should assume the policies are important and need to be
understood.
3. Morality DAlying must always be rejected

Mazur 93 (Tim C., COO of the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association (ECOA), the
worlds largest and oldest professional association for ethics and compliance
officers, an ethicist with 20 years of experience managing ethics, compliance, and
social responsibility issues in corporations, nonprofits, and other organizations,
Issues in Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall 1993, "Lying," <online>
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v6n1/lying.html)
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that lying was always morally wrong. He argued that
all persons are born with an "intrinsic worth" that he called human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that
humans are uniquely rational agents, capable of freely making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and
guiding their conduct by reason. To be human, said Kant, is to have the rational power of free choice; to be ethical,
he continued, is to respect that power in oneself and others. Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First,
lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to
make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that
gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose
rationally. When my lie leads people to decide other than they would had
they known the truth, I have harmed their human dignity and autonomy.
Kant believed that to value ourselves and others as ends instead of means, we
have perfect duties (i.e., no exceptions) to avoid damaging, interfering
with, or misusing the ability to make free decisions; in other words - no lying.
---XTLying Bad
A utilitarian conception of lying is like the ZPH or something
Mazur 93 (Tim C., COO of the Ethics & Compliance Officer Association (ECOA), the
worlds largest and oldest professional association for ethics and compliance
officers, an ethicist with 20 years of experience managing ethics, compliance, and
social responsibility issues in corporations, nonprofits, and other organizations,
Issues in Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 1, Fall 1993, "Lying," <online>
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v6n1/lying.html)
While the above reasoning is logical, critics of utilitarianism claim that its practical
application in decision making is seriously flawed. People often poorly
estimate the consequences of their actions or specifically undervalue or
ignore the harmful consequences to society (e.g., mistrust) that their lies cause.
Following the examples above, the son's abuse of his mother's faith in him and the doctor's lie
undermine the value of trust among all those who learn of the deceits. As
trust declines, cynicism spreads, and our overall quality of life drops. In
addition, suggesting that people may lie in pursuit of the greater good can
lead to a "slippery slope," where the line between cleverly calculated
moral justifications and empty excuses for selfish behavior is exceedingly
thin. Sliding down the slope eventually kindles morally bankrupt statements
(e.g., "Stealing this man's money is okay because I will give some to charity.") Those who disagree with
utilitarianism believe that there is potentially great cost in tolerating lies for vague or subjective reasons, including
Critics of utilitarian justifications for lying further note how
lies in honor of "the greater good."
difficult it is for anyone, even honorable persons, to know that a lie will
bring more good than the truth; the consequences of actions are too often
unpredictable. Lies frequently assume "lives of their own" and result in
consequences that people do not intend or fail to predict. Moreover, it is very
difficult for a person to be objective in estimating the good and the harm that his or her lies will produce. We have a
vested interest in the lies we tell and an equally vested interest in believing that the world will be better if we lie
lying is morally wrong because we
from one instance to the next. For these reasons, critics claim,
cannot accurately measure lies' benefits and harms.
More Perm Cards
Crappy consultation links to the net benefit
States House of Representatives for 34 years, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group,
Christian Science Monitor, "President, Congress Need Dialogue," January 21, l/n)
Consultation is the key to the president's relations with Congress. It has
often been too little, too late. It has often meant notification of an action
taken or about to be taken. Consultation over the last 12 years has rarely meant a genuine dialogue
of seeking the views of Congress prior to the president making a decision or taking an action. Inadequate
consultation frustrates members of Congress because it reduces their
opportunity to influence policymaking. It can lead to unnecessary conflict,
additional congressional foreign-policy initiatives at variance with the
executive branch, and attempts by the Congress to micro-manage
programs and control policy implementation.
Double Bindeither they sever the immediacy of the plan or they dont
solve
Third, consultation must take place, to the extent feasible, prior to decisions, not
after they have already been made. Congress should be given a legitimate
opportunity to participate in the making of policy. The executive branch
should not come before Congress after a lengthy and contentious
interagency debate, and tell Congress that there is no choice other than
that which it has chosen. The executive branch should inform Congress of
the range of policy alternatives, and seek Congress's advice. If the administration
does intend simply to inform Congress of a decision, it should make this clear and not pretend to be genuinely
seeking congressional input.
Crappy consultation is crappy

