MDAW 2011

Lab Name

File Name
A2 Exec order counterplan

1. Perm: do the counterplan The counterplan is within the resolution, because the executive branch is an agent within the USFG. 2. Theory: ASPEC is bad: A. Arbitrary. Their interp is always that we have to specify one more thing than is in plan. This kills aff predictibility, so to meet we would need an 8 minute plan text and the neg would always win on plan doing nothing. B. Counter Interp: agent is normal means. This solves their offense by allowing debates about what normal means is, and is most predictable because its in the literature. C. Neg ground. With thousands of USfg agencies, we could specify them into bad or unpredictable ground. D. Counter interp: we can specify status quo plan implementation in cross x.This gives the neg link ground to agent DAs 3. Solvency defecit: A. The executive branch cant solve the case-only Congress can provide the needed funds and oversight
Kuenzi 2004 (Jeffrey, Congressional Research Service Policy Papers, Required for linguists in government agencies, October 8, 2k4, www.lexis.com) To a large extent finding language qualified personnel for government agencies is a responsibility of the Executive Branch, but Congress must appropriate funds for agency efforts, and it conducts oversight of programs. In addition, funding for foreign language instruction in civilian institutions originates in legislation. At the present time, a number of issues in regard to foreign language capabilities appear to be receiving congressional attention. This report addresses many of these issues and is intended as background only and will not be updated.

B. Orders that require funding less powerful, require congressional action William G. Howell (Professor at Harvard University) September 2005 Unilateral Powers: A Brief Overview, Presidential Studies Quarterly If it has one, the power to appropriate money for unilaterally created programs is Congress's trump card. When a unilateral action requires funding, considerable influence shifts back to the legislative branchfor in these instances, a president's directive requires positive action by Congress. Whereas before, presidents needed only to block congressional efforts to amend or overturn their orderssomething more easily done, given the well-documented travails of the legislative processnow they must build and sustain the coalitions that often prove so elusive in collective decision-making bodies. And should they not secure it, orders written on paper may not translate into action taken on the ground. 4. No net benefit: Independent use of executive power saps political capital Simendinger 02 (Alexis, Staff Writer National Journal, The Power of One, National Journal, 1-26, Lexis) Bush's White House aides insist that the President knows how valuable his political capital is, and that he has to spend that capital
wisely. To presidency scholars such as Richard E. Neustadt, who wrote a seminal 1960 book on the subject, real presidential power is the strength and standing to persuade, in order to bring about government action. It is not just the authority to effect change by edict. "From the veto to appointments, from publicity to budgeting, and so down a long list, the White House now controls the most encompassing array of vantage points in the American political system," Neustadt wrote. Bush's first year suggests he understood how to bargain when the policies at issue were most important to him personally tax cuts and school accountability, for instance. Before September 11, however, the President seemed to get into the most trouble when he exercised power alone. The cumulative uproar over arsenic in water, his early regulatory actions that had an anti-green tinge, and the energy policies that favored the oil and gas industries were sour notes for Bush with the public and with many in Congress. The White House is still feeling the effects of those missteps as Bush heads into his second year.

5. Seperation of powers counterplan disad: A. Their executive order ignores Congressional legislation that destroys separation of powers [Ronald Turner, University of Alabama School of Law professor, JOURNAL OF LAW & POLITICS, Winter 1996, p. 1. (DRGCL/E264)] The increased and aggressive presidential use of executive orders can present serious constitutional questions when there are no congressional or constitutional bases for a particular order. Orders not tethered to or derived from statutes or the Constitution raise issues about the legitimacy of presidential legislation because, as noted previously, lawmaking is a legislative function. Thus, the issuance of an executive order by a President without a clear statutory or constitutional basis can be inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers and the sequential trumping inherent in the constitutional system. A baseless and unauthorized order provides a means for the President to subvert the system of checks and balances, for she can make laws free from congressional involvement or agreement and is "able to make sweeping policy value choices without any check by either the federal courts or by a majority of Congress." Such unchecked executive power allows a President to "alter the distribution of the background set of private rights entitlements" and to evade the filtering mechanisms of the bicameral legislature and judicial review. Evasion is particularly problematic when different political parties dominate different branches of government. An executive order issued by the President of one party that declares national policy that is opposed by the opposition party with a legislative majority can result in a clash of ideologies and views as to the law that should govern the nation. As a result "strengthening a particular institution may
not only improve its effectiveness but also the relative influence of a particular political party or ideology."

Page 1 of 2

MDAW 2011
Lab Name

File Name

b. SOP checks nuclear war Forrester, Professor at Hastings College of the Law at University of California, 1989
[Ray, George Washington Law Review, August] [On the basis of this report, the startling fact

is that one man alone has the ability to start a nuclear war. A basic theory--if not the basic theory of our Constitution--is that concentration of power in any one person, or one group, is dangerous to mankind. The Constitution, therefore, contains a strong system of checks and balances, starting with the separation of powers between the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The message is that no one of them is safe with unchecked power. Yet, in what is probably the most dangerous governmental power ever possessed, we find the potential for world destruction lodged in the discretion of one person

Page 2 of 2