Aff Answers to Counterplans 1 A2 Afghanistan Corruption cp 2
Prez Solves Foreign Policy
Download 0.88 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Prez Solves - Middle East
- Prez Solves – Military
- Prez Solves – Arms Sales
- Deference Good – Threat Response
Prez Solves Foreign PolicyAll of the evidence points to the president as the head of foreign affairs. Prakash and Ramsey 1 (Saikrishna and Michael, professor of law at UCSD, Yale Law Journal, 2001, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Ramseyonline.pdf) NK It is not the case that all the Framers made this association. In particular, although Madison initially seemed to acknowledge the relationship between executive power and foreign affairs power, he later famously denied it in disputing Hamilton’s Pacificus.22 But the weight of the evidence, both before and after ratification, seems clearly to favor including foreign affairs powers within the definition of “executive” powers. This seems particularly true when this reading is compared to alternative readings. Neither Madison, in his response to Hamilton, nor modern scholars have been able to offer a satisfactory alternative account of the text’s foreign affairs powers. The power to control and recall U.S. diplomats, to communicate with foreign nations, and to establish foreign policy is not included within any other grant of power in the Constitution.23 Yet surely the Framers—who were anxious to correct the Articles in the field of foreign affairs—did not simply forget to provide for such important foreign affairs powers in their new government. Once the Constitution was ratified, no one acted as if these powers were missing, or were allocated other than to the President. These mysteries are explained only if we give the Constitution its eighteenth century meaning, recognizing that “executive” power had two components: law execution and foreign affairs. Prez Solves - Middle EastThe executive branch is the driving branch in Middle East foreign policy. Bzostek and Robinson 8 (Rachel and Samuel, Ph. D and M.A., Physorg.com, November 6th, 2008, http://www.physorg.com/news145197719.html) NK A new study in the journal International Studies Perspectives examines U.S. foreign policy towards three Middle Eastern states and finds that the executive branch is often the driving force in foreign policy. Also, U.S. foreign policies tend to be reciprocal in nature. Rachel Bzostek, Ph.D., and Samuel B. Robison, M.A. conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the influences on U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia from 1981 to 2004. Results show that the executive branch is the primary force driving policy towards those Middle Eastern states. Congress may seek to influence or mold policy and oftentimes does in significant ways. However, its ability to truly direct policy is limited. Also, the policies engaged in by the U.S. tend to be reciprocal in nature. More often than not, the United States tends to "reward" states that adopt policies the U.S. likes and "punish" states that engage in behaviors disapproved of by the U.S. Prez Solves – MilitaryThe president has broad constitutional power to take military action Yoo 1 (John, Supreme Court Deputy Assistant Attorney General, MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT [Supreme Court Memorandum following September 11th], http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm) NK The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11. Prez Solves – Arms SalesThe executive branch has the authority to determine our military policy. Grimmett 99 (Richard, Specialist in National Defense for the US Department of State, US Department of State, June 1st, 1999, http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm) NK Even when Congress establishes foreign policy through legislation, the Administration continues to shape policy as it interprets and applies the various provisions of law. This is illustrated in arms sales policy. Congress has established the objectives and criteria for arms sales to foreign countries in the Arms Export Control Act, and it has required advance notification of major arms sales and provided procedures for halting a sale it disapproves. But the executive branch makes the daily decisions on whether or not to sell arms to specific countries and what weapons systems to provide. As an example, on September 14, 1992, President Bush notified Congress of his intention to sell 72 F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia, and after the 30-day congressional review period expired, the sale proceeded Deference Good – Threat ResponseDeference is key to rapid response in our military Carter 3 (Phillip, writer, CNN, July 15, http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/15/findlaw.analysis.carter.security/) ELJ As the ratification debates reveal, the Framers assigned these powers to the President because they feared that judicial or congressional interference in these areas might render the new nation weak, or incapable of rapid response to threats from abroad. The Framers also felt that because, at the time, the majority of national security knowledge and expertise lay in the Executive Branch, decision making on such issues properly belonged to that branch. Accordingly, while Article II gives expansive military and foreign policy powers to the President, Article I gives Congress only limited military powers. It may "define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations"; "declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water"; "raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"; "provide and maintain a navy"; "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"; and provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions . . ." But that is all. Finally, Article III gives the judicial branch no power at all over the military. As a result, the courts, unlike the other two branches, have no constitutional mandate to make military policy. The tradition of judicial deference to the military grew out of this constitutional structure and history. As commander-in-chief, the argument goes, the President should have the utmost latitude in making decisions that affect the readiness of America's military. Similarly, Congress deserves free rein in exercising its Constitutional responsibilities to fund the military and make laws for its governance. In contrast, the courts have no such Constitutional mandate to make military policy; thus, they should yield to decisions by the President and Congress. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.88 Mb. Share with your friends:
|