Tournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Wayne State | Judge:
1NC
1 Off
Security politics are self defeating – restraints on the executive are only a guise for further imperialism
Aziz RANA Law at Cornell 11 “Who Decides on Security?” Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers, Paper 87, http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87 p. 1-7

Today politicians and legal scholars routinely invoke fears that the balance between liberty and security
AND
normative assumptions required to sustain popular involvement in matters of threat and safety.
National security makes un-ending violence inevitable
Lal 08 (Prerna P., J.D. Candidate at George Washington Law School, Critical Security Studies, “Deconstructing the National Security State: Towards a New Framework of Analysis,” POSC 4910: Senior Seminar, http://prernalal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/css-deconstructing-the-nat-sec-state.pdf)

Four years later, amidst the deaths of countless many civilians, a soaring budget
AND
war against terror.” The apartheid regime in South Africa did collapse eventually.
Reject the national security state – key to solve executive dominance
Aziz RANA Law at Cornell 11 “Who Decides on Security?” Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers, Paper 87, http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87 p. 45-51

If both objective sociological claims at the center of the modern security concept are themselves
AND
, we can expect our prevailing security arrangements to become ever more entrenched.

2 Off
Obama will resist the plan-fights over war powers create intractable national diversions and impairs military decision making
Lobel, Pittsburgh law professor, 2008
(Jules, “Conflicts Between the Commander in Chief and Congress: Concurrent Power over the Conduct of War”, Ohio State Law Journal, vol 69, lexis, ldg)

The critical difficulty with a contextual approach is its inherent ambiguity and lack of clarity
AND
over the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. Pg. 407-409
Afghanistan’s future will be determined by decisions made during US withdrawal.  A botched withdrawal destabilizes Pakistan, fuels Afghani reprisal murders and encourages Russian adventurism.
Miller 12—Professor of International Security Affairs and Director for the Afghanistan-Pakistan program @ National Defense University Paul D. Miller (Former Director for Afghanistan on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Bush and Obama), “It’s Not Just Al-Qaeda: Stability in the Most Dangerous Region,” World Affairs Journal, March-April 2012, pg. http://tinyurl.com/lnplsb7

In fact, the war is only now entering its culminating phase, indicated by
AND
Afghanistan and why the United States must secure lasting stability in South Asia.
It was, of course, al-Qaeda’s attack on the US homeland that
AND
and more. America leaves the job in Afghanistan unfinished at its peril.
The chorus of voices in the Washington policy establishment calling for withdrawal is growing louder
AND
Center said that the US should remove its troops as soon as possible.
But it is not too late for Obama (who, after all, campaigned in 2008 on the importance of Afghanistan, portraying it as “the good war” in comparison to Iraq) to reformulate US strategy and goals in South Asia and explain to the American people and the world why an ongoing commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan and the region, however unpopular, is nonetheless necessary.
The Afghanistan Study Group, a collection of scholars and former policymakers critical of the
AND
not reestablish a presence in Afghanistan in a way that threatens US security.
In fact, none of those three steps are necessary for al-Qaeda to
AND
forces with the will and capacity to deny safe haven without international help.
Setting aside the possibility of al-Qaeda’s reemergence, the United States has other
AND
interest of the United States and cannot be accomplished with a few drones.
Alarmingly, Pakistan is edging toward civil war. A collection of militant Islamist groups
AND
not always clear—have been killed in daily terror and counterterror operations.
The two insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan are linked. Defeating the Afghan Taliban would
AND
, perhaps even to achieve the cherished goal of stealing a nuclear weapon.
Although our war there has at times seemed remote, Afghanistan itself occupies crucial geography. Situated between Iran and Pakistan, bordering China, and within reach of Russia and India, it sits on a crossroads of Asia’s great powers. This is why it has, since the nineteenth century, been home to the so-called Great Game—in which the US should continue to be a player.
Two other players, Russia and Iran, are aggressive powers seeking to establish hegemony
AND
, invaded Georgia in 2008, and has continued efforts to subvert Ukraine.
Iran owned much of Afghan territory centuries ago, and continues to share a similar language, culture, and religion with much of the country. It maintains extensive ties with the Taliban, Afghan warlords, and opposition politicians who might replace the corrupt but Western-oriented Karzai government. Building a stable government in Kabul will be a small step in the larger campaign to limit Tehran’s influence.
Russia remains heavily involved in the Central Asian republics. It has worked to oust
AND
aggressively elsewhere in Central Asia or Eastern Europe, especially in the Ukraine.
A US departure from Afghanistan will also continue to resonate for years to come in
AND
developed a more coherent campaign plan with counterinsurgency-appropriate rules of engagement.
A bad end in Afghanistan could have dire consequences for the Atlantic Alliance, leaving
AND
fighting alliance and preserves the organization as a pillar of US national security.
For some critics, organizing US grand strategy around the possible appearance of Russian tanks across the Fulda Gap is the perfect example of generals continuing to fight the last war. For them, the primary threat to US national security comes from terrorists, insurgency, state failure, ecological disaster, infectious pandemic disease, cyber attacks, transnational crime, piracy, and gangs.
But if that view of the world is right, it is all the more
AND
profits funding the revival of al-Qaeda or its many terror offshoots.
South Asia’s narcotics-smuggling cartels are dangerously close to seizing control of an entire state and using it to undermine law, order, and stability across an entire region. The poppy and heroin kingpins are fabulously wealthy and powerful; they oppose US interests, weaken US allies, and are headquartered in Afghanistan. Defeating them is a vital interest of the United States.
The allied mission in Afghanistan also aims to encourage the growth of democracy. Some
AND
is why we dare not give up on democracy promotion in South Asia.
The process of transitioning to democracy is hard, time-consuming, and even
AND
belief in the idea of democracy—with predictable results on voter turnout.
There is nothing inevitable about democracy’s success, as neoconservatives appeared to believe after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, or the Baathist regime in Iraq. But there is also nothing inevitable about its failure, as realists have argued in the years since these events. Democracies require longer time lines than an electoral cycle or deployment timetable, and they require security and institutional capacity, not just elections.
Afghanistan will not become a model of democracy within the foreseeable future, thanks to
AND
by a minority, the United States should choose the former every time.
Finally, the United States should remain involved in Afghanistan to prevent the reemergence of
AND
likely to be widespread and swift, especially against women and religious minorities.