These examples of poor consultation point to a number of common executive branch
shortcomings in the consultative process. -- Often Congress is only informed of
executive branch decisions, rather than genuinely consulted. Members of
Congress are notified of decisions after they have already been made, or
they are provided with only limited information. I have often heard an administration
come to Congress and insist there was no alternative to a decision it has made -- when, in fact, it was a 55/45
Executive branch
decision within the administration. There are always options in foreign policy. --
officials tend to treat Congress as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than
as a potential partner. Many officials believe that Congress is ignorant of sophisticated foreign policy
issues and only gets in the way of good policy. They avoid consulting with Congress until
circumstances -- like a disclosure in the media -- force them to. Administrations are
especially reluctant to hear from Members in an open-ended discussion.
They prefer highly-structured, almost ritualistic, hearings, if they must
deal with Congress in some form. -- Consultation tends to take place only when a crisis is
at hand, and is not sustained. On many complex foreign policy issues, administrations must build in
Congress a strong base of knowledge over a period of years so that Members are well-informed when the issue
administrations rarely consult
comes up for a vote or becomes publicly discussed. But
Congress on issues that are not on their immediate agenda. Members are
then taken by surprise when the administration suddenly requests support
for something Congress has heard nothing or hardly anything about.
Successive administrations' failure to educate and consult Members on international financial institutions is a classic
case -- no wonder it was so difficult for the Clinton administration to get congressional approval for an $18 billion
IMF quota increase. -- Consultation is often driven by headlines. Sometimes administrations call Members to give
them a "heads-up" on an issue because it will be appearing in the newspapers the next day. These heads-ups
are self-serving; consultation on the eve of a press leak is not consultation
at all. -- Administrations sometimes authorize only a few officials to discuss our policy. In several periods of crisis,
I was distressed to learn that only three or four officials were trusted by the President to consult -- at a time when
administration spokespeople should have been consulting all over Capitol Hill. During the months leading up to the
Gulf War, only the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were
The executive
authorized by President Bush to discuss policy on Iraq with Members of Congress. --
branch often consults with only a limited number of Members. To be
effective, consultation must target different Members depending on the
issue -- for instance, focusing on the ad hoc Caucus on Ireland when dealing with a matter pertaining to Northern
Ireland. Members with a strong interest in a particular foreign policy issue are sometimes left out of an
administration's consultation on that issue. The administration does not always do a good job of recognizing which
Congress also has several shortcomings when
Members are concerned with which issues.
it comes to consultation. -- Consultation with Congress is difficult because
power in Congress is so diffuse, and shifts with each issue. In the old days, the President could
consult with Congress effectively simply by talking to a few important congressional leaders and committee
chairmen -- Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Arthur Vandenberg. Today, dozens of Members of Congress and many congressional
committees play important roles in foreign policy. Members are younger, more sophisticated, more active, more
There is no single
diverse, more independent and less respectful of traditional patterns of authority.
person -- or group of people -- that the executive branch can consult with
and conclude that it has gained congressional support. -- Congress is often not
receptive to consultation. There is a tendency in the Congress to want to be briefed by the President, the Secretary
of Defense, or the Secretary of State, and an unwillingness to hear from lower-ranking officials. After the 1994 so-
called Agreed Framework with North Korea was negotiated, I thought it would be useful for Congress to be briefed
on the agreement since it was of major importance to our security interests in Asia. I helped organize two briefings
for Members on Capitol Hill with the State Department official who negotiated the agreement, and a total of one
Member showed up. -- Congress is often poorly informed about foreign policy. Most
Members focus mainly on domestic issues, and many of them give little thought to foreign affairs except when a
vote is pending or a crisis breaks. This lack of sustained interest in foreign policy makes it more difficult for an
administration to consult. -- Congress tends to be heavily influenced by special interests, prominent ethnic groups in
their districts, and short-term objectives. This narrow perspective can complicate an administration's efforts to
Congress is often
develop long-term policies that offer no immediate political benefit to Members. --
unwilling to accept responsibility for formulating our foreign policy.
Members criticize the President's policy without offering any constructive
alternatives. Then Members sit back and let the President take the heat if
our policy fails. For too many Members, foreign policy is just another battleground for seeking political
advantage over the President. -- Partisanship in Congress can weaken consultation. Early in the Clinton presidency,
House Speaker Newt Gingrich refused to be consulted by the administration while Democrats were present. This
kind of attitude makes it harder to develop bipartisan consensus. -- Congress can leak sensitive information.
Executive branch fear of leaks can discourage officials from sharing information with Congress. But it should also be
said that leaks come from the executive branch as well. Many administration officials are skillful at leaking
information to Congress and the public to advance their own agendas.
AT: Unwieldy/Certainty Key
This argument assumes the squoonly consultation solves
Washington Times 93 (Our 535 Secretaries of State, 10/13/93, Lexis)//LA
The main complaint is that Mr. Clinton failed to consult with members of Congress before he switched U.S. policy in
Somalia. Mr. Nunn feels that he is, therefore, free to criticize the president. But, however needed it may be for
someone to make Mr. Clinton wake up and take his responsibilities as commander in chief seriously, lawmakers
How can Congress
should be careful. Dissent on the Hill could embolden Mohamed Farah Aidid.
participate in debate on foreign policy without jeopardizing American
goals and lives abroad? Consult. Legislators often complain that the
executive does not consult with them. Mr. Clinton has been a lot more reluctant to do so than
was President Bush before him. But in many cases presidents have hesitated because not everyone in Congress
many lawmakers have in the past just taken
handles such information in good faith. In fact,
their briefing materials and used them against the administration in hearings
to no particular end. If Congress makes it clear that it intends to consult
constructively with the president, it is possible the president would be
more likely to let them in on key decisions. If lawmakers still disagree with
the president, they should voice their opposition legitimately. The endless
procession of members in front of television cameras starts to look like
grandstanding. There is no room for grandstanding in foreign affairs . First,
because exploiting the deaths of American soldiers is noxious. And second, because the cacophony of dissenting
So, after consulting, if members still
voices makes a coherent U.S. policy impossible.
oppose the president, they have an obligation to form a resolution,
debate it and vote . When Congress votes, there is no longer the problem
of having 535 secretaries of state. With a vote, members have to go on
the record, and the outcome is a single coherent policy.
AT: Prez Flex Good
The president will still lead
III. Rules for good consultation These examples of good consultation suggest that the common
deficiencies in the consultative process can be overcome, or at least
mitigated. Here are ten ways the branches could improve foreign policy consultation. First, each branch
must understand its proper role, powers and limitations in foreign policy.
The executive branch must recognize that Congress plays an important
role in the formulation of foreign policy, and can provide our foreign policy
with stronger public support. Congress has responsibility for refining
policies, for providing informed consent, and for legislation. Yet Congress
must recognize that its role is generally limited to helping to formulate
policy, and must give the executive branch some flexibility in the day-to-
day implementation of policy. For instance, Congress has a legitimate right to speak out in favor of
providing arms to Columbia, but it should not try to dictate how many and what types of helicopters we provide, or
Congress must strike a balance between
when and to whom they should be delivered.
responsible criticism, based on measured oversight of the executive
branch, and responsible cooperation. There should be an implicit agreement between the
branches that if Congress is seriously consulted, it wil l act with some restraint
and allow the executive branch to lead.
Aff Consult Congress CP
PermAdvisory
Permdo the plan and consult using a nonbinding committee framework
Kampelman 2 (Max M., The Washington Post, A New Structure for Foreign Policy,
1/5/2, Lexis)//LA
A foreign policy declared by a president, except in an emergency, is subject to
criticism by the opposing political party, by 535 members of Congress, by the
press, by nongovernmental organizations and by other governments. Yet democracies, such as ours,
require a broad consensus behind a foreign policy; a bare majority is not
sufficient. Members of Congress tend to believe, particularly in foreign
policy, that if, for the sake of unity, they are expected to be in on a
potential crash landing, they want to be in on the takeoff. This comes face
to face with the constitutional duty of the president to be in charge of
foreign policy. What to do, particularly given the congressional role to
appropriate funds and the congressional right to criticize? It is impractical
and unwise to "consult" 535 members of Congress, whereas not to consult is to deprive
the administration of the cooperation it requires as well as the judgment and experience possessed by Congress.
What is required is for congressional leadership to create a joint
committee on international strategic policy, which would not deal with
legislation and would not have any appropriation authority . In addition to the
speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders of both houses, its membership should consist of the
chairmen and ranking minority members of the Appropriations, armed services, foreign policy and intelligence
committees from each house. Given his constitutional role in the Senate, the vice president should chair this
committee, but should the leadership resist this arrangement, the vice president could also be an ex officio member
Such a structure would make cooperation with
as the president's representative.
Congress more than a superficial exercise, strengthen the president's
leadership by enlarging it with input from an experienced and powerful
legislative group and overcome a major potential obstacle to an effective
foreign policy.
Prez Flex Solvency Deficit
Presidential oversight makes for better policy
qualified individual, TESTIMONY FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE STUART E.
EIZENSTAT HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE JUNE 3, 1998,
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_h/h980603se.htm)//LA
The President needs Flexibility The President should have the authority to
tailor specific U.S. actions to meet our foreign policy objectives. We
recognize important Congressional prerogatives in foreign policy, in
particular where economic sanctions are involved. This Administration, or any
Administration, must take into account Congressional concerns over foreign
affairs questions. At the same time, the President is, of course, responsible
under the Constitution for the conduct of the nation's foreign policy. Ideally,
our foreign policy should be the product of a bipartisan consensus focusing on U.S. national interests. One
expression of that constitutional responsibility and comity between
branches of government is expressed in sanctions legislation through the
inclusion of appropriate Presidential waiver authority. Ultimately only the
President can weigh all the issues at stake at any given moment and tailor
our response to a specific situation. Legislation should set forth the broad
objective but should allow the flexibility to respond to a constantly
changing and evolving situation. In this regard, there are two particular pieces of legislation, Mr.
Chairman, which are of particular concern: the Iran Missile Proliferation Act of 1997; and the Wolf-Specter Anti-
The President's senior
Religious Persecution Bill, which passed the House by a large margin.
advisors are recommending that the Iran Missile Proliferation Act of 1997 be vetoed
because of its low standard of evidence, its unworkable waiver standard, and because
its inflexible and indiscriminate requirement to impose sanctions would be
counterproductive to our nonproliferation objectives. Similarly while we strongly support the goals of the Wolf-
Specter Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998, the President's senior advisors have also said that they
would recommend a veto of the Wolf-Specter Bill if passed in its current form, because of its automatic sanctions,
the confusing bureaucratic structure it would create, and the inappropriate hierarchy of human rights violations in
U.S. law the bill would establish. We believe that enactment of the bill would undermine
many of our important foreign policy interests, including ultimately the bill's own goal of
helping those who face religious persecution. Mr. Chairman, this rapid pace of change,
sometimes unanticipated change, highlights the absolutely critical need
for flexibility in the application of economic sanctions. Simply put, without
flexibility we will not be able to tailor our actions to meet our foreign
policy objectives. There can be no "one-size fits all" approach. Only the
President can balance all the factors. It is important the President have
the flexibility to respond in an appropriate fashion to changing
circumstances. That flexibility also provides the President appropriate leverage to achieve the statute's
goals while minimizing collateral damage to other important national interests. If the Congress feels
that he has not struck the right balance, then oversight and criticism in a
spirit of comity are appropriate, but not removal of the President's
discretion -- that would make for bad policy. Using these general principles as a standard
against which to grade our - and your - efforts, Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus on three
specific cases where the actual use or prospect of unilateral economic
sanctions was an integral part of our policy: our use of ILSA on Iran and Helms-
Burton on Cuba to advance our cooperation with the European Union. Mr. Chairman, to illustrate and
underscore these guiding principles, I would like to focus on two specific cases, the Libertad Act and the Iran-Libya
the prospect of sanctions rather than their use
Sanctions Act. In both cases
effectively achieved greater cooperation in support of the Acts' objectives without upsetting
our political and economic relations with our allies and friends. In the Helms-Burton case, we decided our success
with the property disciplines we agreed upon with the EU merits seeking authority to waive Title IV.
Executive flexibility is best

