At XO With Avoids Ptx Etc

8/11/2019 At XO With Avoids Ptx Etc

1/22

AFF XO CP


2/22

Perm

Permdo bothCongress can enact legislation granting Obama the power to do the plan

Gosar 13 (Rep. Paul R-AZ, Breitbart.com, PRESIDENTIAL GUN BAN: EXECUTIVE

POWER OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB?, 1/10/13,http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/presidential-gun-ban-

executive-unconstitutional)//LALet's focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his

pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are

given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether

they are consistent with our Constitution. The executive branch has the Constitutional

responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is

not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by

Congress. The Constitution provides that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article II, Section 3,

Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in

Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can't do itunilaterally. In order for the President to enact agun ban by executive order, he would have to

have such power given to him by Congress(we already established that the Constitution does not give him that

power). Any unilateral action by the President must rely on either a constitutional authority or a

statutory power from Congress.What laws exist for the President to enact gun bans by executive order? The AttorneyGeneral is authorized under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to regulate the import of firearms if it is generally suitable" for or readily

adaptable to sporting purpose. Thus, the Attorney General could use a sporting purposes test by which he can determine the

types of firearms that can be imported into the United States. But this law does not authorize a gun ban or affect domestic

manufacture and sales. So it provides no Congressional basis for Mr. Biden or the President to create a gun ban. President Obama

may point out that President Clinton issued an executive order(No. 12938) in 1994where some Chinese

firearms and ammunition were restricted from import. If that occurred, it would have been a serious

overreach of the application of the authority set forth in that Executive Order, which PresidentClinton said at the time was being implemented under the International Economic Powers Act, the National Emergencies Act, and

the Arms Export Control Act. As stated in the Order itself, "the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (weapons

of mass destruction) and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national

security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

President Clinton Executive Order 12938 (1994). How that justification, based on large scale weapons of mass destruction, could be

interpreted to include Chinese hand guns is unclear and problematic. Indeed, any fair reading of those laws would conclude they

could not support a domestic gun ban. The bottom line is that there is no Congressional authority

enacted that would allow the President to take unilateral actionto make it unlawful for individuals totransfer or possess a rifle, handgun or other gun or a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Nor is there any Constitutional

power under Article II (the power of being the Commander in Chief) that allows this. If the President wants a gun ban or

ammunition ban he has to first revise the Second Amendment, which is not easy, but possible. I would, of course, oppose that, as

would most Americans. But that is at least a lawful and Constitutional means to achieve this.

Executive-legislative COOPERATION solves best

Eizenstat 98 (Stuart E., JD Harvard Law School, Jimmy Carters Chief DomesticPolicy Advisor, Bill Clintons Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, Undersecretary

of State for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, and Undersecretary of

Commerce, also was United States Ambassador to the EU from 1993-6, Very

qualified individual, Sanctions By Stuart E. Eizenstat, Under Secretary of State for Economic,Business and Agricultural Affairs,9/8/98, http://wpobw-

res8.wpafb.af.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%2021_2/Eizenstat.pdf)//LA


3/22

Most importantly. Mr. Chairman. our foreign policy is most effective when it reflects cooperation and

consultation between the Administration and the Congress. The decision to apply economic

sanctions--or to lift or waive potential measures or those already in place--should reflect a

relationship of comity between the Executive and Legislative branches. We must respect the

particular role that each branch plays in making foreign policy. The Congress shares with the

Executive Branch the responsibility for helping shape our foreign policy. In the realm of

economic measures. Congress has a clear role which we respect. At the same time. the

President is responsible for conducting the nation's foreign policy and for dealing with foreign

governments. Thus. sanctions legislation needs to take into account these respective

responsibilities. Sanctions legislation should set forth broad objectives but should allow the

flexibility to respond to a constantly changing and evolving situation and give the President

the necessary authority to tailor specific U.S. actions to meet our foreign policy objectives. As

Secretary Albright has said, there can be no "cookie-cutter," no "one size fits all "approach to

sanctions policy. Comity between branches of government is expressed in sanctions legislation

through the inclusion of appropriate Presidential flexibility. including broad waiver authority.

Congress speaks. but ultimately only the President can weigh all the foreign policy issues at

stake at any given moment and tailor our response to a specific situation. Congress's power of

the purse and of oversight are more-than-adequate tools with which to shape our foreignpolicy: but those powers should not be used to hobble the President's authority to act with

discretion and alacrity. As a matter of general principle. legislation that empowers the

President to impose economic sanctions should also empower him not to act and to waive or

suspend measures already in place if it is in the national interest. If our policies are to be

effective. we must work together to see that our use of sanctions is appropriate. coherent.

and designed to gain international support. There must be more structured. systematic

discussions between the Executive Branch and Congress when sanctions are an option. Theefforts of this Task Force and this hearing itself are. Mr. Chairman. a good example of the way our two branches of government

should work together to design an effective and principled sanctions policy that can be truly effective in advancing our broad

national interests.


4/22

Perm Avoids Politics

Congress would be totally down with the perm

Weiner 1/14 (Sarah, Very good former debater, works @ Center for Strategic

and International Studies, Fast Tracking Nuclear Treaties, 1/14/13,http://csis.org/blog/fast-tracking-nuclear-treaties)//LAIt would appear as if nuclear agreements are stuck between a rock and a hard place. President Obama could act

independently, provoking congressional backlash and raising Constitutional objections, or he

could submit agreements to the Senate for their advice and consent, likely to receive much of the former

but too little of the latter. Fortunately, there is a third way forward, a half-step between independent

executive action and cumbersome treaty ratification in the Senate. The Administration should

consider submitting future international nuclear pacts to Congress in the form of congressional-

executive agreements. This alternative ratification process, frequently used for trade and financial treaties,

lowers the bar for Congressional consent without excluding the legislative branch from the treatyprocess.


