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-economicpolicy-september-2012.pdf) MaxL
The specific empirical puzzle, how to 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
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
branch of government is the
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/wpdyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304982.html) MaxL
first step to changing our policy toward Cuba, the president

should issue an executive order to lift as much of the travel ban as possible. The travel
-- Second, as a
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 Castro, to release political dissidents.
Obama has taken significant
steps to loosen 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
actions taken by the United States in the past to remove trade embargoes against
show that, unless such lifting is specifically limited by the legislation,
Presidential decisions and determinations are sufficient authority to lift trade embargoes .
The
foreign countries appear to
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
An alternative, but
course of action would be for the President to issue an
executive order expressly ending the state of emergency with regard to Cuba . The same
TWEA authority with respect to Cuba is in the national interest of the United States.
perhaps more controversial,
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 to
establish and maintain a total embargo upon all trade between the United States and Cuba. This section is clearly
permissive and leaves the President free to determine whether to 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://progresoweekly.com/ini/index.php/cuba/144-angelicas-eyes-on-washington-blogs/angelicaseyes-on-washington/495-why-president-obama-should-issue-an-executive-order-ontravel-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 nontourist 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 Executive Order will remove the senseless and onerous
Implementing the EO fulfills the Presidents commitment on

policy toward Cuba In the campaign and later at the Summit of the Americas, President Obama promised to
barriers to those interactions. 2.
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
Issuing
the Executive Order now would 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
to absorb the unemployed workers. It has also freed more than 50 political prisoners since July 2010.
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
There is no
downside in Florida The conventional wisdom is that easing the travel ban will hurt the President in Florida.
restrictions for all Americans. Increasing purposeful travel is consistent with this view. 8.
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
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
hardline position on Cuba in the 2010 mid-term lost their elections, due to the larger political climate. 9.
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
government should take further steps to adopt a new approach toward Cuba , Human
Americans' travel and remittances to Cuba is a major break from an ineffective and unjust policy, but
Rights Watch said today. Congress should promptly extend to all Americans the right to travel to Cuba, Human
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 governmen t," said Jos Miguel Vivanco,
Rights Watch said. At the same time,
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-mostof.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 HelmsBurton 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
This means that the president's power

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
means of regulations, rulings, instructions, and licenses.''
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
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
precluded from operating in these countries by the primary sanctions.
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-issuesexecutive-order-stop-human-trafficking-government-contracts) MaxL
Obama signed an executive order that will give better protections

to vulnerable workers employed by government contractors. The order, announced on the 150th
Today, President Barack
anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, lays out new requirements for U.S. government contractors and their
to prevent human trafficking and forced labor . In a powerful

Obama recognized that U.S. tax payer dollars
should never be used to support human trafficking, a form of modern day slavery.
subcontractors operating overseas
speech this morning announcing the order, President
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 lowwage 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
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
problem.
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-orderhuman-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
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
unprecedented outreach to human rights commissions and agencies across the country. Those
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.
to 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
But
Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing that every human being is entitled not only to civil and political rights but
mechanisms to ensure human rights standards

are integrated and enforced across the government ; -- human rights impact assessments and
also to economic, social and cultural rights. --
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 analysis in their reviews and
a plan of action to fully implement

and incorporate human rights obligations into domestic and foreign policy, including following
investigations of government agencies, policies and programs; --
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-untreaties#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 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 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
U.S. legislative action on

comprehensive immigration reform would likely be well received in Latin America and
the Caribbean, but especially in neighboring Mexico. U.S. gun control efforts would also likely be welcomed
proposed foreign assistance programs for the region. Potential
by Mexico, along with Caribbean and Central American countries concerned about the illicit flow of arms from the
Other issues that could be the subject of oversight in the new Congress, and are
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
United States
addressed in the sections below,
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
counternarcotics relationship with the

activities of the Organization of American States.
(ATPA) benefits for Ecuador; the scope and direction of the regions
United States;
and
the operation and
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

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
government, particularly in the security realm. The 113th
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

Nieto government implementing its reformist agenda? Will the government be
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?
Potential
the Pea
Venezuela
Congress has oversight over Venezuelan policies
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
The 113th
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 policyespecially 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
the CAA
authorizes the EPA Administrator to create regulations 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
agency to implement the policy goals set forth by Congress in the statute.282 In the proposed action,
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
an executive order from