Restrictions on Executive Branch The LCH bill would also impose a number of specific
procedural and substantive restrictions on Executive Branch imposition of
new sanctions imposed under IEEPA and all future unilateral economic sanctions laws. We would
propose instead that the President would be willing to issue an Executive
Order that would set guidelines--many of which are taken from the LCH proposal--which
would apply in two situations. First. they would apply to all future
sanctions regimes under IEEPA. Second. they would apply to imposition of
sanctions under future sanctions laws passed by Congress . where appropriate.
LCH would impose many inflexible restrictions on the President's
imposition of sanctions. e.g .. requiring him to announce and publish his
intent to do so forty five days in advance. and specifying that all future
sanctions shall include. among other things, a cost benefit analysis. a
contract sanctity provision, and a two year sunset clause. We support the
general idea behind some constraints. but the simple fact of life is that
there are instances when such requirements would prove unworkable and
destroy the value of the sanctions as a foreign policy tool . For example,
telegraphing in advance our intention to seize the assets of suspected terrorists, narcotics traffickers, major
international criminals. or indeed for any foreign policy purpose would effectively rule out asset freezes as sanctions
tool.Contract sanctity provisions maybe similarly unworkable and
counterproductive--for example. in dealing with front companies in the narcotics area-----
particularly when combined with the requirement for advance notice of
intent to impose sanctions. They would encourage businesses to negotiate
quick deals to get in under the wire and avoid the effect of sanctions . Sunset
clauses tied to time rather than performance may also often not be appropriate. Many of the purposes
tor which we may impose sanctions-non-proliferation, to combat drug
trafficking. to combat terrorism. to encourage greater respect for human
rights-are long term: they are simply not time bound. We should not give
the targets of such sanctions the ability to wait us out. What is the lesson?
Flexibility is an absolute necessity . In these as in all cases. the President needs
the flexibility to tailor our response most appropriately to the specific
situation. LCH contains differing waiver standards for these restrictions, ranging from a national interest
standard to a national emergency standard to an armed conflict standard. and specifies that some provisions would
We need to modify such requirements to protect the
never be waivable.
President's flexibility. With such enhanced flexibility. the President would
be willing to sign an Executive Order that would include the following
particular guidelines according to which the President should impose
sanctions: a requirement to analyze costs and gains to all relevant U.S.
interests: contract sanctity unless the President determines that it would
detract from the effectiveness of the sanctions; a provision calling for an
annual review of future Executive Branch sanctions under which the
President must determine that the sanctions are meeting certain criteria
in order tor the sanctions to continue in effect: narrow targeting:
appropriate exemptions to minimize adverse humanitarian impact; and
prior consultations with Congress, wherever possible.
Empirics prove presidential flexibility is key to successful policy