5/22

Rollback

No solvency - risk of rollbackempirics, and appeals dont solve

Eggen 6 (Dan, Washington Post,Judge Strikes Down Parts of Executive Order on

Terrorism, 11/29/6, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801438.html)//LAA Los Angeles federal judge has ruled that key portions of a presidential orderblocking financial

assistance to terrorist groups are unconstitutional, further complicating theBush administration's

attemptsto defend its aggressive anti-terrorism tactics in federal courts. U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins, in a ruling releasedlate Monday, found that two provisions of an executive order signed Sept. 23, 2001, are impermissibly vague because they allow the

president to unilaterally designate organizations as terrorist groups and broadly prohibit association with such groups. The ruling

marks a victoryfor the Humanitarian Law Project and other plaintiffs in the case, who are seeking to provide support for the"lawful, nonviolent activities" of two groups designated terrorist organizations by the U.S. government: the Kurdistan Workers' Party

(PKK) in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), also known as the Tamil Tigers, in Sri Lanka. They argue that federal

anti-terrorism laws put charities and individual donors at risk of prosecution for providing benign assistance to foreign groups that

have been added to the government's terrorism list. David Cole, a Georgetown University law professorwho is

helping to represent the plaintiffs in the case, saidthe executive order and a related federal statute improperly allow PresidentBush to create "blacklists" and engage in "guilt by association." "The court's decision confirms that even in fighting terror, uncheckedexecutive authority and trampling on fundamental freedoms is not a permissible option," Cole said in a statement. The ruling is

the latest setback for the administration'sterrorism and detention policies, in lower courts and at the SupremeCourt. In August, a federal judge in Detroit ruled that a National Security Agency warrantless wiretap program is unconstitutional.

The government has appealed that ruling. Collins has previously issued similar rulings in favor of the Humanitarian Law Project, a Los

Angeles group that has filed legal challenges to a 1996 anti-terrorism law and to the 2001 USA Patriot Act. Those issues are

still being litigatedafter Congress rewrote parts of the Patriot Act. The latest case focuses on Executive Order 13224, which isaimed at cutting off financing to alleged terrorist groups and is based on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Twenty-seven groups and individuals were initially named as "specially designated global terrorists" under the order -- including the

PKK and the Tamil Tigers -- and hundreds more since have been added to the list. In her ruling, Collins said the order is

unconstitutional because there is "no apparent limit" on presidential authority to designate groupsor individuals as terrorists. In addition, the judge ruled, language banning those "otherwise associated" with such groups is

"unconstitutionally vague on its face." Collins rejected a number of other claims by the plaintiffs, however, including that the order's

definition of a terrorist group is too vague. The Justice Department said it is too early to decide on an

appeal. "We are pleased that the court rejected many of the constitutional arguments raised by the plaintiffs," JusticeDepartment spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement. "However, we believe the court erred in finding that certain other

aspects of the executive order were unconstitutional." Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan

yearswho has criticized the Bush administration's broad assertions of executive power, said that appealing Collins's

ruling may carry more risks for the government than simply changing the executive order's

language. "If they take this up on appeal, they risk another repudiation of this omnipotent-

presidency theorythat they have," Fein said.


6/22

CP Links to Politics

On a scale of one to ten, how much does this CP link to politics? OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!

Weisman 9 (Jonathan, WSJ, Obamas Fiat Angers Lawmakers, [Im dead serious.

The article is ACTUALLY called Obamas Fiat Angers Lawmakerslike holy crapright? Ermagerdermagerd], 7/15/9,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124761651200542351.html)//LAWASHINGTON -- With $108 billion in International Monetary Fund loan guarantees in jeopardy last month, White House

economic officials begged, cajoled and cut dealswith Democrats to secure passage of legislation boosting the

fund's power. Days later, President Barack Obama announced he wasn't bound by any of the

agreements. The ensuing flap over the president'sJune 24 signing statement is the latest in a

series of clashes between the White House and Congress overan issue Mr. Obama once fought against

himself: presidential fiat . As a candidate, Mr. Obama pledged that he wouldn't abuse the

presidential signing statement, a declaration issued by the president when he signs a bill to give his interpretation of

that law. President George W. Bush used somany signing statements -- more than 750 -- that theAmerican BarAssociation criticized it as an abuse of power . After Mr. Obama's issuance of his second signing statement last

month, even some Democrats say he isn't keeping his word on reining in unilateral presidential

actions."Of course there's a broader issue here," said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.), referring to

the brewing battles with Mr. Obama over presidential prerogative. "It's outrageous. It's exactly what the Bush people did." A

White House official said the signing statement was issued "out of an abundance of caution"

to preserve "core presidential prerogatives" in the area of foreign policy. "The administrationnegotiated in good faith on this bill and has every intention of living up to our commitments undertaken in the legislation," said

White House deputy press secretary Jen Psaki. The House last week reinstated the restrictions on the IMF that were undone by the

president's June signing statement, by a vote of 429-2, in a foreign-operations appropriations bill. In a letter slated for delivery on

Wednesday, Mr. Frank, House Appropriations Committee ChairmanDavid Obey (D., Wis.), and New York

Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey and Gregory Meeks will inform the president that if he issues another

signing statementon IMF and World Bank funding, Congress will cut off the funds he wants.Mr. Obamaneeds good relations with congressional Democrats to help pass his agenda on health care,

energy and financial-markets regulation. At the London summit of the Group of 20 largest economic powers in April,

Mr. Obama had promisedto secure large increases in loan guarantees for the IMF. With the Group of Eight summit kicking

off soon, failure to make good on that promise would have been an embarrassment. ManyRepublicans opposed the IMF loan-guarantee language, which had been inserted in a war-spending bill making its way through

Congress last month, calling it a bailout for international bankers. The White House needed to win over balking

Democrats. Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.), negotiating for some Jewish lawmakers, said he told White House National EconomicCouncil Director Lawrence Summers they needed stronger guarantees that IMF loans wouldn't go to Iran.