President Obama instructing the 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
scheme.286 Therefore, under Justice Jacksons Youngstown framework,
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
Obama should not wait for Congress to take action . He should

initiate the United States climate policy through existing tools, particularly the CAA. While the CAA may not be
an ideal vehicle for launching a 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
climate crisis, President
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
Obama has the

constitutional authority to issue an executive order instructing the EPA
Administrator to issue GHG-emission-limiting regulations pursuant to the CAA .
the judiciarys conservative jurisprudence. Based on a unitary executive theory, President
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 offroad vehicles, and rail, marine, and air transport.34 The latest research indicates that mobile sources account for
Conservative projections 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
at least one third of the total GHG emissions in the United States.35
human-induced climate change.37 James E. Hansen, Director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies, noted
the global climate system is approaching various 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
that
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 twenty national priorities for 2009 indicates that global warming ranks lowest.49
Furthermore, since 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
A recent
congressional proposal dealing with climate change was the Boxer- LiebermanWarner 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-LiebermanWarner proposal, suggests that any proposal will face a tough battle in Congress .59
address global warming fail to take immediate action to curb U.S. emissions from mobile sources.53
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
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.
abroad, Two features of this unilateral politics literature are worth noting. The first concerns sequence.
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
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
those who
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
weak
presidents are more prone to give away the store, namely, to undercut their own foreign
policy program in order to preserve their domestic agenda. This raises the question of
view them not as willful, so much as stuck in a jam, [*12] lacking other political options. Finally,
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 future presidents. Nor, in this media age, is any president's strength truly secure.
These days every 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, this hypocrisy has everything to do with the weak executive.
The president has a
favored policy 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
presidential power is the issue. A strong presidency might see

to it that America pursues its broader national interest, but a weak one cannot . This is
sanctions on Cuba. Here, too,
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 Bush will perform much
it is too pessimistic to blame America's foreign policy drift on

cultural forces that nobody can change, such as isolationism or multiculturalism .
better. But it also follows that
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 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 .
The voice of all 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,
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 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
and natural disasters in Turkey and Venezuela.
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
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
Americans,
important," predicted presidential scholar Michael Nelson, professor of political science at Rhodes College in
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
Memphis, Tenn. The voice of all Americans
authority reflects the state of the nation, and it would be hard to argue that any country in history has possessed
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,
the military, economic and political pre-eminence that this country now holds. And yet,
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

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."
Trade Organization among them ---
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 selfabsorption, 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-scheney-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 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
Darth Vader-esque image.
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 protect civil liberties without leaving the nation defenseless.
Obama's team has some strong critics of the old order , including his choice for director of
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
But
the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has spoken out strongly against coercive interrogation methods.
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
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,
even more relevant in the twenty first century.
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 generation" war. Thus, the need for
intelligence becomes an even greater concern 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
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
from the interdepartmental groups, various departments, and various government agencies. In this manner
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

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
Kissinger era, or indeed stung by it,
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 establishment think have the best chances for
it is hard to see a 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
stabilizing the region but, again,
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 European
Union. Fast-track authority for new trade rounds will be difficult, if not 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 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
interstate conflict--and neutrality.
policy may be to adhere to a position of non-intervention or even strict neutrality. Admittedly, unlike in midtwentieth 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 flow between two points, without transiting a third state.
Historically, national governments 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
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.
United States risked because it lacked a cyber neutral position. Finally,
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 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
But there is no mistaking the cutting edge of their new formulation.
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
Democracys claims on presidential

power now end with the administration of the oath of office . Had the ambitions of the
that has been traveled between these two constructions. 49
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
pretension to upholding constitutional intent, for a more personalized and
internalized form of modern executive power threatens to render the whole of
leaves movement priorities no more secure than the next election cycle. More striking still is
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 Congress
when 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 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
ambivalence of executive power. Both authors insist that the
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 power. 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
But the tools of foreign policy have domestic

consequences+ Military interven- tions, 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,
other countries to advance their goals+
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 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.
The second feature of unilateral powers that deserves attention is that
Obama can pass policies to bypass partisan congress

NYT 12 (Charlie Savage, New York Times Politics, Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals, 4-2212, 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

declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use
executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism. We had been
WASHINGTON One Saturday last fall, President
the agenda. He
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 domestic policy goals. But increasingly in recent
months, the administration has been seeking ways 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
Obama has emphasized the fact that he is bypassing lawmakers.