We believe that properly designed and implemented as part of a coherent
strategy, sanctions, including economic sanctions. are a valuable tool for
advancing American interests and defending U.S. values. Used in an
appropriate way and under appropriate circumstances, sanctions can
further important U.S. policy goals. Mr. Chairman, as examples. without economic sanctions
Serbia would not have come to the negotiating table to end the war in Bosnia: Iraq would not be limited in its ability
to sell oil and acquire weapons of mass destruction: Libya would not stand isolated for its failure to hand over the
Lockerbie suspects: and South Africa might not have ended Apartheid. These sanctions achieved some measure of
There is also an
success because they are or were part of an integrated multilateral sanctions regime.
important but more limited role for unilateral sanctions. Our unilateral
sanctions against Cuba. Iran, Sudan. Nigeria and Burma serve vital U.S. interests.
However. in recent years. there has been an explosion in the frequency with which we turn to unilateral economic
the United States has
sanctions. According to one count by the National Association of Manufacturers.
imposed unilateral economic sanctions 92 times since the end of WWll ; 62-
well more than half-have been imposed since 1993. The President's Export Council notes that more than 75
countries are now subject to some form of economic sanctions. Surely this must give us pause to question whether
Most of the sanctions imposed since 1993 have been non-
we are on the right track.
discretionary measures required by Congress in law. In contrast. only
three of the 62 unilateral economic sanctions regimes imposed since 1993
have been imposed by the Executive Branch as a discretionary matter
using the President" s authority under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (IEEPA}--the tightening of the U.S. embargo on Iran in 1995 and the imposition of
a comprehensive embargo on the Sudan in November 1997. In addition. after the President determined that certain
factual predicates had been met concerning Burma. he used his authority. again under IEEPA, to impose a new
investment ban on Burma in May 1997, as required by law. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin today by focusing on
twospecific cases in which flexible sanctions have been effective because of
the waiver authority Congress gave the President- The Libertad Act
(Helms-Burton), and The Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Each of these cases illustrates
how we were able to use presidential flexibility. such as the prospect of a
waiver. to advance effectively the objectives of the statute. I will then outline the
overarching principles that in the view of the Administration. should govern U.S. sanctions policy. Finally, I will make
some specific comments on pending legislation and present an outline of the Administration s ideas about what
sort of legislation would best embody the Administrations principles on sanctions policy.
Neg Theory
Process Debates Good
Congress/XO debates are goodk2 real world education and policymaking
The United States government has enormous power to affect the lives of
people all over the globe; the decisions it makes in the name of American
foreign policy and national security are of great human importance. How
those decisions are actually made is therefore of great importance as
well. Among the major factors shaping the process by which the United States determines policy and takes
actions, one is directly a product of the United States Constitution: even when one political party is dominant,
American foreign and security policies are the product of two quite
distinct and often antagonistic institutions-the legislative and executive
branches of the federal government.1 Even if one is skeptical about the influence that constitutional law has or
ought to have in these matters, the political potency, real and potential, of Congress
and the President makes the constitutional law officially governing their
relationship of more than academic concern.
Theres academic debate on this subject