Executive power is partisanit CAN be blocked by Congress and causes backlash

Daly et al 2/8 (Matthew, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Mary Clare Jalonick, and Sam

Hananel, Associated Press, How Obama is wielding executive power in 2nd term,http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-obama-is-wielding-executive-power-in-2nd-

term/article/2520953) LA [Card from last year]WASHINGTON (AP) -- This is what "Forward" looks like. Fast forward, even. President Barack Obama'scampaign slogan is

springing to life in a surge of executive directives and agency rule-making that touch many of

the affairs of government.They are shaping the cost and quality of health plans, the contents of the school cafeteria, thefront lines of future combat, the price of coal. They are the leading edge of Obama's ambition to take on climate change in ways that

may be unachievable in legislation. Altogether, it's a kinetic switch from what could have been the watchword of the Obama


7/22

administration in the closing, politically hypersensitive months of his first term: pause. Whatever the merits of any particular

commandment from the president or his agencies, the perception of a government expanding its reach and hitting business with

job-killing mandates was sure to set off fireworks before November. Since Obama's re-election, regulations giving force and detail to

his health care law have gushed out by the hundreds of pages. To some extent this was inevitable: The law is far-reaching and its

most consequential deadlines are fast approaching. The rules are much more than fine print, however, and they would have

thickened the storm over the health care overhaul if p laced on the radar in last year's presidential campaign. That, after all, was the

season when some Republicans put the over-the-top label "death panel" on a board that could force cuts to service providers if

Medicare spending ballooned. The new health law rules provide leeway for insurers to charge smokers thousands of dollars more for

coverage. They impose a $63 per-head fee on insurance plans -- a charge that probably will be passed on to policyholders -- tocushion the cost of covering people with medical problems. There's a new fee for insurance companies for participating in markets

that start signing customers in the fall. In short, sticker shock. It's clear from the varied inventory of previously bottled-up directives

that Obama cares about more than "Obamacare." "I'm hearing we're going to see a lot of things moving now,"Hilda Solis told employees in her last day as labor secretary. At the Labor Department, this could include regulations requiring that

the nation's 1.8 million in-home care workers receive minimum-wage and overtime pay. Tougher limits on soot from smokestacks,

diesel trucks and other sources were announced just over a month after the November election. These were foreseen: The

administration had tried to stall until the campaign ended but released the proposed rules in June when a judge ordered more

haste. Regulations give teeth and specificity to laws are essential to their functioning even as they create bureaucratic bloat.

Congress-skirting executive orders and similar presidential directives are less numerous and

generally have less reach than laws. But every president uses them and often tests how far

they can go, especially in times of war and other crises. President Harry Truman signed an executive order in1952 directing the Commerce Department to take over the steel industry to ensure U.S. troops fighting in Korea were kept supplied

with weapons and ammunition. The Supreme Court struck it down. Other significant actions have stood. President Franklin D.

Roosevelt issued an order in February 1942 to relocate more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast tointernment camps after Japan's attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base. Decades later, Congress passed legislation apologizing and

providing $20,000 to each person who was interned. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush

approved a series of executive orders that created an office of homeland security, froze the assets in U.S. banks linked to al-Qaida

and other terrorist groups, and authorized the military services to call reserve forces to active duty for as long as two years. Bush's

most contentious move came in the form of a military order approving the use of the military tribunals to put accused terrorists on

trial faster and in greater secrecy than a regular criminal court. Obama also has wielded considerable power in secret, upsetting the

more liberal wing of his own party. He has carried forward Bush's key anti-terrorism policies and expanded the use of unmanned

drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan and Yemen. When a promised immigration overhaul failed in legislation, Obama

went part way there simply by ordering that immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children be exempted from

deportation and granted work permits if they apply. So, too, the ban on gays serving openly in the military was repealed before the

election, followed now by the order lifting the ban on women serving in combat. Those measures did not prove

especially contentious. Indeed, the step on immigration is thought to have helped Obama in the election. It may be a

different story as the administration moves more forcefully across a range of policy frontsthatsat quiet in much of his first term. William Howell, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Power

Without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action," isn't surprised to see commandments coming at a rapid clip. "In an

era of polarized parties and a fragmented Congress, the opportunities to legislate are few and far between,"

Howell said. "So presidents have powerful incentive to go it alone. And they do." And the

political opposition howls.Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a possible contender for the Republican presidential nomination in

2016, said that on the gun-control front in particular, Obama is "abusing his power by imposing his policies

via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress." The Republican

reaction is to be expected, said John Woolley, co-director of the American Presidency Project at the University of

California in Santa Barbara. "For years there has been a growing concern about unchecked executive

power ," Woolley said. "It tends to have a partisan content , with contemporary complaints coming from

the incumbent president's opponents." The power isn't limitless, as was demonstrated when Obama

issued one of his first executive orders, calling for closing the military prison at the

Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and trying suspected terrorists housed there in federal courts instead of by special

military tribunals. Congress stepped in to prohibit moving any Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S., effectively blocking

Obama's plan to shutter the jail. Among recent actions: --Obama issued presidential memoranda on guns in tandem with his

legislative effort to expand background checks and ban assault-type weapons and large capacity magazines. The steps include

renewing federal gun research despite a law that has been interpreted as barring such research since 1996. Gun control was off the

table in the campaign, as it had been for a decade, but the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December changed that

overnight. --The government proposed fat, calorie, sugar and sodium limits in almost all food sold in schools, extending federal

nutritional controls beyond subsidized lunches to include food sold in school vending machines and a la carte cafeteria lines. The