Nuke terror causes extinction---equivalent to full-scale nuclear war
Owen B. Toon 7, chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at CU-Boulder, et al., April 19, 2007, “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism,” online: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf
To an increasing extent, people are congregating in the world’s great urban centers,
AND
should be carried out as well for the present scenarios and physical outcomes.

3 Off
Text: the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States should issue a national military strategy, and corresponding strategic concept focused on implementation, that   Plan is necessary to achieve that national security goals of the United States. We’ll clarify. 

Competes – the CP doesn’t mandate the plan. It issues a recommendation that results in policy change.

Solves – NMS is a keystone document that shapes military policy – it integrates consultation between Congress and the DOD, building broad support for the plan
Meinhart 8 (Dr. Richard M., Professor of Defense and Joint Processes at the U.S. Army War College, “National Military Strategies: 1990 to 2007”, National Security Policy and Strategy, Ed. Bartholomees, June, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTR Doc?AD=ADA482688andLocation=U2anddoc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
CONCLUSION The National Military Strategy is the keystone document of an overarching strategic planning system
AND
important in today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous global security environment. 

4 Off
Civil-Military Relations are delicate—sequestration makes now key
Feaver 10/14 (Peter, American professor of political science and public policy at Duke University. He is a leading scholar in civil-military relations, and served as a Special Advisor for Strategic Planning and Institutional Reform on the National Security Council, and as Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control at the National Security Council, 2013, “How to Better Navigate the Coming Civil-Military Challenges” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/14/how_to_better_navigate_the_coming_civil_military_challenges)
A few weeks ago, Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign
AND
next deputy secretary of defense. That person will have their hands full.
Fiating military strategy change without consultation destroys cmr
Allen and Coates 2010 Colonel Charles D. (U.S. Army, Ret.) Professor of Cultural Science in the Department of Command, Leadership, and Management at the U.S. Army War College.. and Breena E., Professor of Strategic Management and Org. Behavior. United States Army War College. The Engagement of Military Voice Winter 2009-10
The second error, EIIIb, occurs when the civilian principal directs by fiat,
AND
for military professionals—the planning and execution of tactical and operational missions.

CMR’s key to military effectiveness and readiness
Hoffman 7 – Frank Hoffman, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer, December 2007, “Bridging the civil-military gap,” Armed Forces Journal, online: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/12/3144666
What Ricks detected has not gone away, and it may have been extended.
AND
if that society doffs its cap now and again to its warrior class.”

Readiness is key to prevent war with great power adversaries
Feldstein 07 - Professor of Economics @ Harvard University Martin Feldstein (President and CEO of the National Bureau of Economic Research.), "The Underfunded Pentagon," Foreign Affairs, March /April 2007, Volume 86 • Number 2
Deterring other great powers, such as Russia and China, will require Washington to
AND
and perhaps the reality—of the U.S. military structure.

Wars of Choice
US power has eroded – US has limited influence and its security guarantees are no longer credible
Kato 08  bureau chief of the American General Bureau of the Asahi Shimbun. (Yoichi, Return from 9/11 PTSD to Global Leader, The Washington Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 4, Autumn 2008
The execution of the Iraq war, and of the broader war on terrorism for
AND
sometimes insecure country despite its powerful hard-power economic and military assets.

Data disproves hegemony impacts
Fettweis, 11 Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO
If the only thing standing between the world and chaos is the US military presence
AND
typically unidirectional. Strategic restraint in such a world be virtually risk free. 

Hegemony is unsustainable—The US is headed toward economic meltdown and power positions are shifting.
Layne 1/27—Christopher Layne is professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas AandM University, “The (Almost) Triumph of Offshore Balancing” http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/almost-triumph-offshore-balancing-6405
Although cloaked in the reassuring boilerplate about American military preeminence and global leadership, in
AND
, perhaps, to provide the international economy with a new reserve currency.
Incites China War
Layne 07 Visiting Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute Christopher “American Empire: A Debate” (p 75)
So what should the United States do about China? If the United States per¬sists
AND
. Nevertheless, the United States cannot be completely indifferent to China's rise.

Goes nuclear
Hunkovic, 09 – American Military University Lee J, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict
Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf
A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate
AND
outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.

Deterrence
Congressional involvement on every use of force emboldens enemies and damages presidential credibility-academic consensus.
Howell et al., Chicago political science professor, 2007
(William, While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers, google books, ldg)

SIGNALING RESOLVE To the extent that congressional discontent signals domestic irresolution to other nations,
AND
president lacks support may make them wary of committing any troops at all.

Covert Ops key to deterrence in new age war
Sloan 2005—Virginia E. Sloan is the director of the Constitution Project. The Constitution Project is based at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute, “DECIDING TO U  SE   FORCE ABROAD:  WAR POWER  S   in a System of   CHECKS  AND BAL  ANCES  
The modern overlapping threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass  destruction (
AND
operations have any clear geographic or, for that matter, temporal limits. 

Restricting war powers risks terrorist attacks, WMD proliferation and Rogue State aggression
Yoo 12 (John, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, “War Powers Belong to the President,” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president)
This time, President Obama has the Constitution about right. His exercise of war
AND
time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.
Rogue states multiply and cause extinction
Johnson, Forbes contributor and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2013
(Paul, “A Lesson For Rogue States”, 5-8, http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2013/05/08/a-lesson-for-rogue-states/, ldg)
Although we live in a violent world, where an internal conflict such as the
AND
an eventual and monumental disaster that could be the end of us all.