Grimmett 99 (Richard F., US Dept of State Foreign Affairs and National Defense
Division, Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress, 6/1/99,
http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm)//LA
The Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President
and Congress but not in a definitive manner. 1 Edward S. Corwin wrote: What
the Constitution does, and all that it does, is to confer on the President
certain powers capable of affecting our foreign relations, and certain other
powers of the same general kind on the Senate, and still other such
powers on Congress; but which of these organs shall have the decisive
and final voice in determining the course of the American nation is left for
events to resolve . 2 Events have confirmed that together the President
and Congress make foreign policy, but they have not resolved the
question of which branch originates or finally determines policy. The two
branches share in the process and each plays an important but different role. The question of who
makes foreign policy does not have a more precise answer for several reasons.
First, U.S. foreign policy is not created in a vacuum as some sort of indivisible whole with a single grand design.
Rather, making foreign policy is a prolonged process involving many actors
and comprising dozens of individual policies toward different countries, regions, and
functional problems. Second, the complex process of determining foreign policy makes it difficult to decide who
The two branches
should be credited with initiating or altering any particular foreign policy.
constantly interact and influence each other. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to
trace an idea back to its origin, determine when a proposal actually influences policy, and decide when a
the roles and relative influence of the two
modification creates a new policy. 3 Third,
branches in making foreign policy differ from time to time according to
such factors as the personalities of the President and Members of
Congress and the degree of consensus on policy. Throughout American history there
have been ebbs and flows of Presidential and congressional dominance in
making foreign policy, variously defined by different scholars. One study classified the period 1789-1829 as one of
Presidential initiative; 1829-1898 as one of congressional supremacy, and 1899 through the immediate post World
War II period as one of growing Presidential power. 4 Another study defined three periods of congressional
dominance, 1837-1861, 1869-1897, and 1918-1936, with a fourth one beginning toward the end of the Vietnam War
in 1973. 5 During the Reagan and Bush Administrations the pendulum swung back toward Presidential dominance,
reaching its height in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq. 6 In the post-Persian Gulf war era, both
President and the Congress are confronted with issues in foreign policy that may well define which branch of
government will play the dominant role during the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Random
The president should have discretion, subject to a congressional veto, to
terminate sanctions unilaterally
A National Interest Waiver Certain existing sanctions laws contain inadequate or. in
at least one case--the Glenn Amendment-no waiver authority. We believe
that flexibility accompanied by appropriate national interest waiver
authority in all legislation is the single most essential element if we want
to make sanctions work. We believe that the President should be authorized to
refrain from imposing. or taking any action that would result in the
imposition of. any unilateral economic sanction. and be authorized to
suspend or terminate the application of such a sanction based on a
national interest determination. Congress should have a role here. Thus, we could
consider the inclusion of expedited procedures to allow Congress to pass
legislation disapproving the President's decision within a certain number
of days. We would support applying this waiver authority to all existing
and future legislation. A number of recent cases underscore the importance of
providing the President with this type of flexibility so that he can decide
how best to achieve U.S. objectives. But I think that the contrasting examples of the Glenn
Amendment and the use or promise of waiver authority in the cases of ILSA and Helms-Burton underscore this
point. Using the waiver authority in TLSA. we were able to achieve significant. enhanced cooperation on our Iran-
related concerns with the European Union. Even though cooperation was already at a high level, the EU has further
tightened its dual use control system with respect to Iran and other countries. We also made significant progress
with Russia. which put into place for the first time the legal framework and detailed regulations for a "catch-all"
export control system. We used Title III waiver authority in Helms-Burton to encourage the EU in late 1996 to
condition any improvements in relations with Cuba on concrete changes in Cuba s human rights policies. Also, the
prospect of an amendment to Title IV helped the EU to agree on May 18 of this year to new disciplines on limiting
investment in illegally expropriated properties worldwide. including in Cuba. This understanding with the EU
establishes for the first time multilateral disciplines among major capital exporting countries to inhibit and deter
under
investment in properties which have been expropriated in violation of international law. In contrast,
Glenn. we have no discretion. no waiver authority. and no ability to lift
sanctions absent legislation. This clearly complicates our ability to
negotiate acceptable solutions with the Indians and Pakistan is-as the Senate has itself suggested
with its recent actions. These achievements in ILSA and Helms-Burton would not
have been possible without appropriate waiver authority. We use waiver
authority not as an excuse to avoid sanctions. but as an effective means of
leverage to advance the purposes of the law. During our informal consultations with staff.
the question arose as to whether we should not consider a dual waiver standard. For example. legislation dealing
with non-proliferation issues might be subject to a national security waiver, other legislation to a national interest
waiver. This is an idea worthy of further consideration. I want to emphasize. however. that our very strongly held
belief is that a broad national interest waiver applied to all sanctions
legislation, is the most effective way to advance our foreign policy goals. As
I said earlier. Congress and the Executive Branch share responsibility for
helping shape our foreign policy. Comity between branches of government
is expressed in sanctions legislation through an indication of
Congressional interest along with the inclusion of appropriate Presidential
flexibility. including broad waiver authority. Congress speaks. but
ultimately only the President can weigh all the foreign policy issues at
stake at any given moment and tailor our response to a specific situation.
Congress's power of the purse and of oversight are more-than-adequate
tools with which to help shape our foreign policy .
Only passing legislation modeled on the Lugar-Crane-Hamilton Bill can

