You are on page 1of 4


We negate
Framework: Todays debate comes down to what Presidents and congress do, not
just what the laws say.
Contention 1: Support of the People
Marshall explains,” presidential success in Congress is the significant factor
determining military action.”
With that said we ought to look at what Pevehous finds. They explain that the
president has little to do with the act of using military force but rather it has
everything to do with what party controls congress and what party the president
is, ,” Pevehouse [in] (2005) posits that when the president and the congressional
majority are from the same political party, Congress will provide political cover to
the president giving him a freer hand to initiate military action abroad with less
risk of congressional reprisal.”
At that point it has nothing to do with what the president does but rather its what
Congress wants to do.
We can look at two historical examples for this,
First, LBJ. In 1964 when the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed authorizing the
President to send troops into Vietnam the House and Senate was controlled by
the democrats with a democrat president.
Second, George Bush, in 2001 when the AUMF was passed the 107th congress was
a republican majority according to
With that said it is Congress who has all of the power,
When president Obama went to bomb Syria in 2014 two major things were in
First Obama used congress to get approval according to Small, Second Congress
was Majority republican according to .
When Obama used congress to justify the bombing Small found,” when Obama
decided to go to Congress for permission to bomb Syria. That proposition
turned out badly: congressional support cratered and Obama was left to
scramble a diplomatic solution.”
Nearly every time the president wants war congress is the same party as them
and when congress isn’t the same party war does not happen.

Subpoint B: War Power Resolution
To access any impact of the president abusing the AUMF my opponents must
first get around the War Powers Resolution.
The relation between the two is shown by Congress who explains,” Nothing in
this resolution [the AUMF] supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
So at that point this debate comes down to how the Wars Power Resolution
By passing the War Powers Resolution, Congress put in place a significant
procedural tool that facilitates their criticism regarding the president's use of
force. Yet Congress has rarely made use of the War Powers Resolution to
challenge the president. (3) And when Congress does mount such serious actions,
the evidence suggests it tends to do so with a fair degree of bipartisan consensus
(Auerswald and Cowhey 1997). According to the work by Auerswald and Cowhey
(1997, 517), the act strengthened Congress's hand vis-a-vis the president in the
use of military force, at least in part, because it diminished incentives for
interparty squabbling in Congress. Undoubtedly, rancorous partisanship weighs
on presidential decisions to use force. However, congressional challenges backed
by bipartisan coalitions should weigh even more heavily. Bipartisan challenges to
presidential uses of force are not as easily and quickly rebuffed as are partisan
challenges. So, party control for purposes of political cover may be one aspect of
congressional influence, but not the only one.
Any president doesn’t just go to war at a whim, Prins explains congress has all
of the control on when the president uses military force explaining,”
presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force
because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic
affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress and The passage
of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history
Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress.”
In the Status-Quo the president is held back from going to war due to needing
congressional support to due so. The President is also held back by the need of
political capital from congress. If you want to stop the US from over reaching
militarily point the finger at congress, because the President is at the whim of
Contention 2: War on Terror
The well-respected RAND organization explains one simple thing, the War on
Terror is not a lost war.
RAND explains three things,
First, The tell us that in the US the chance of death by terror attack are at
lottery winning levels, so one in a million pretty much
Second, RAND says,” If the primary measure of progress is to make Americans
safer, the authorities have done extremely well. Cooperation among intelligence
services and law enforcement organizations worldwide has made the terrorists'
operating environment more hostile, while federal investigators and local police
have uncovered and thwarted approximately 90 percent of the jihadist terrorist
plots in the United States.”
Therefore we see terrorist related chances of death in the US down, and
cooperation in the US and over seas against these groups working the AUMF
has actually made the world a safer place by not allowing Terror to run
ramped and be free to launch attacks at will.