8/22

new proposals flow from a 2010 law and are among several sidelined during the campaign. The law provoked an outcry from

conservatives who said the government was empowering itself to squash school bake sales and should not be telling kids what to

eat. Updated regulations last year on subsidized school lunches produced a backlash, too, altogether making the government shy of

further food regulation until the election passed. The new rules leave school fundraisers clear of federal regulation, alleviating fears

of cupcake-crushing edicts at bake sales and the like. --The Justice Department released an opinion that people with food allergies

can be considered to have the rights of disabled people. The finding exposes schools, restaurants and other food-service places to

more legal risk if they don't accommodate patrons with food allergies. --The White House said Obama intends to move forward on

rules controlling carbon emissions from power plants as a central part of the effort to restrain climate change, which the president

rarely talked about after global-warming legislation failed in his first term. With a major climate bill unlikely to get

though a divided Congress, Obama is expected to rely on his executive authorityto achievewhatever progress he makes on climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to complete the first-ever limits

on carbon pollution from new coal-fired power plants. The agency also probably will press ahead on rules for existing power plants,

despite protests from industry and Republicans that such rules would raise electricity prices and kill off coal, the dominant U.S.

energy source. Older coal-fired power plants have been shutting across the country because of low natural gas prices and weaker

demand for electricity. --In December, the government proposed long-delayed rules requiring automakers to install event data

recorders, or "black boxes," in all new cars and light trucks beginning Sept. 1, 2014. Most new cars are already getting them. --The

EPA proposed rules to update water quality guidelines for beaches and control runoff from logging roads. As well, a new ozone rule

probably will be completed this year, which would mean finally moving forward on a smog-control standard sidelined in 2011. A

regulation directing federal contractors to hire more disabled workers is somewhere in the offing at the Labor Department, as are

ones to protect workers from lung-damaging silica and reduce the risk of deadly factory explosions from dust produced in the

making of chemicals, plastics and metals. Rules also are overdue on genetically modified salmon, catfish inspection, the definition of

gluten-free in labeling and food import inspection. In one of the most closely watched cases, Obama could decide early

this year whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipelinefrom Canada to Texas.

Congress will have the final say over executive ordersdooms solvency and links to politics

Jones 13(Sarah Jones, Politicus USA, Obama Cant Fix Congress Monsanto Giveaway with an Executive Order, 3-27-13,http://www.politicususa.com/2013/03/27/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html)MaxLFood activists arenow calling for the President to issue a signing statement and/orexecutive order to

label our food, Today were calling on President Obama to issue an executive order to call for the mandatory labeling ofgenetically engineered foods. A signing statement would have been issued while signing the legislation, and would have claimed

that part of the law was unconstitutional. However, it wouldnt have changed how thelaw was implemented.

An executive order cannot make new law; only Congress can do that. An executive ordertells a

Presidents administration how he wants a law implemented; it gives direction toofficers and agencies of the

executive branch. But heres the real kicker: Even ifPresident Obama were to sign an executive orderto

label our food (we have no indication as to whether he would be inclined to do so), Congress could deny funding its

execution, just as they have with his order to close Gitmo. When it comes to laws, it always

comes back to Congress. Our food safety has been severely compromised by corporate lobbyists ever-tightening controlover our representatives. If people really want things to change, they needto be able to identify the individuals behind thesecowardly acts. Heres a hint: Republican Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) takes the most money from pro-GMO PACs in the Senate

Appropriations Committee, where this dastardly rider was secretly attached (this time, that is. We have a certain House Republican

who tries to attach a similar amendment to almost every bill that touches his greedy fingers). DemocraticSenator Jon Tester (D-MT)

tried to get the amendment taken out of the spending billto no avail. While HR 933 expires in six months, I have little hope that we

will see any major changes in food safety while our Congress is controlled by big ag/corporate money. The AP reported onMaplights

analysis, Current members of Congress have received $7,450,434 from the PACs ofthese organizations. No matter who is

in the White House, Congress controls the purse strings and makes the laws, and they are more than

adept at using current crises (manufactured by them, of course) to attach corporate giveaways to big spenders. This isyet

anotherbeyond frustrating poison pill.

Political capital is low and executive orders have coststhey will erode PC

Eberly 13(Todd EberlyCoordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor of Polsci @ St. Marys college, TheBaltimore Sun, The Presidential Power Trap, 1-21-13, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-

20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-support)MaxLMany looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory,

coupled with the re-election of asomewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic

majority Senate, hardly signals agrand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/03/27/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.htmlhttp://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act_time_to_label_gmos/?akid=807.705792.M8LrIr&rd=1&t=4http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act_time_to_label_gmos/?akid=807.705792.M8LrIr&rd=1&t=4http://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-supporthttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-supporthttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-supporthttp://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-george-hw-bush-party-supporthttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://enidnews.com/featuredstory/x2000921140/GMO-supporters-reap-what-they-sow-in-government-funding-billhttp://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/obama_signs_monsanto_protection_act_time_to_label_gmos/?akid=807.705792.M8LrIr&rd=1&t=4http://www.politicususa.com/2013/03/27/congress-sequester-crisis-slip-corporate-give-monstanto.html


9/22

issuance ofmultiple executive ordersto deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced

with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But

such claims are not without limit or cost and willlikely further erode his political capital. Only by solving the

problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap. Presidents in recent years have been unable

to prevent their political capital from eroding.When it did, their power assertions often got them

into further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able to overcomecontemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist

"triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes

in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform that at the time received

popular approval. However, short-term legislative strategies may win policy successfor a president but do

not serve as an antidote to declining political capitalover time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton

and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None ofBarack Obama's recent predecessors solved the

political capital problemor avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidentsand one that will likely weigh heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Failing to use the legislative process wastes political capital