solves executive oversight
Let me begin with constraints on congressional consideration of future
unilateral economic sanctions legislation. The LCH bill constrains
congressional consideration of future sanctions legislation in a number of
ways. It prescribes certain congressional procedures for consideration of
future sanctions bills. These procedures specify that the appropriate
congressional committee must produce a report that includes a statement
whether the bill meets certain content criteria. The bill also requires
reports by the President and the Secretary of Agriculture on a covered bill
that is reported by a committee. Additionally, it provides that a motion to consider a
bill on the floor shall not be in order unless the Congress has previously
received those Executive Branch reports. The Administration would like to build on but modify
these ideas. We endorse the constructive idea that a Member could raise a point of order if certain procedural steps
are not met before a sanctions bill is moved to the floor. But the trigger for raising a point of order in LCH is a
mandatory Presidential report, and we think it is unrealistic and highly burdensome to expect a detailed Executive
we suggest instead that
Branch report each time any sanctions bill is voted out of a committee. Thus.
sanctions reform legislation provide that a bill would not be in order to
move to the floor unless there has been a report of the relevant
committees explaining whether the bill meets the substantive criteria
called for in LCH. The legislation could also provide that future unilateral
economic sanctions legislation be considered a '"federal private sector
mandate". which would require that the Congressional Budget Office
prepare a report assessing the impact of the bill on the U.S. economy and
would trigger a point of order against a bill reported by Committee
without the CBO report. LCH would also impose certain substantive
constraints on passage of future sanctions laws. including providing that future unilateral
economic sanctions legislation should include a statement of objectives. a
"sunset" clause (termination after two years). contract sanctity. a national
interest waiver. be narrowly targeted, not include restrictions on the
provision of food and medicine. and seek to minimize adverse
humanitarian impact. We would support the inclusion of these kinds of
provisions in new sanctions bills. with appropriate flexibility. A key question is the scope of these constraints.
that is. to what future legislation they would apply. We support the proposal in LCH that constraints on
Congress would apply to future "unilateral economic sanctions" legislation .
The term is appropriately broadly defined. to apply to bills imposing both discretionary and mandatory sanctions,
and to sanctions imposed for a wide range of reasons. We agree with the sponsors of the LCH bill that these
provisions should not apply to trade legislation - but also believe they should not apply to labor-related or
The Congress. of course. will always retain the
environmental legislation either.
flexibility to depart from the LCH guidelines. because a subsequent.
inconsistent sanctions law would take precedence--through ''notwithstanding any other
law" language--and because Congress can choose to change or disregard the procedural rules applicable to it.
None the less. we see these provisions as an important baseline for
congressional consideration of sanctions legislation .
Presidential authority waver solves flexibility