Solvency
Insisting on law to constrain executive violence ignores the role it plays in constructing exceptionalism; this depolitisization of war powers can only be resisted by rejecting the politics of security  
Neocleous 8 (Mark Professor of the Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University (“Critique of Security”, McGill-Queen’s University, pp. 72-75, Published 2008))
But there is a wider argument to be made, one with political implications.
AND
to now refocus our attention more specifically on security as a political technology.
Their restriction is a smokescreen and will not be enforced
Nzelibe 7—Professor of Law @ Northwestern University Jide Nzelibe, “Are Congressionally Authorized Wars Perverse?” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 59, 2007

These assumptions are all questionable. As a preliminary matter, there is not much
AND
conflict objectives and implement new tools for monitoring executive behavior during wartime. 12
Yet, even if Congress were equipped with better institutional tools to constrain and monitor
AND
institutional incentives to monitor and constrain the President's behavior in an international crisis.
Various congressional observers have highlighted electoral disincentives that members of Congress might face in constraining
AND
powers are likely to fall on deaf ears. Pg. 912-913
President will not abide. Congress will inevitably fall in line
Bell 4—Professor of Political Science @ Randolph-Macon College Lauren Cohen Bell, “Following the Leaders or Leading the Followers? The US President's Relations with Congress,” Journal of Legislative Studies, Summer/Autumn, 2004, Vol. 10 Issue 2/3, pg. 193-205

As noted ahove. Article I of the Constitution grants to the Congress the sole
AND
armed forces have been almost continuously engaged somewhere in the world.''^
This was not always the case. Fisher points out that there is evidence of
AND
far more important to the conduct of American foreign policy than the Congress.
This circumstance led, in the aftermath of the war in Vietnam, to congressional
AND
War Powers Resolution uses has continually increased since it took effect in 1974.
A reading of the WPR would seem to clarify the relationship between Congress and the
AND
the conduct of America's relations with other countries. Pg. 200-202

Case in point—no one gives two shits the WPR.  History is on our side
Keynes 92—Professor of Political Science @ Pennsylvania State University Keynes, Edward, “War Powers Resolution: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone,” University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 23, Issue 2 (Winter 1992), pp. 343-362

Despite various presidents' avoidance of the Resolution's formal reporting requirements, analysis and debate on
AND
. armed forces to combat or to regions where hostilities are imminent. 3'
Although U.S. presidents have submitted eighteen reports to Congress since 1973 (
AND
not achieved the hoped-for advance consultation and joint decision-making.  
As the first four episoaes (the Da Nang sea-lift, the evacuations
AND
the scope of the President's defensive authority as commander in chief.3 "
President Jimmy Carter failed to inform or consult Congress before the ill-fated attempt
AND
the zone of authority that the Constitution leaves to presidential discretion.4 '
President Ronald Reagan's use of armed forces in Lebanon, the dispatch of naval forces
AND
enacted the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution ("MFLR") on September 29 "
Although Reagan did not report to Congress under section 4(a)(1),
AND
revise the President's constitutional authority to deploy United States Armed Forces.''"
Since 1973, the War Powers Resolution's consulting, reporting, and triggering provisions have
AND
and dispatching armed forces to the Persian Gulf.  Pg. 252-353 

Showdown results in expanded Presidential authority.  Public sentiment will force Congress to capitulate
Posner and Vermeule 07—Professor of Law @ The University of Chicago and Professor of Law @ Harvard Law School Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, “Constitutional Showdown,” University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper NO. 348, July 2007, pg. http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1002996

Public constitutional sentiment is the bedrock, but that does not mean that it will
AND
. Thus, we can ignore this possibility for purposes of our discussion.
If public constitutional sentiment will ultimately settle the question of whether Congress or the president
AND
ruin the electoral chances of their occupants. Pg. 16 -17,

Tournament: Harvard | Round: 4 | Opponent: Louisville | Judge: 

The affirmative’s failure to advance a topical defense of federal policy in the direction of the resolution undermines debate’s transformative and intellectual potential. They mention a specific policy but their advocacy is only related to it by the parallels they draw.

The resolution indicates affs should advocate topical government change

Ericson 3 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains
AND
compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose. 

Topical fairness requirements are key to effective dialogue—monopolizing strategy and prep makes the discussion one-sided and subverts any meaningful neg role

Galloway 7 – professor of communications at Samford University (Ryan, "Dinner And Conversation At The Argumentative Table: Reconceptualizing Debate As An Argumentative Dialogue", Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)
Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
AND
substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

2 Off

Politicization of life necessarily entails the devaluation and sacrifice of life

Agamben, 1999 (Gorgio, Homo Sacer, pg. 139-140)
It is as if every valorization and every "Politicization" of life (which
AND
category. It now dwells in the biological body of every living being. 

We can only know order in relation to the exception, bluring the distinction between inside and outside endlessly reproducing violence

Caldwell, 2004 (Anne,  Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Louisville, Bio-Sovereignty and The Emergence of Humanity, Theory 26 Event - Volume 7, Issue 2, project muse)
As he explains, the "logico-formal" thesis of the exception or
AND
body is the original activity of sovereign power" (p. 6). 

The political order inevitably uses identity to construct and enemy to destroy that makes endless war and extinction inevitable

Moreiras 2004 (Alberto, Director of European Studies at Duke "A God without Sovereignty. Political Jouissance. The Passive Decision", CR: The New Centennial Review 4.3, p.81-83, Project MUSE)
Is the unjust enemy, as opposed to the just enemy, whose definition is
AND
now been placed beyond the line. Total war is an absolute threat.

Our alternative is to reject the affirmative’s attempt to employ the sovereign discourse of classification and instead embrace whatever being. Simple rejection allows us to access what Agamben calls whatever being. A being that dissolves the state of exception because it does not claim any common identity

Caldwell, 2004 (Anne, prof of poli-sci @ U of Louisville, Theory 26 Event, vol 7(2))
Can we imagine another form of humanity, and another form of power? The
AND
a non-state world, made up of whatever life, appears.

Vote negative to interrogate the connection between life and politics, only by embracing community without unity can we maintain our relationship to Dasein and escape our thanatology.