Miles 13 (Chris Miles, Policymic, An Obama Gun Control Executive Order Could Sink the President's Favorability, January 2013,http://www.policymic.com/articles/23296/an-obama-gun-control-executive-order-could-sink-the-president-s-favorability)MaxL

Could Obama be wasting valuable political capital by issuing an executive order on gun control?If Obama acts unilaterallyon gun control, the event willlikely fire-up conservatives and pro-gun

advocates, calling out the president for failing to use the legislative process.The conservative Drudge

Reportcompared executive action to dictators Hitler and Stalin. The backlash could be immense andcould cost

Obama leverage in future political battles, most notably the coming debt ceiling fight next month. Obama has oftenpulled the "popular mandate" card, saying that his re-election in November proves the American people are behind him ... almost

unconditionally. But what do the American people really think about the gun debate. Well, for starters, just 4% of Americans identify

guns as the nation's top problem, perGallup.Based on that alone, Obama may think twice about pushing popcorn policies that will

only splash onto headlines and divide Americans. Any executive action could even hurt his favorability

rating, and by extension his ability to negotiate in the future.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23296/an-obama-gun-control-executive-order-could-sink-the-president-s-favorabilityhttp://www.policymic.com/articles/22692/hitler-gun-control-facts-u-s-pro-gun-advocates-have-more-in-common-with-hitler-than-they-thinkhttp://goo.gl/NdL6Mhttp://goo.gl/NdL6Mhttp://www.policymic.com/articles/22692/hitler-gun-control-facts-u-s-pro-gun-advocates-have-more-in-common-with-hitler-than-they-thinkhttp://www.policymic.com/articles/23296/an-obama-gun-control-executive-order-could-sink-the-president-s-favorability


10/22


11/22

---AT Constitutionally Based

No constitutional basis

Carpenter 86 (Ted Galen, the CATO Institute, Global Interventionism and a New

Imperial Presidency, Cato Policy Analyis No. 71, 5/16/86,

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa071.html)//LARecent debate about U.S. policy with respect toLebanon, Central America, and South Africa suggests

that the United States may be entering a new phase in the recurring conflict between

Congress and the executive branch over the control of foreign affairs. This conflict does not

merely involve constitutional or partisan political matters--as important as those might be--but reflects

competing conceptions about substantive policy issues. Thecurrent White Houseoccupant is

seeking to weaken or eliminate congressional restraints imposed on the executiveduring the

1970s, in order to regain the flexibility he believes is necessary to pursue America'scold war

objectives. His congressional opponents are attempting to preserve those constraintsnot simplyto enhance the power and prestige of the legislative branch, but because they fear that an unfettered president may pursue policies

that would contravene fundamental American values or again plunge the United States into ill-advised military interventions. Asbefore in our history, the conflict will likely determine the substance of American foreign

policy, as well as which branch shall chart its course. Constitutional Intent During the last decade and

a half, Americans have grappled frequently and intensely with the question of legislative

versus executive power over foreign affairs.The aftermath of the disastrous and divisive Vietnam War triggered areassessment of the executive-supremacy doctrine that had held sway throughout the previous three decades. This change,

however, was only the most recent occasion when the locus of authority in foreign policy has shifted. Debates on the

question have flared periodically since the founding of the American republic. Indeed, a

measure of tension is built into the structure of the Constitution itself. The shared powers and

overlapping responsibilities of the legislative and executive branches createwhat renowned

constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin has aptly termed "an invitation to struggle" over foreign policy.[1] The

Framers of the Constitution invested the president witha number of powersin the arena of foreign affairs.He was authorized to receive the diplomatic representatives of other nations and to appoint, with the consent of the Senate,

America's own diplomatic representatives. He was given the authority to negotiate treaties with foreign states, subject to Senate

concurrence in the result. The president was also invested with the power and responsibility of commander in chief of the nation's

armed forces. But the Founding Fathers also granted significant foreign policy powers to the

legislative branch.They gave Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war. In addition, they declared thatCongress would be responsible for authorizing the raising of military forces and providing funds for their continued operation.

Furthermore, foreign commerce was made subject to regulation by Congress, and the Senate was accorded the right to ratify or

reject treaties negotiated by the president. The delineation of power and responsibility between the two

branches was less than precise.The delegates to the constitutional convention apparently envisioned a partnership

between Congress and the president in foreign affairs, but theyalso applied the principle of checks and balances.What is clear is that the Founding Fathers did not invest the president with the vast array of unilateral foreign policy powers--

particularly those involving U.S. armed forces--claimed by White House occupants during much of the 20th century, especially since

World War II. One expert on constitutional history, W. Taylor Reveley III, muses, "If we could find a man in the state of nature and

have him first scan the war-power provisions of the Constitution and then look at war-power practice since 1789, he would marvel

at how much Presidents have spun out of so little."[2] Ambitious presidents have relied upon allegedly

"inherent" executive powers and the status of commander in chief to justify this vast

expansion of presidential authority. However, the context in which the presidency was

established fails to support claims to extensive executive power in foreign policy. Although

the Founding Fathers did create several ambiguities regarding authority over foreign affairs

(perhaps because foreign policy was not a priority concern at the time), where they did favor

one branch, they favored Congress, not the president. This tilt was entirely consistent with

their British Whig political bias, with its fear of excessive executive power.[3] While the president was to be


12/22

the principal spokesman for the republic in foreign affairs and the focal point for diplomatic

relations with other nations, the Framers had no desire to invest him with the foreign policy

prerogatives of a monarch.Even the president's powers as commander in chief are far less extensive than most recentpresidents have alleged. The primary purpose of the constitutional provision was to assert civilian supremacy over the military, lest

an aggressive general succumb to Cromwellian temptations during a wartime crisis. A subsidiary objective was to

restrain legislative meddling in the day-to-day conduct of military strategy once hostilities were

authorized--a concern stemming from congressional interference during the American Revolution. In addition, it implied that the

president possessed the authority to repel attacks upon U.S. territory until Congress could act. But Congress alone was to

declare war, and in the parlance of the times, "declare" essentially meant "authorize" or "begin."[4] The Founders would likelybe mystified at recent presidential contentions that although Congress "declares" wars, the president has the right to "wage" them

with or without formal declarations. They would be astonished and probably appalled at the assertions of such chief executives as

Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon that a president may conduct foreign policy and utilize the armed forces in any

manner he deems necessary to foster his own conception of U.S. "interests." Executive supremacy in foreign affairs

was not set forth in the Constitution. That doctrine evolved from particular historical

circumstances

CP not constitutionaltrade

Powell 99 (H. Jefferson, Prof @ Duke Law School, The Presidents Authority over

Foreign Affairs: An Executive Branch Perspective, The George Washington LawReview March 99 Vol. 67 No. 3, p. 527,

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=fa

culty_scholarship&sei-

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3

Dj%26q%3D%2522executive%2522%2520%2522responsibility%2522%2520%25

22foreign%2520policy%2522%2520%2522congress%2522%26source%3Dweb%2

6cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CEgQFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.

law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1391%2526co

ntext%253Dfaculty_scholarship%26ei%3D3kfcUcLeCeT98AH04IH4Bw%26usg%3

DAFQjCNHoPUm0q3wf09AANmj7ZMANxtDmLw#search=%22executive%20resp

onsibility%20foreign%20policy%20congress%22)//LA(1) Article I, Section 8 "expressly grants Congress, not the President, the power to 'regulate

Commerce with foreign Nations.'"101 As a consequence, "Congress-whose voice, in this area, is

the Nation's"102-possesses broad power to set United States foreign policy with respect to

foreign trade and investment.103 The President has no independent power directly to regulate,

tax, or interdict foreign commerce.104 The executive branch's views on the effect state legislation has ontransnational markets, furthermore, are not dis- positive on the question of whether the state is violating the dormant foreign

commerce clause,105 and the President's authority to enter into executive agreements concerning

commerce without congressional approval is ex- tremely doubtful. Congress's possession of

substantive policy making authority, and the President's control over the means and

direction of negotiation, make accommodation between the political branches over foreigncommerce issues especially desirable. At least from a constitutional perspective, fast- track legislation (whichenhances the President's ability to negotiate on commercial issues) and a preference for statutorily approved executive agree-

ments over treaties (which ensures the participation of Congress as a body in commercial agreements with other countries) are

desirable means of en- abling both branches to play appropriate roles in this area.


13/22

AT Prez Powers


14/22

---PP Decline Inevitable

Prez power decline is inevitable

Healy 11(Gene Healy, vice president at the Cato Institute, Our Continuing Cult of the Presidency, 2011, from Presidency in

the Twenty-first Century by Charles W. Dunn, University Press of Kentucky | JJ)Where does that leave us?After our century-long drift away from the Framers vision, can we possibly return to a humbler set of

expectations for the office and a less powerful chief executive?Predicting the future is always a dicey enterprise, but there are

two long-term trends, at least, that could improve our chances of downsizing the presidency. First,one major factor that led to the growth of the Imperial Presidency was Americas increasingglobal role in the twentieth century and

its unrivaled dominance after the collapse of the USSR. As neoconservative commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote in 1987,

Superpower responsibilities inevitably encourage the centralization and militarization of authority. . . . And politically, imperial

responsibility demands imperial government, which naturally encourages an imperial presidency, the executive being (in principle) a

more coherent and decisive instrument than its legislative rival. 59 As the twenty-first century progresses, the

United States is likely to distance itself fromthose responsibilitiesand, perhaps, from the presidential

powers they enabled. Fareed Zakaria predicts that China and Indias rise, along with waning U.S. power, will in

this century usher in the Post-American World. 60 The U.S. National Intelligence Council recently releasedGlobal Trends 2025: A Transformed World. That report notes that shrinking economic and military capabilities may force the US

into a difficult set of tradeoffs between domestic versus foreign policy priorities. 61 Fifteen years from now, the United States will

retain enormous military power, but advances by others in science and technology, expanded adoption

of irregular warfare tactics by both state and nonstate actors, proliferation of long-range

precision weapons, and growing use of cyber warfare attacks increasingly will constrict US

freedom of action . 62 Its possible, then, that shrinking American power and the emergence of new

superpowers will result inthe United States behaving more like a normal country in the international sphere; and that

that in turn will enable a shift to a normalizedpresidency . The second long-term trend that may reduce the

presidencys power and importance in American life is growing distrust of government, or what Id prefer to call skepticism toward

power. Its true that too many Americans are presidential cultists. Butwhats easy to miss is that, on the whole,

were far less cultish than we used to be. The mostimportant political trendof the past fifty years is

the rise in distrust of government. In the late 1950s, when pollsters started tracking trust, nearly three

quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what is rightmost of thetime or just about alwaysand most of all they trusted the president. Those numbers collapsed after Vietnam

and Watergate. 63


15/22

---AT PP K2 Heg

The technological revolution and governmental checks render prez powers obsoletewe start

where their evidence leaves off

Deans 2K(Bob Deans, Associate Director of Communications, Washington DC, 1/23/2000,THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY: White House power growing, The Atlanta Journal the Atlanta

Constitution, ProQuest | JJ)Many scholars argue that global shifts are undermining the authority of all sorts of traditional institutions, even while making it

possible for nontraditional groups to step in and assume important new roles. Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams, for example,

used e-mail to generate a worldwide grass-roots consensus for her International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Her high-tech end run

around White House policy-makers left Clinton virtually alone among world leaders in not supporting the ban. Under Clinton's

presidency, the Internet has gone from an obscure tool of the Pentagon and academia to

potentially the most powerful communications medium in the history of the world. The

Internet, moreover, has both accelerated and come to symbolize a much broader set of

economic, political and social changes sweeping the world. Nearly $7 trillion worth of goods and services willbe sold across borders this year as workers from some of the poorest countries in the world bid for a growing share of wealth.

