DA: War Powers

Hansen
NPTE 16

Thesis: Executive power is high now. Plan 1. Decreases presidential authority 2. Decreases
perception of Exec power. Lack of Executive power causes conflict.

Uniqueness
1 Executive power strong now
a. Republicans view Obama as having drastically expanded executive authority. US
Senator Ted Cruz wrote that current executive trajectory grants the President near
unilateral war powers.
b. Ken Gormley, Assoc Prof of Con Law at Duquesne published that the Fourth
Amendment grants surveillance as an executive war power -- meaning that congress is
currently incapable of narrowing executive powers.
c. Warfare against IS proves -- The current perception is that executive interpretation of the
War Powers Resolution will allow the President to act rapidly with military force.

2 Current legal structures cannot inhibit Presidential War Powers

a. Richard Sulder, Prof of Con law at NYU writes that the technicalities of bills like the WPR
have left the Presidency with near limitless ability to expand and engage in warfare
b. This is a conscious effort -- no congress wants to restrict Presidential war powers
because they are seen as critical to the nations survival.
c. Sole organ doctrine - The belief that Presidents are the nation’s chief foreign policy rep.
Louis Fisher in a statement before the house judi committee testified that the modern
executive branch relies on sole organ docrine to define presidential powers. This means
to be the sole organ, the president must have authority over intelligence and warfare
operations.

3 Executive authority is critical to combat transnational threats

a. John Yoo, a Law Prof at Berkeley writes that congressional deliberation is slow and
ineffective. The Vietnam War was authorized by congress but was atrocious.
Congressional isolationism prior to WW2 harmed US interestes and allowed
expansionism of the Nazi Regime, Imperial Japan, and Mussolini
b. Yoo argues that the fast response time of the executive was critical to prevent nuclear
outbreak in the Cold War. Terror attacks, nuclear strikes, mean that the executive needs
a fast reaction time and unilateral power over strikes.

Links
1 Curtailing surveillance undermines the sole organ doctrine
a. Plan causes a reframing of the authority of the Executive. This undermines the
Presidents ability to engage in diplomacy
b. Plan sets precedent for congressional/court oversight of IR, chanign the way war powers
are percieved.
 c. Congressional authority is zero-sum with presidential. Senator Kyl from AZ testified
before the senate judi committee that there is direct tradeoff in power

2 Plan restrict executive authority

a. ACLU v Clapper sets precedent that metadata can no longer be used for surveillance,
creating the perception the executive is more restricted.
i. The Courts prior decision for Clapper cite that security benefits outweight any
privacy concerns, setting a vital precedent for a flexible executive.
b. The Principles cause the perception the executive is ceding authority to international
actors.
i. The purpose of the principles was to provide legislative bodies with a framework
to evaluate surveillance, this removes the current framework which is focused
around rapid response and military power of the US executive.
ii. Plan opens possibility for executive trials in Hague. Targets of surveillance could
call the US to the ICC for illegal surveillance, as the US would admit surveillance
is a human rights violation post-plan
c. Requiring the releasing of efforts makes agencies efforts public. This allows other actors
to react differently to changing US policies.

Internal Links
1 Decreasing war powers increases risk for conflict, a few key areas
a. scs
b. Syria
c. AFRICOM

2 Decreasing war powers increases instances of terror

a. look perceptually weak
b. exploit loopholes

Impacts
1 Turns Case

2 Bioterror
a. IS and Boko Haram
b. Risks extinction

3 Risks nuclear conflict, GPW