Norris, 2000 (Andrew, Ass Prof of Poli Sci @UPenn, diacritics, winter, Giorgio Agamben and the Politics of the Living Dead)
If Agamben’s analysis and description of this dilemma of the formation of the political and
AND
one produced by our uncanny inability to see what is nearest to us. 

The kritik is a prior question – their vision of "the political" acts as a photographic negative that determines the direction of their "politics"

Norris, 2000 (Andrew, Ass Prof of Poli Sci @UPenn, diacritics, winter, Giorgio Agamben and the Politics of the Living Dead)
To break out of this vicious cycle, Agamben follows Jean-Luc Nancy in
AND
something else. It is fairly clear that Agamben would claim the same. 

3 Off

The discourse of "whiteness" as a continuous and unidirectional historical project from slavery to the contemporary era prevents effective anti-racist struggle.

There are two problems with their characterization of "whiteness"

whiteness is treated as purely negative—their discourse attaches whiteness instrincally to hierarchy rather than difference.  slippage in their rhetoric equates "whiteness" with white supremacy.

Historical oversimplification. though there is continuity between different white projects failure to recognize, and productively cooperate with alternative white racial formations makes their method counterproductive.

Howard WINANT Sociology @ UCSB ’97 Behind Blue Eyes: Contemporary White Racial Politics  http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/whitness.html

In a quiet office at a Washington think tank, a balding white man with
AND
legislation, agreement about the continuing existence of racial subordination has vanished.  The
meaning of race has been deeply problematized. Why?  Because the legacy of centuries
AND
is this situation which can be described as white racial dualism.~1~ 

Their starting point understands all existing white racial projects as coded forms of white-supremacy.  instead, we develop an alternative starting point that recognizes distinct white racial projects.

Howard WINANT Sociology @ UCSB ’97 Behind Blue Eyes: Contemporary White Racial Politics  http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/whitness.html

Yet it would be inaccurate to describe the racial reaction of the post-civil
AND
far right, new right, neoconservative, neoliberal, and new abolitionist. 

Their understanding of whiteness leaves whites with one option – repudiation.

Repudiation is bound to fail—instead we need a representation of "whiteness" that faciliates rearticulating a positive, and anti-racist white racial formation.

Howard WINANT Sociology @ UCSB ’97 Behind Blue Eyes: Contemporary White Racial Politics  http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/whitness.html

Nevertheless, the neoliberal project does undertake a crucial task: the construction of a
AND
by a mere act of political will, or even by widespread and repeated
acts aimed at rejecting white privilege?  I think not; whiteness may not be
AND
you don’t know how American you are" (Thompson 1995, 429).  

Solvency

Using debate rounds for changing debate is counter-productive

ZOMPETTI  04  Assistant Professor, School of Communication, Illinois State University
~Joseph Zompetti, PERSONALIZING DEBATING: DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE IN THE DEBATE COMMUNITY, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, September~
As such, the problems of diversity and privilege in the debate community cannot be
AND
the community as a whole needs to address, not the individual debaters.

We should not use experience as the basis for authority. Exposing the existence of racist ideology on the basis of experience does not provide the means to undermine it.  My experience of being oppressed doesn’t provide the path to getting outside oppression.  If the only way to resist is based on experience of racist oppression, then there is no way to get outside of the system of racism.

Joan W. SCOTT is professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, 91 ~"The Evidence of Experience," Critical Inquiry, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Summer, 1991), pp. 773-797, JSTOR~

The project of making experience visible precludes analysis of the workings of this system and
AND
explanatory categories usually taken for granted, including the category of "experience."

The competitive framing of the debate, the time constraints, and the split identities of a team mean the debate round is counter-productive to their advocacy – we should spend our time participating in political activism

ZOMPETTI  04  Assistant Professor, School of Communication, Illinois State University
~Joseph Zompetti, PERSONALIZING DEBATING: DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE IN THE DEBATE COMMUNITY, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, September~
The second major problem with this turn in contemporary policy debate is its deflection,
AND
they have nothing to contribute? Why do students of color feel excluded?

Tournament: Harvard | Round: 8 | Opponent: Cal State Fullerton | Judge: 

A) Interpretation- Voting affirmative should require voting for a topical plan. The 1AC must include a plan that is justified with a defense of adoption of such a policy through evidence, narratives, storytelling, and/or genealogy.

B) Definitional support-

1. Should means "indicating a desirable or expected state" (WEBSTER’S 2008)

2. USFG means "centered in Washington D.C." (ENCARTA 2000)

C) Violation- The affirmative is not an instrumental affirmation of the resolution—they affirm the topic as 

D) Standards-

1. Limits- Performance is not predictable because it’s not relevant to the resolution. Reading the resolution in a non-literal way is so open-ended that anything could be topical because there are an infinite number of non-literal meanings. They create an infinite number of performances which are impossible to argue or have effective counter-performances. The neg will always lose.

2. Ground- They steal all neg ground. All the arguments that we have researched and are prepared to debate that are related to the resolution are irrelevant in a world where the aff runs a performance affirmative. Lack of a plan makes it impossible to have a competitive counter-advocacy, and debating the case on its merits is impossible because the 1AC itself could be read non-literally to eliminate all of our arguments. There’s no education if there’s no clash.

3.  Predictable rules are necessary for engaging in debate in the first place—using the resolution to divide ground is necessary to continue to debate

Bakhtin, 1999 (Jaworski, Professor of Communication, The Discourse Reader)
Erving Goffman (1963) distinguished as "Focused interaction" those occasions when two
AND
so (Kendor 1976). The question is, how is this accomplished?

E) Fair debates are good-

1. A nonliteral reading of the resolution prevents developing the coalitions necessary for pragmatic political change. It cedes the political to the far right and risks greater fascism. Discussion of specific policies is required for pragmatic political engagement.

Rorty, 1998 (Richard, Achieving Our Country, pg. 89-94)
Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into
AND
is everywhere and nowhere, as evanescent and insistent as a resourceful spook."

