You are on page 1of 22



Permdo bothCongress can enact legislation granting Obama the power to do the plan
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 basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban. President Obama
may point out that 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 laws would conclude they
could not support a domestic gun ban. The bottom line is that there is 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-
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,
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


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,
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 to unilaterally designate organizations as terrorist groups and broadly prohibit association with such groups. The 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 option," Cole said in a statement. The ruling is
the latest setback for the 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 -- and hundreds more since have been added to the list. In her ruling, Collins said the order is
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 claims by the plaintiffs, however, including that the order's
definition of a terrorist group is too vague. The 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
aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional." Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official 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,
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 outrageous. It's exactly what the Bush people did." A
White House official said the signing 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 appropriations bill. In a letter slated for delivery on
Wednesday, Mr. Frank, House Appropriations 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 way through
Congress last month, calling it a bailout for international bankers. The White House 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,
term/article/2520953) LA [Card from last year]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- This is what "Forward" looks like. Fast forward, even. President Barack Obama's campaign slogan is
springing to life in a surge of executive directives and agency rule-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 even as they create bureaucratic bloat.
Congress-skirting executive orders and similar 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, followed now by the order lifting the ban on women serving in combat. Those measures did not 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 polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the opportunities to legislate are few and far 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 his first term. With a major climate bill unlikely to get
though a divided 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 inspection. In one of the most closely watched cases, Obama could decide early
this year 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, MaxL
Food activists are now calling for the President to issue a signing statement and/or 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 issued while signing the legislation, and would have claimed
that part of the law was unconstitutional. However, it 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,
20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-support) MaxL
Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-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 cuts and education reform that at the time received
popular approval. However, short-term 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, 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 Americans. Any executive action could even hurt his favorability
rating, and by 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.
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
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,
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 States into ill-advised military interventions. As
before in our history, the conflict will likely 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 locus of authority in foreign policy has shifted. Debates on the
question have flared 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 responsibility of commander in chief of the nation's
armed forces. But the Founding Fathers also 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 right to ratify or
reject treaties negotiated by the president. The delineation of power and 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 practice since 1789, he would marvel
at how much Presidents have spun out of so little."[2] Ambitious 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 the military, lest
an aggressive general succumb to Cromwellian temptations during a wartime crisis. A 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 own conception of U.S. "interests." Executive supremacy in foreign affairs
was not set forth in the Constitution. That doctrine evolved from particular historical

CP not constitutionaltrade
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,
(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 state is violating the dormant foreign
commerce clause,105 and the President's authority to enter into executive agreements concerning
commerce without congressional approval is ex- tremely doubtful. Congress's possession of
substantive policy making author- ity, 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 agree-
ments 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 dicey enterprise, but there are
two long-term trends, at least, that could improve our 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 being (in principle) a
more coherent and decisive instrument than its legislative rival. 59 As the twenty-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 among world leaders in not supporting the ban. Under Clinton's
presidency, the Internet has gone 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?,
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,
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, and presidential decision directives); presidential
announcements; presidential findings; 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, 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. 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 provided. The intent of the law is clear. Congress
undertook to check the President, at least 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 the President. World history is filled with tragic examples. Even if
the Court assumed its 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 losses in Vietnam and in other presidential wars, rather than about the weaponry. Congress, of course, can
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, unnecessary, and, in some instances, downright insane. Whatever may be the psychological 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

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.


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
CONGRESS: Another Nixon-style Move By The Bush Administration, | 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 place)? In contrast, Congress wants to do all these things, thereby
keeping a President on his toes. Its 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 entirely unjustified. This talk of "separation of powers" and
"executive privilege" is unmitigated malarkey. It is a makeshift excuse to keep the Congress
from policing the White House .