Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010



Download 179.2 Kb.
Page6/12
Date conversion15.02.2016
Size179.2 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12

XO Presidential Powers: Uniqueness


Congress is working to limit presidential power to prevent another Bush-era of executive control

Greenwald 10, (Glenn, Staff Writer, Salon.com Congress takes first step to impose limits on Obama's executive powerTHURSDAY, FEB 12, http://www.salon.com/ news/opinion/glenn_greenwa ld/2009/02/12/state_secrets) WDK
What we need far more than a benevolent and magnanimous President is a re-assertion of Congressional authority as a check on executive power.  Even if Obama decided unilaterally to refrain from exercising some of the powers which the Bush administration seized, that would be a woefully insufficient check against future abuse, since it would mean that these liberties would be preserved only when a benevolent ruler occupies the White House (and, then, only when the benevolent occupant decides not to use the power).  Acts of Congress -- along with meaningful, enforced oversight of the President -- are indispensable for preventing these abuses.  And that's true whether or not one believes that the current occupant of the Oval Office is a good, kind and trustworthy ruler.  
Congress checking executive power

Greenwald 10, (Glenn, Staff Writer, Salon.com Congress takes first step to impose limits on Obama's executive powerTHURSDAY, FEB 12, http://www.salon.com/ news/opinion/glenn_greenwa ld/2009/02/12/state_secrets) WDK
A President who seeks to aggrandize his own power through wildly expansive claims of executive authority ought to be vigorously criticized.  But the ultimate responsibility to put a stop to that lies with the Congress (and the courts).  More than anything else, it was the failure of the Congress to rein in the abuses of the Bush presidency (when they weren't actively endorsing those abuses) that was the ultimate enabling force of the extremism and destruction of the last eight years.

XO Net Benefits: XO’s key to Presidential Powers


Obama’s presidential power will only increase with executive orders
Zelizer 9 [Julian, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School “Commentary: Can Obama and Congress Share Power?” CNN Online, January 5, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/zelizer.power/index.html]
Obama must be held responsible as well. While presidents don't like to give up power, maybe this president will be different. At a minimum, Obama should avoid the techniques used so often in recent years to circumvent legislative will. It is not enough to reverse Bush's executive orders -- the crucial question is whether Obama uses such orders as frequently himself. If the nation can create a better balance between the executive and legislative branches, the country will benefit. The New Deal proved when both branches work together, the nation can produce some of its finest and most effective programs.
Unilateral executive action expands presidential power
Kenneth Mayer, 2001: [Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, “With the Stroke of a Pen.” 2001, pg. 56. ]
Much of the time, analyses of the president’s constitutional power rely on historical evidence of how individual presidents viewed that power and how they put it into practice. Practice matters because of the importance of precedent to the expansion of presidential power, because the parameters of presidential authority have often been shaped by case-by-case judicial review, and because presidents have used their authority (often through executive orders_) in order to shape institutional patterns and processes that in turn enhance their ability to exercise administrative control. Each time a president relies on executive prerogative to take some type of action, it makes it easier for a future president to take the same (or similar) action. “The boundaries between the three branches of government are…strongly affected of custom or acquiescence. When one branch engages in a certain practice and the other branches acquiesce, the practice gains legitimacy and can fix the meaning of the Constitution.

XO Net Benefits: Presidential Powers solve WOT


Presidential powers key to fighting the war on terror

Pauly and Lansford 3 (Robert and Tom, adjunct 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”, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_04-06/lansfordpauly_exec/lansfordpauly_exec.html) CBC

In addition to the explicit constitutional and legal foundations of presidential security powers, a variety of factors, including tradition, necessity and interpretations of the Supreme Court have expanded the boundaries of executive authority. The traditional freedom given to U.S. presidents to use military force without a congressional declaration of war has come to be seen as a manifestation of executive privilege.14 Furthermore, American foreign policy is rooted in the notion of the “sole organ theory” which holds that the president is the “sole” source of foreign and security policy.15 This theory has served as the underpinning for the dramatic twentieth-century expansion of executive power. For instance, the Supreme Court decision United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1936) gave executive agreements the weight of law (and thereby bypassed the senatorial approval required of treaties), while Goldwater v. Carter (1979) confirmed the ability of the president to withdraw from international treaties without congressional consent.16 The result of this concentration of power has been the repeated presidential use of the U.S. military throughout the nation’s 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.



1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   12


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page