F) Voting issue-

1. Fairness is a pre-requisite to education- We have to determine rules and regulations for debate in order to create a safe and productive forum to present and argue certain issues. Without rules we’ll never get any education because people will run the most obscure advocacies that don’t adhere to the resolution, which leads to debates with no clash or educational gain. Any argument about why their 1AC outweighs fairness is artificially inflated because a lack of predictability prevents a rigorous testing of the truth value of their arguments.

2. Fairness is a gateway for participation- The only reason why everyone participates in debate is because it is mostly a fair forum to present ideas. If it weren’t fair then people won’t want to spend thousands of dollars on debate trips and camps or spend hours a day researching the resolution. Fairness is a prerequisite to education.

3. Topical version of the affirmative solves—they can interpret targeted killing to mean racial violence, or indefinite detention to be the perpetual imprisonment of the subaltern in American prisons, as long as they advocate a policy that gives us stable ground.

Off

Effective decision-making outweighs—-

Only portable skill—-means our framework turns case

Steinberg 26 Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney
AND
customer for out product, or a vote for our favored political candidate. 

On topicality extend the interpretation that the affirmative needs to advocate a topical plan, and our definitions that should means a desired location, and that USFG means the government in DC

Constraints are key to creativity—-challenging ourselves to innovate within the confines of rules creates far more creative responses than starting with a blank slate

Mayer 6 – Marissa Ann Mayer, vice-president for search products and user experience at Google, February 13, 2006, "Creativity Loves Constraints," online: http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/06_07/b3971144.htm?chan=gl
When people think about creativity, they think about artistic work — unbridled, unguided
AND
be a clock) or constrained possibilities (a canvas that is marked).¶ 

Our role of the ballot is the team that promotes the method most likely to result in a change in state action wins the round.

By failing to specify an agent or method, and refusing to have a debate about solvency, they give up the education that debate can offer about methods of change.

Discussion of specific policy questions is crucial for skills development—we control uniqueness: university students already have preconceived and ideological notions about how the world operates—-government policy discussion is vital to force engagement with and resolution of competing perspectives to improve social outcomes, however those outcomes may be defined—-and, it breaks out of traditional pedagogical frameworks by positing students as agents of decision-making

Esberg 26 Sagan 12 *Jane Esberg is special assistant to the director at New York University’s Center on. International Cooperation. She was the winner of 2009 Firestone Medal, AND Scott Sagan is a professor of political science and director of Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation "NEGOTIATING NONPROLIFERATION: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy," 2/17 The Nonproliferation Review, 19:1, 95-108
These government or quasi-government think tank simulations often provide very¶ similar lessons
AND
quickly;¶ simulations teach students how to contextualize and act on information.14

We control external impacts – abandoning specific political action causes war, slavery, and authoritarianism

Boggs 2k (CAROL BOGGS, PF POLITICAL SCIENCE – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 00, THE END OF POLITICS, 250-1)
But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism.  While Oakeshott debunks political mechanisms
AND
run counter to the facile antirationalism of Oakeshott’s Burkean muddling-through theories.  

Removing oneself from the state destroys agency to change it

Jentleson 2  (Bruce, Director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy and Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University, International Security 26.4 (2002) 169-183, projectmuse)JFS
To be sure, political science and international relations have produced and continue to produce
AND
to fulfill its broader societal responsibilities that greater praxis is to be pursued.

The aff’s methodology causes cynical withdrawal from action which ensures apathy toward atrocities

Ketels ’96 ~Violet. Prof of English @ Temple. "Havel to the Castle21" The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 548, No 1. Nov 1996~JFS
Intellectuals can choose their roles, but cannot not choose, nor can we evade
AND
and may have a lasting effect on the consciousnesses of some among us.

Using the competitive debate format to generate change does not generate the necessary coalitions – it just makes the losing team scapegoats for the community’s problems, which causes a focus on "how to win" rather than "how to make the community better"
Atchison and Panetta, 09 (Jarrod Atchison, Phd Rhetoric University of Georgia, Assistant Professor and Director of debate at Wake Forest University, and Edward Panetta, Phd Rhetoric Associate Professor University of Pitt and Director of Debate at Georgia, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication, Historical Developments and Issues for the Future, "Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future," The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed. (Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc., 2009) p. 317-334)
Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning
AND
losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change.
Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of
AND
what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community.

Case

Privileging situated knowledge produces political atrocity. Social location appears to limit authority, but grants limitless authority to body, blood, and territory.

David SIMPSON English @ UC Davis 2 Situatedness, or Why We Keep Saying Where We’re Coming From p. 25-30

Casey’s book makes a learned and comprehensive argument for the disappearance and reappearance of place
AND
a signifying ground and serving as signposts with no indication of direction"? 15 

Privileging situatedness grants the illusion of ethical powers, but removes the ground for collective change and the testing of ethical principles.

David SIMPSON English @ UC Davis 2 ~Situatedness, or Why We Keep Saying Where We’re Coming From p. 232-235~

Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society, which can usefully be read along with Giddens’s Modernity and
AND
are now all the more marketable because of the extent of this panic.

Privileging form and ethics of situatedness encourages judges to feel good in affirming the self-worth of the negative.  Creates a trade-off with deciding what we should do, instead of how we should speak or who should speak.

David SIMPSON English @ UC Davis 2 ~Situatedness, or Why We Keep Saying Where We’re Coming From p. 218-221~

The Persistence of Ethics The assertions of belonging that inform declarations of situatedness can then
AND
profound loneliness it can no longer derive from the metaphysics of individuality itself.

Exposing discourses both silences identity group members who have POSITIVE social experiences AND fixes the identity of victims AS such, preventing them from moving ahead past that suffering.