Currency traders move an estimated $1 trillion around the world each day, making decisions about the futures of markets and entire

national economies. Nearly 4 billion people, two-thirds of the earth's population, now participate in some formof democratic system.Put it together, and the world is undergoing a populist revolution of historic

proportions. More and more it is people, not governments, who are taking control of the issues

affecting their lives , as politicians often appear to be watching from the sidelines. "In many respects, political systems are

increasingly at the mercy of technology," said presidential scholar Michael Genovese, political science professor at Loyola

Marymount University in Los Angeles. "What it probably will do is make central governments less

important and, therefore, presidents less important ," said Genovese, author of the forthcoming "Power and

the American Presidency." Others counter that the presidency is , by design, resilient to moments of great

change . That, in fact, is part of the genius of the founding fathers, said Nelson. "In the 20 years that I've

been teaching political science, a recurrent prophecy is that the presidency is being weakened by this

or that," said Nelson. "It just doesn't seem to happen."


16/22

Congress K2 Heg

Congressional involvement is k2 heg

Bennet 78 (Douglas J. Jr, Former Prez of Wesleyan U and Asst Secretary of State

under Clinton and Carter, Congress in Foreign Policy: Who Needs It?,JSTOR)//LAThe second benefit is that congressional attention to international issues offers some hope of

developing a public consensus which will support a positive American role in the world.Not only

are policies scrutinized by Congress more likely to reflect the public will, but members of Congress, once engaged in

the policymaking process, should be better able to teach and lead their constituencies through

the intricacies of international issuesin a world where the United States is neither chief policeman nor economic czar.

This is not to say that we can expect the rebirth of a simple cold war type of consensus. What we can hope and work for

is a consensus in which Americans, faced with a fluid and confusing international scene, are

sufficiently confident of their governmental institutionsand their own personal futures to be able to accept

the adjustment being thrust upon them. Finally, if Congress really does contribute actively to policy

formulation and if it really does help educate the public, the result should be greater stabilityand predictability in American foreign policy-a benefit not only to us but to the world. Our

allies should find us more predictable, and our opponents will find us stronger.


17/22

VaguenessPresidential Directive

Their terminology is vaguethere are at least 24 types of presidential directives

Gaziano 1 (Todd F., The Heritage Foundation, The Use and Abuse of Executive

Orders and Other Presidential Directives, 2/21/1,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-

executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives)//LAMany Forms of Directives.One scholar has identified 24 different types of presidential directives,39

although even his list is incomplete. A partial list includes administrative orders; certificates;

designations of officials; executive orders; general licenses; interpretations; letters on tariffs

and international trade; military orders; various types of national security instruments(such asnational security action memoranda, national security decision directives, national security directives, national security reviews,

national security study memoranda, presidential review directives, and presidential decision directives); presidential

announcements; presidential findings; presidential reorganization plans; presidential signing

statements; and proclamations.


18/22

Prez Power Bad


19/22

Prez Power BadNuclear War

Excessive presidential authority makes nuclear war inevitable

Forrester 89(Ray Forrester, Professor at the Hastings College of the Law, University of

California, Presidential Wars in the Nuclear Age: An Unresolved Problem George WashingtonLaw Review, August, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1636, Lexis | JJ)

A basic theory--if not the basic theory of our Constitution--is that concentration of power in any one person, or

one group, is dangerous to mankind. The Constitution, therefore, contains a strong system of checks and balances,

starting with the separation of powers between the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The message is that no one of

them is safe with unchecked power. Yet, in what is probably the most dangerous governmental power ever possessed,

we find the potential for world destruction lodged in the discretion of one person. As a result of

public indignation aroused by the Vietnam disaster, in which tens of thousands lost their lives in military actions initiated by a

succession of Presidents, Congress in 1973 adopted, despite presidential veto, the War Powers Resolution. Congress finally asserted

its checking and balancing duties in relation to the making of presidential wars. Congress declared in section 2(a) that its purpose

was to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the

Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where

imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or

in such situations. The law also stated in section 3 that [t]he President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress beforeintroducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly

indicated. . . . Other limitations not essential to this discussion are also provided. The intent of the law is clear. Congress

undertook to check the President, at least by prior consultation, in any executive action that might lead

to hostilities and war. [*1638] President Nixon, who initially vetoed the resolution, claimed that it was an

unconstitutional restriction on his powers as Executiveand Commander in Chief of the military. His

successors have taken a similar view . Even so, some of them have at times complied with the law by prior

consultation with representatives of Congress, but obedience to the law has been uncertain and a subject of continuing controversy

between Congress and the President. Ordinarily, the issue of the constitutionality of a law would be decided by the Supreme Court.