That said, the lack of flexible waiver authority under the Glenn Amendment
has limited our ability to be creative in encouraging India and Pakistan to cooperate in avoiding
an arms race on the sub continent. Our purpose is not to punish for punishment's sake.
but to influence the behavior of both governments. But our ability to influence
requires greater flexibility . We do not wish for unnecessary harm to fall upon the civilian
populations of either country-particularly the poor and less fortunate on U.S: businesses. For this reason. we are
pleased that the Senat: acted in July to correct an obvious unintended consequence of the sanctions law--
preventing the provision of credits tor agncultural commodities. As recent debates on the Senate floor demonstrate.
the Administration and the Congress share a desire to inject a greater
degree of consistency, flexibility and effectiveness to the sanctions
regimes against India and Pakistan. It is absolutely vital that we build upon this very
strong foundation to effect the requisite changes in our policy and in our
laws. For this reason we strongly supported the Senate's passage of the
Brownback-Robb amendment to give the President greater flexibility on the
India and Paktstan sancttons. Ideally, we would want to go even further and would
prefer waiver authority for all of the sanctions currently in place. Of
course, we will not use any waiver authority until such time as substantial
progress has been made toward achieving our non-proliferation objectives or in the event that there
were a serious negative and unintended consequence to a specific sanction such as impending financial collapse
We also would like additional flexibility to
leading to economic chaos and political instability.
guard against an overwhelmingly disproportiOnate effect of the sanctions
on one country versus another: ideally. the sanctions should have roughly the same effect on India as they do on
Pakistan. the latter being in more fragile economic condition and more dependent on IFI funding. which the Glenn
Amendment requires us to oppose.