Brown 1996 (Wendy, Professor of Women’s Studies and Legal Studies, Co-Director of the Ctr. for the Cultural Studies @ UC-Santa Cruz, "Constitutions and ’Survivor Stories’: In the ’folds of our own discourse’ The Pleasures and Freedoms of Silence," University of Chicago School of Law Roundtable). L/N

But if these practices tacitly silence those whose experiences do not parallel those whose suffering
AND
is to articulate a variety of possibilities not otherwise available to the sufferer?
In The Drowned and the Saved,   n24 Primo Levi offers drowning as a meta
AND
do not communicate or confer recognition, which only bombard or drown?   n28
Of course, this possibility is heavy with paradox insofar as drowning already signals death
AND
at-tempt which is doomed insofar as the speaking actually perpetuates by disavow

A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to productive inculcation of decision-making and advocacy skills in every and all facets of life—-even if their position is contestable that’s distinct from it being valuably debatable—-this still provides room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation, but targets the discussion to avoid mere statements of fact—T debates also solve any possible turn

Steinberg 26 Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney
AND
specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference.
To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing
AND
particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Tournament: D8ndtqualifier | Round: 3 | Opponent: Dartmouth College Chen-Cramer | Judge: Katsulas, White
1
Wartime will force Obama to resist.  The intractable battle creates a national diversion and impairs military wartime decisions
Lobel 8—Professor of Law @ University of Pittsburgh Jules Lobel, “Conflicts Between the Commander in Chief and Congress: Concurrent Power over the Conduct of War,” Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 69, 2008, pg. 391

The critical difficulty with a contextual approach is its inherent ambiguity and lack of clarity
AND
that is, when it conflicts with a policy the President embraces. 53
The contextual approach has a “zone of twilight” quality that Justice Jackson suggested
AND
their powers and ignore legislative enactments that seek to restrict their wartime authority.
Moreover, another substantial problem with a contextual approach in the war powers context is
AND
from the political issues in dispute, and endangers the rule of law.
Additionally, in wartime it is often important for issues relating to the exercise of war powers to be resolved quickly. Prompt action is not usually the forte of the judiciary.
If, however, a constitutional consensus exists or could be consolidated that Congress has the authority to check the President’s conduct of warfare, that consensus might help embolden future Congresses to assert their power. Such a consensus might also help prevent the crisis, chaos, and stalemate that may result when the two branches assert competing constitutional positions and, as a practical matter, judicial review is unavailable to resolve the dispute.
Moreover, the adoption of a contextual, realist approach will undermine rather than aid
AND
over the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. Pg. 407-409

Afghanistan’s future will be determined by decisions made during US withdrawal.  A botched withdrawal destabilizes Pakistan, fuels Afghani reprisal murders and encourages Russian adventurism.
Miller 12—Professor of International Security Affairs and Director for the Afghanistan-Pakistan program @ National Defense University Paul D. Miller (Former Director for Afghanistan on the National Security Council staff under Presidents Bush and Obama), “It’s Not Just Al-Qaeda: Stability in the Most Dangerous Region,” World Affairs Journal, March-April 2012, pg. http://tinyurl.com/lnplsb7

In fact, the war is only now entering its culminating phase, indicated by
AND
Afghanistan and why the United States must secure lasting stability in South Asia.
It was, of course, al-Qaeda’s attack on the US homeland that
AND
and more. America leaves the job in Afghanistan unfinished at its peril.
The chorus of voices in the Washington policy establishment calling for withdrawal is growing louder
AND
Center said that the US should remove its troops as soon as possible.
But it is not too late for Obama (who, after all, campaigned in 2008 on the importance of Afghanistan, portraying it as “the good war” in comparison to Iraq) to reformulate US strategy and goals in South Asia and explain to the American people and the world why an ongoing commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan and the region, however unpopular, is nonetheless necessary.
The Afghanistan Study Group, a collection of scholars and former policymakers critical of the
AND
not reestablish a presence in Afghanistan in a way that threatens US security.
In fact, none of those three steps are necessary for al-Qaeda to
AND
forces with the will and capacity to deny safe haven without international help.
Setting aside the possibility of al-Qaeda’s reemergence, the United States has other
AND
interest of the United States and cannot be accomplished with a few drones.
Alarmingly, Pakistan is edging toward civil war. A collection of militant Islamist groups
AND
not always clear—have been killed in daily terror and counterterror operations.
The two insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan are linked. Defeating the Afghan Taliban would
AND
, perhaps even to achieve the cherished goal of stealing a nuclear weapon.
Although our war there has at times seemed remote, Afghanistan itself occupies crucial geography. Situated between Iran and Pakistan, bordering China, and within reach of Russia and India, it sits on a crossroads of Asia’s great powers. This is why it has, since the nineteenth century, been home to the so-called Great Game—in which the US should continue to be a player.
Two other players, Russia and Iran, are aggressive powers seeking to establish hegemony
AND
, invaded Georgia in 2008, and has continued efforts to subvert Ukraine.
Iran owned much of Afghan territory centuries ago, and continues to share a similar language, culture, and religion with much of the country. It maintains extensive ties with the Taliban, Afghan warlords, and opposition politicians who might replace the corrupt but Western-oriented Karzai government. Building a stable government in Kabul will be a small step in the larger campaign to limit Tehran’s influence.
Russia remains heavily involved in the Central Asian republics. It has worked to oust
AND
aggressively elsewhere in Central Asia or Eastern Europe, especially in the Ukraine.
A US departure from Afghanistan will also continue to resonate for years to come in
AND
developed a more coherent campaign plan with counterinsurgency-appropriate rules of engagement.
A bad end in Afghanistan could have dire consequences for the Atlantic Alliance, leaving
AND
fighting alliance and preserves the organization as a pillar of US national security.
For some critics, organizing US grand strategy around the possible appearance of Russian tanks across the Fulda Gap is the perfect example of generals continuing to fight the last war. For them, the primary threat to US national security comes from terrorists, insurgency, state failure, ecological disaster, infectious pandemic disease, cyber attacks, transnational crime, piracy, and gangs.
But if that view of the world is right, it is all the more
AND
profits funding the revival of al-Qaeda or its many terror offshoots.
South Asia’s narcotics-smuggling cartels are dangerously close to seizing control of an entire state and using it to undermine law, order, and stability across an entire region. The poppy and heroin kingpins are fabulously wealthy and powerful; they oppose US interests, weaken US allies, and are headquartered in Afghanistan. Defeating them is a vital interest of the United States.
The allied mission in Afghanistan also aims to encourage the growth of democracy. Some
AND
is why we dare not give up on democracy promotion in South Asia.
The process of transitioning to democracy is hard, time-consuming, and even
AND
belief in the idea of democracy—with predictable results on voter turnout.
There is nothing inevitable about democracy’s success, as neoconservatives appeared to believe after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, or the Baathist regime in Iraq. But there is also nothing inevitable about its failure, as realists have argued in the years since these events. Democracies require longer time lines than an electoral cycle or deployment timetable, and they require security and institutional capacity, not just elections.
Afghanistan will not become a model of democracy within the foreseeable future, thanks to
AND
by a minority, the United States should choose the former every time.
Finally, the United States should remain involved in Afghanistan to prevent the reemergence of
AND
likely to be widespread and swift, especially against women and religious minorities.