But, despite a series of cases in which such a decision has been sought, the Supreme Court has refused to settle

the controversy. The usual ground for such a refusal is that a "political question" is involved. The rule is well established that

the federal judiciary will decide only "justiciable" controversies. "Political questions" are not "justiciable." However, the

standards established by the Supreme Court in 1962in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, to determine the distinction

between "justiciable controversies" and "political questions" are far from clear. One writer observed that the term "politicalquestion" [a]pplies to all those matters of which the court, at a given time, will be of the opinion that it is impolitic or inexpedient to

take jurisdiction. Sometimes this idea of inexpediency will result from the fear of the vastness of the consequences that a decision

on the merits might entail. Finkelstein, Judicial Self-Limitation, 37 HARV. L. REV. 338, 344 (1924)(footnote omitted). It is difficult to

defend the Court's refusal to assume the responsibility of decisionmaking on this most critical issue. The Court has been fearless in

deciding other issues of "vast consequences" in many historic disputes, some involving executive war power. It is to be hoped that

the Justices will finally do their duty here. But in the meantime the spectre of single-minded power persists, fraught with all of the

frailties of human nature that each human possesses, including the President. World history is filled with tragic examples. Even if

the Court assumed its responsibility to tell us whether the Constitution gives Congress the

necessary power to check the President, the War Powers Resolution itself is unclear. Does the

Resolution require the President to consult with Congress before launching a nuclear attack?Ithas been asserted that "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities" refers only to military personnel and does not

include the launching of nuclear missiles alone. In support of this interpretation, it has been argued that Congress was concernedabout the human losses in Vietnam and in other presidential wars, rather than about the weaponry. Congress, of course, can

amend the Resolutionto state explicitly that "the introduction of Armed Forces" includes missiles as well as personnel.

However, the President could continue to act without prior consultation by renewing the

claim first made by President [*1639] Nixon that the Resolution is an unconstitutional invasion

of the executive power. Therefore, the real solution, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision, would appear to be aconstitutional amendment. All must obey a clear rule in the Constitution. The adoption of an amendment is very difficult. Wisely,

Article V requires that an amendment may be proposed only by the vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by the

application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, and the proposal must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions of


20/22

three-fourths of the states. Despite the difficulty, the Constitution has been amended twenty-six times. Amendment can be done

when a problem is so important that it arouses the attention and concern of a preponderant majority of the American people. But

the people must be made aware of the problem. It is hardly necessary to belabor the relative importance of the control of nuclear

warfare. A constitutional amendment may be, indeed, the appropriate method. But the most difficult issue remains. What should

the amendment provide?How can the problem be solved specifically?The Constitution in section 8 of Article I stipulates that "[t]he

Congress shall have power . . . To declare War. . . ." The idea seems to be that only these many representatives of the people,

reflecting the public will, should possess the power to commit the lives and the fortunes of the nation to warfare. This approach

makes much more sense in a democratic republic than entrusting the decision to one person, even though he may be designated the

"Commander in Chief" of the military forces. His power is to command the war after the people, through their representatives, havemade the basic choice to submit themselves and their children to war. There is a recurring relevation of a paranoia of power

throughout human history that has impelled one leader after another to draw their people into wars which, in hindsight, were

foolish, unnecessary, and, in some instances, downright insane. Whatever may be the psychological influences

that drive the single decisionmaker to these irrational commitments of the lives and fortunes

of others, the fact remains that the behavior is a predictable one in any government that does not

provide an effective check and balance against uncontrolled power in the hands of one human.

We, naturally, like to think that our leaders are above such irrational behavior. Eventually, however, human nature, with

all its weakness, asserts itself whatever the setting . At least that is the evidence that experience

and history give us, even in our own relatively benign society, where the Executive is subject

to the rule of law. [*1640] Vietnam and other more recent engagements show that it can happen and has happened here.

But the "nuclear football"--the ominous "black bag" --remains in the sole possession of thePresident.


21/22

Prez Power BadSeparation of Powers

Presidential power destroys separation of powers

Branum 2(Tara, Editor in Chief Texas Review of Law and Politics, Texas Review of Law and

Politics, 2002, President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders in Modern-DayAmerica, Lexis | JJ)

The perception of Americans that the President is not only willing, but also able to solve their

problemsis reinforced by the media and by the political process Congressmen and private citizens besiege the President

with demands that action be taken on various issues.To make matters worse, once a president has

signed an executive order, he often makes it impossible for a subsequent administration to

undo his action without enduring the political fallout of such a reversal. For instance, President Clintonissued a slew of executive orders on environmental issues in the weeks before he left office. Many were controversial and the need

for the policies he instituted was debatable. Nevertheless, President Bush found himself unable to reverse the orders without

invoking the ire of environmentalists across the country. A policy became law by the action of one man

without the healthy debate and discussion in Congress intended by the Framers. Subsequent

presidents undo this policy and send the matter to Congress for such debate only at their own

peril. This is not the way it is supposed to be. Restoration of our system of separation ofpowers will require that the public be educated on what doesand does notconstitute a

constitutional use of executive orders and other presidential directives.


22/22

Prez Power BadTerrorism

Executive powers meddle with Congressional oversightthat makes the war on terror fail

Dean 2(John W. Dean, columnist, and commentator on contemporary politics, former White

House Counsel for Nixon, 4/12/2002, TOM RIDGE'S NON-TESTIMONIAL APPEARANCE BEFORECONGRESS: Another Nixon-style Move By The Bush Administration,

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020412.html | JJ)

Congressional oversight and the collective wisdom of Congress are essential in our dealing

with terrorism. Presidents don't issue press releases about their mistakes. Nor do they report

interagency squabbles that reduce executive effectiveness. They don't investigate how funds

have been spent poorly or unwisely. And they're not inclined to explain even conspicuous

problems in gathering national security intelligence. When did anyone hear of a President rooting outincompetent appointees (after all, they chose them in the first place)?In contrast, Congress wants to do all these things, thereby

keeping a President on his toes. Its oversight is crucial - for the Presidential and Executive Branch

limitationsI've suggested are only a few of the myriad problems that might hamper the efficacy of

the Executive in its efforts to deal with terrorism, and that Congress can help to correct .Justifiably, Americans are worried, but they are getting on with their lives. Shielding and hiding the man in charge of homeland

security from answering the questions of Congress is entirely unjustified. This talk of "separation of powers" and

"executive privilege" is unmitigated malarkey. It is a makeshift excuse to keep the Congress

from policing the White House .
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020412.htmlhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020412.html

Documents

At XO With Avoids Ptx Etc