Congress
refuses to act, Ive said that Ill continue to do everything in my power to act without them.
domestic violence and more. Each time, Mr.
When he announced a cut in refinancing fees for federally insured mortgages last month, for example, he said: If
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
Obamas use of executive power to advance domestic

policies that could not pass Congress was not new historically . Still, he said, because of Mr.
Politics of Direct Presidential Action, said 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 Cant

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
blocked a confirmation vote.
Wait banner. When
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
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
executive order making the change. President Bill
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-ordersbypass-congress-192700126.html) MaxL
Obama's agenda, particularly involving legislative proposals like his ambitious "Buffett Rule"
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,"
President Barack
tax plan,
asserted former White House chief of staff William M. Daley, referring to a strategy meeting carried out last fall.
we have got to scour everything and push 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,
"The president expressed frustration, saying
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 "to promote the national defense" -- an obscure maxim that bolsters countless meanings.
the White House's agenda is clear. "I refuse to take 'no' for an answer ," Obama
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."
All in all,
professed in a speech carried out earlier this year. " When
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 security and

foreign policy exposed by the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, will get a 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
4) Benghazi and the world:
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 possible 2016 presidential bid. 9) Congressional bypass operation:
With divided government and 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 policy
issue to a position that is closer to their ideal point . By doing so, presidents are able
example,
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 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
total numbers, there has been no significant increase, but
an average of 25.7 percent. That percentage increased to 42.8 percent from the administration of Lyndon Johnson
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
to that of Gerald Ford, and climbed still further,
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-ae64750f65ee7642/Preview/PublicationAttachment/55896b90-840a-42bf-8744752a7a206333/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 objectives, the President arguably has sufficient legal authority to make the
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
remittances to Cuba; Establishing a new general license for

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
limitations and conditions applicable to travel and
the provision of
financing arrangements issued, confirmed or advised by U.S. financial institutions (but subject to statutory
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
restrictions on the extension of credit for transactions involving confiscated property);
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-changecuba-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-changecuba-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," he/she must be able to control his/her
if Congress micromanaged the 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
branch of the government:
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 administrative agency. Pursuant to a
an affected agency 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.
delegation of authority in the enabling statute,
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
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
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 consideration 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
form of consultation is the attitude of the parties involved.
the branches. Differences will remain, especially on the toughest issues. But even on those tough issues,
consultation will smooth some of the hard edges of 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
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
caused the administration to restore access to the briefings to a larger number of members.
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 tragedy created a media
Les Aspin and Secretary of State Warren

came to Capitol Hill to brief Members on what 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,
furor, which called for some explanation. Secretary of Defense
Christopher
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
The administration did not adequately consult

Congress on the 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,
a NATO-led deployment of peacekeepers.
even though such a short time frame was unrealistic. Then, one year later, while Congress was out of session after
the 1996 election, the President decided to continue the deployment of U.S. troops in Bosnia for another year and a
Many in Congress believed the decision was intentionally mad e 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 suppo rt, 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
half.
the case with its efforts to obtain funding for the United Nations and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban
The administration has worked to build congressional support on these issues,

but the efforts have been sporadic and occasional. They have not been sustained .
Treaty.
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 congressional opposition when the Senate finally took up the treaty during the
The result was Senate rejection of one of the most important foreign
policy initiatives of the Clinton administration.
past two weeks.
Perm link to politicsits about the process

II. Good consultation Despite these serious deficiencies in the consultative process, there have been a
number of times in my experience when consultation has worked well. Most presidents can gain
support for major foreign policy issues when they set their minds to it. Easy cases of
Some cases of effective consultation are easy ones because Congress

and the President are generally in agreement on policy to begin with. Take NATO
good consultation
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 campaign, both Republican leader Bob
The 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
Dole and President Clinton voiced their support for expansion.
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 always brief Congress when they return and keep Congress well-
This 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,
informed of the latest developments.
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
More difficult cases of good consultation

are 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
partners in the region. Tough cases of good consultation
order to achieve congressional approval for turning the Panama Canal over to Panamanian control, and for arms
At
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.
sales to Saudi Arabia. On both of these issues, the Carter administration faced heavy resistance in Congress.
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
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
freedom.
constitutional scholar Edward Corwin noted that the Constitution is an invitation for the president and Congress to
Although the president is the principal

foreign policy actor, the Constitution delegates more specific foreign
policy powers to Congress than to the executive. It designates the president as
struggle for the privilege of directing foreign policy.
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
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
regulate foreign commerce, and define and punish offenses on the high seas.
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
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.
difficult for it to exercise its foreign policy responsibilities effectively. But I believe that
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 takeoffs, 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 Vietnam War, as discussed in chapter 1) is
the belief of lawmakers that they were too often 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 what
legislators believe that