2
Flexible presidential forces are the only way to deter states
Sloan 2005—Virginia E. Sloan is the director of the Constitution Project. The Constitution Project is based at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute, “DECIDING TO U  SE   FORCE ABROAD:  WAR POWER  S   in a System of   CHECKS  AND BAL  ANCES  
http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/28.pdf
The modern overlapping threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass   destruction (
AND
and   its best strategy may be to strike first in self-defense. 

Restricting prez powers inhibits the war fighting system
Sloan 2005—Virginia E. Sloan is the director of the Constitution Project. The Constitution Project is based at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute, “DECIDING TO U  SE   FORCE ABROAD:  WAR POWER  S   in a System of   CHECKS  AND BAL  ANCES  
http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/28.pdf
Yet the system of checks and balances is not automatic. Checks are not self
AND
avoidance have left the interpretation of war  powers to the President as well.  
North Korea Conflict About to Escalate, Deterrence Checks
  Salmon 3/27/13, “Korean nightmare: Experts ponder potential conflict” By Andrew Salmon , for CNN   updated 11:09 AM EDT, Wed March 27, 2013, CNN.com 

Editor's note: Andrew Salmon is a South Korea-based freelance journalist and author
AND
Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

A new Korean war causes extinction
Africa News 99 Pat Fungamwango, “Third world war: Watch the Koreas,” Oct 25, LN
If there is one place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could
AND
few days ago that it was moving towards normalising relations with North Korea.
3
Strikes collapse Turkish Relations
REUTERS in 2005  December 30, http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html
Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's
AND
they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. 

Weak Turkish ties boost U.S.-Greek relations – zero-sum
John Sitilides, Exec Dir – Western Policy Center, 6/10, "Interests, Opportunities, and Prospects: Security Imperatives in the Eastern Mediterranean", Hellenic Resources Institute, 1999, http://www.hri.org/forum/intpol/sitil17.html
Unfortunately, many here in Turkey, in Greece and in the United States view
AND
Turkish-Americans who will see this as a good thing for Turkey.

U.S.-Greek relations key to Balkan stability
Eugene Rossides, American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, 6/13/2001, ("US Policy in the Eastern Mediterranean http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa73068.000/hfa73068_0.htm)
The United States should heed Ambassador Stearn's remarks and develop a Greek policy and a
AND
to both countries. We should do everything possible to seize the opportunity.

Global nuclear war
CDH, Chicago Daily Herald, 5-9-1999, Lexis
We hear the grim rationale for sending in ground troops "to salvage the credibility
AND
point of world conflict resulting in nuclear war and incalculable self-destruction.
4
Restricting war powers risks terrorist attacks, WMD proliferation and Rogue State aggression
Yoo 12 (John, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, “War Powers Belong to the President,” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president)
This time, President Obama has the Constitution about right. His exercise of war
AND
time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.
Rogue states multiply and cause extinction
Johnson, Forbes contributor and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2013
(Paul, “A Lesson For Rogue States”, 5-8, http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2013/05/08/a-lesson-for-rogue-states/, ldg)
Although we live in a violent world, where an internal conflict such as the
AND
an eventual and monumental disaster that could be the end of us all.

Case
sProlif decreases war and encourages rationality
Shen 11—Simon Shen, IR prof @ Hong Kong Inst of Ed. 2011, “Have Nuclear Weapons Made the DPRK a Rogue State?” J. of Comparative Asian Development, v. 10, iss. 2, tandf

In our traditional mentality, the determination to denuclearize the DPRK quite explicitly assumes that
AND
the option of using nuclear weapons for the mere purpose of interest maximization.
Iranian nuclearization will be rational, restrained and promote stability
Waltz 12 Kenneth, Prof. Emeritus of Pol. Sci – UC Berkeley, "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb," Foreign Affairs, Jul/Aug, Vol 91, Issue 4

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the
AND
leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today.
Solving nuclear prolif causes a shift to bio-weapons
Cordesman 2k Anthony, Senior Fellow for Strategic Assessment—CSIS, Federal News Service, 3-28, L/N

New, critical technologies are escaping our control One of the problems I have noticed
AND
tends to simply push proliferation into other weapons systems and modes of delivery.

Bioweapons cause extinction—nuclear weapons don’t.
Singer 1— Clifford Singer, Director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign Spring 2001, “Will Mankind Survive the Millennium?” The Bulletin of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 13.1, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/research/SandPs/2001-Sp/SandP_XIII/Singer.htm

In recent years the fear of the apocalypse (or religious hope for it)
AND
beyond what it has already handily survived through the past fifty thousand years.
There are, however, two technologies currently under development that may pose a more
AND
human family may be in question when and if this is  achieved.