XO and Consult Congress CPs - Michigan7 2013 BFJR

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

XO and Consult Congress CPs - Michigan7 2013 BFJR

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

XO & Consult Congress CPs

An executive order can remove embargo provisions it wont be rolled

The CP solves for Cuba and avoids the link to politics

Presidential action solves Cuba

Congress has oversight over Latin American policy

A strong executive is vital to a successful American foreign policy

Presidential power is key to hegemony

Strong president key to preserve heg

Forceful president k2 heg - empirics prove

A strong executive is key to resolve terrorism

Obama can pass policies to bypass partisan congress

Executive orders get past congressional gridlock avoiding the link to

Administration efforts solve Latin American policy bypasses Congress

at liberty to issue executive orders with little fear of legislative or judicial

Only the CP is constitutional

Heres a list of constitutional justifications for our CP

The means all parts

USFG is all three branches

Executive-legislative COOPERATION solves best

Executive power is partisanit CAN be blocked by Congress and causes

Failing to use the legislative process wastes political capital

The impact is nuclear war

It solves and avoids the link to politics

Normal means isnt consultation

Perm link to politicsits about the process

2. If the perm doesnt link, its severanceFirst, PRIOR consultation delays

AndBINDING consultation means the plan is no longer CERTAIN

[INSERT SEVERANCE BAD]

B. Causes rollback and triggers the link to the net benefit

3. Morality DAlying must always be rejected

Crappy consultation is crappy

Executive flexibility is best

Empirics prove presidential flexibility is key to successful policy

Theres academic debate on this subject

Only passing legislation modeled on the Lugar-Crane-Hamilton Bill can

Presidential authority waver solves flexibility

Anda mungkin juga menyukai