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
actions the president had taken or intended to take overseas.12 In brief,
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)
The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in
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
4
the May 18 order connotes futurity or
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.
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"
1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15.
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
("should" would mean the

same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard
false testimony"). 14 In praesenti means literally "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
include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958)
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
misunderstood by a jury. See State v. McCloud, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 457
reasoned that
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
the word conveys to

duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark.
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
interpreting the word should in other types of jury instructions have also found that
the jury a sense of
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 be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective

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
to considerations
in itself. 9.3
nature of the
increasing .
statutory
duty. Indeed, the obligation could be considered to be ever-
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
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
possession, mean
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

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
first term, the Congress became concerned. (And for good reason.)
presidential powers,
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

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
lies in honor of "the greater good."
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

cannot accurately measure lies' benefits and harms.
from one instance to the next. For these reasons, critics claim,
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 decision within the administration. There are
Executive branch 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
always options in foreign policy. --
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 comes up for a vote or
administrations rarely consult 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
becomes publicly discussed. But
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
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
newspapers the next day. These
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 authorized by President Bush to discuss policy on Iraq with Members of
The executive 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
Congress. --
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 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
Members are concerned with which issues.
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 diverse, more independent and
There is no single 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
less respectful of traditional patterns of authority.
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 develop long-term policies that offer no immediate
Congress is often 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
political benefit to Members. --
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

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
should be careful. Dissent on the Hill could embolden Mohamed Farah Aidid.
presidents have hesitated because not everyone in Congress handles such information in good faith. In fact,
many lawmakers have in the past just taken 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 voices
So, after consulting, if members still 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
makes a coherent U.S. policy impossible.
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 when and to whom they should be
Congress must strike a balance between 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.
delivered.
Neg Theory
Process Debates Good

Congress/XO debates are goodk2 real world education and policymaking
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
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
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.
United States Constitution: even when one political party is dominant,
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 should be credited with initiating or
altering any particular foreign policy.
The two branches 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 modification creates a new policy. 3 Third, the roles and
relative influence of the two 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, 18691897, 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.

XO and Consult Congress CPs - Michigan7 2013 BFJR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

XO and Consult Congress CPs - Michigan7 2013 BFJR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XO & Consult Congress CPs

the president has

strategic advantages in controlling foreign policy . Informational advantages enable

more appropriate decision-making structure; 2) the

first step to changing our policy toward Cuba, the president

Obama has taken significant

steps to loosen restrictions

on family travel, remove limits for remittance and expand cooperation in

would be a bold move toward normalization of relations

An executive order can remove embargo provisions it wont

foreign countries appear to

The CP solves for Cuba and avoids the link to politics

Implementing the EO fulfills the Presidents commitment on

Cuban Americans support travel for all

Executive orders can solve for Cuba policies and address

the Obama administration should work with allies in

Presidential action solves Cuba

This means that the president's power

The absence of waivers is likely

Trafficking in Government Contracts, 9-25-12, http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/president-issuesexecutive-order-stop-human-trafficking-government-contracts) MaxL

Obama signed an executive order that will give better protections

to prevent human trafficking and forced labor . In a powerful

speech this morning announcing the order, President

mechanisms to ensure human rights standards

a plan of action to fully implement

Normal Means Is Congress

Another area of congressional oversight was the deterioration

several Latin American countries, especially Nicaragua and Venezuela. Congressional

Congress has oversight over Latin American policy

sanctions on Cuba, particularly restrictions on travel and remittances, remained a

U.S. legislative action on

addressed in the sections below,

counternarcotics relationship with the

the operation and

Congress is likely to continue funding and

oversight questions that Congress might consider include How effectively is

Congress may continue strong congressional oversight on the status of human

an executive order from

such an order would not

jeopardize separation of powers principles because Congress delegated

Obama should not wait for Congress to take action . He should

Obama has the

2NC Solvency/Doesnt Link to Politics

Conservative projections indicate

Furthermore, since global warming is a worldwide problem, international

2NC - Congress Fails

Prez Power Good

XOs = Prez Powers

Prez Power Good Conflict

would probably see opportunities in a weakened US presidency. France , for

Prez Power Good Hegemony

weak presidents are more

A strong executive is vital to a successful American foreign policy

Others make various sociological claims that isolationism or multiculturalism lies at

failings of American diplomacy can likewise be accounted for by the

Several commentators, notably Samuel Huntington

The president has a

presidential power is the issue. A strong presidency might see

America's nonexecutive presidency is

it is too pessimistic to blame America's foreign policy drift on

Presidential power is key to hegemony

The taproot of presidential power is the Constitution, which

The institutions for putting together coalition-type