No impact to Iran prolif, it’s all posturing and no one will use weapons
Copley 13
Gregory, director of Australia’s new grand strategy research organization, the Future Directions Institute (FDI) (originally known as the Centre for International Strategic Analysis: CISA), in Perth, Western Australia. He remains actively involved with FDI, and is currently a Director of the organization and Chairman of its Research Committee, “The Transition Beyond Strategic Nuclear War”, 1/8/13,  http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/The-Transition-Beyond-Strategic-Nuclear-War.html

One government which successfully acquired nuclear weapons did not see possession of that asset protect
AND
they would, wouldn’t they? This is about psycho-political posturing).

Israel Strike wouldn’t escalate—not in either side’s interest
Rogan 8/18/12 (Thomas, MSc in Middle East politics from the School of Oriental and African Studies.
Israel could attack Iran without causing a major war in the region
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/18/israeli-attack-iran)
While it is likely Israel will attack Iran in the near future, it is
AND
pursuit of differing long-term objectives but common short-term ones.

No Israel strikes --- US doesn’t support it
New York Times, 1/26/2013. “Israeli Official Hints Pentagon Plans May Make Lone Strike on Iran Unnecessary,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/world/middleeast/defense-official-hints-that-israel-is-stepping-back-from-plans-to-unilaterally-attack-iran.html?_r=0.
Israel’s departing defense minister, Ehud Barak, said that the Pentagon had prepared sophisticated
AND
nuclear weapons.” But he did not again threaten to go it alone.
Your impact claims are based on reckless exaggeration—US has no reason to strike
Amuzegar 6 Jahangir, Finance Minister and Economic Ambassador for Iran’s pre-1979 government, Middle East Policy, “NUCLEAR IRAN: PERILS AND PROSPECTS”, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, Summer, Proquest

The question as to why the Islamic Republic should be denied a nuclearweapons capability,
AND
nor even the mullahs' bazaari habit of always looking for the best deal.

Iran wouldn’t retaliate—that would be regime suicide
Kroenig, 1/24/2012 (Matthew – Stanton Nuclear Security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Five Reasons to Attack Iran, Christian Science Monitor,  p. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0124/Five-reasons-to-attack-Iran/The-consequences-of-a-strike-are-manageable)
While serious, the consequences of a US strike on Iran’s nuclear program would be
AND
to save face, but that stops short of risking the regime’s survival.

Mideast escalation is exaggerated
Luttwak 7 (Edward, Senior Associate – Center for Strategic and International Studies, “The Middle of Nowhere”, Prospect, 5-26, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/05/themiddleofnowhere/)

Arab-Israeli catastrophism is wrong twice over, first because the conflict is contained
AND
stands ready to destroy any airstrip or jetty from which attacks are launched.
Be skeptical of their claims – Mid East war is hyped up to make news
Luttwak 7 (Edward, Senior Associate – Center for Strategic and International Studies, “The Middle of Nowhere”, Prospect Magazine, May, http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302)

Why are middle east experts so unfailingly wrong? The lesson of history is that
AND
about as many as are killed in a season of conflict in Darfur.   

Solvency
Congressional guarantees won’t help—Obama has said he wouldn’t follow it
BARRON* and LEDERMAN 08 *Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.   Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. David J. Barron* and Martin S. Lederman, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB - FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING, January, 2008, Havard Law Review, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 689

5. Further Assertions of the Preclusive Commander in Chief Power. - In light
AND
the OLC memorandum drafted two weeks after the attacks of September 11. n69

Their restriction is a smokescreen and will not be enforced
Nzelibe 7—Professor of Law @ Northwestern University Jide Nzelibe, “Are Congressionally Authorized Wars Perverse?” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 59, 2007

These assumptions are all questionable. As a preliminary matter, there is not much
AND
conflict objectives and implement new tools for monitoring executive behavior during wartime. 12
Yet, even if Congress were equipped with better institutional tools to constrain and monitor
AND
institutional incentives to monitor and constrain the President's behavior in an international crisis.
Various congressional observers have highlighted electoral disincentives that members of Congress might face in constraining
AND
powers are likely to fall on deaf ears. Pg. 912-913

Crisis pressure and information asymmetry means Congress will defer to the executive
Posner et al., Chicago law professor, 2011
(Eric, The Executive Unbound, pg 7-10, ldg)

Having defined our terms as far as possible, our main critical thesis is that
AND
wholly under the rule of law; periodically the shackles slip off altogether.

Case in point—no one gives two shits the WPR.  History is on our side
Keynes 92—Professor of Political Science @ Pennsylvania State University Keynes, Edward, “War Powers Resolution: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone,” University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 23, Issue 2 (Winter 1992), pp. 343-362

Despite various presidents' avoidance of the Resolution's formal reporting requirements, analysis and debate on
AND
. armed forces to combat or to regions where hostilities are imminent. 3'
Although U.S. presidents have submitted eighteen reports to Congress since 1973 (
AND
not achieved the hoped-for advance consultation and joint decision-making.  
As the first four episoaes (the Da Nang sea-lift, the evacuations
AND
the scope of the President's defensive authority as commander in chief.3 "
President Jimmy Carter failed to inform or consult Congress before the ill-fated attempt
AND
the zone of authority that the Constitution leaves to presidential discretion.4 '
President Ronald Reagan's use of armed forces in Lebanon, the dispatch of naval forces
AND
enacted the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution ("MFLR") on September 29 "
Although Reagan did not report to Congress under section 4(a)(1),
AND
revise the President's constitutional authority to deploy United States Armed Forces.''"
Since 1973, the War Powers Resolution's consulting, reporting, and triggering provisions have
AND
and dispatching armed forces to the Persian Gulf.  Pg. 252-353 

Showdown results in expanded Presidential authority.  Public sentiment will force Congress to capitulate
Posner and Vermeule 07—Professor of Law @ The University of Chicago and Professor of Law @ Harvard Law School Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule, “Constitutional Showdown,” University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper NO. 348, July 2007, pg. http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1002996

Public constitutional sentiment is the bedrock, but that does not mean that it will
AND
. Thus, we can ignore this possibility for purposes of our discussion.
If public constitutional sentiment will ultimately settle the question of whether Congress or the president
AND
ruin the electoral chances of their occupants. Pg. 16 -17,