Tournament: GSU | Round: 3 | Opponent:  | Judge:
Targeted Killing Neg 

T

Interpretation: The aff must increase EXISTING restrictions.

"Increase" means a net increase

Rogers 5 (Judge – New York, et al., Petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12378, ; 60 ERC (BNA) 1791, 6/24, Lexis)

~48~  Statutory Interpretation. HN16While the CAA defines a "modification" as
AND
car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.

Violation: Plan creates new types of restrictions—- voting issue:

1. Limits —- they can create any restriction, the entire range of possible forms of restrictions becomes topical —- overstretches Neg research burdens —- we allow a fair number of existing types like …

2. Ground —- best links assume existing X, they change the debate from improving current capabilities to creating new forms —- undermines core ground and fairness

K

Linear construction ignores the complexity which taints predictions—the aff’s linear policy making fails and makes analysis of presidential war power impossible

Ghoshray 9
(Dr. Saby." "False Consciousness and Presidential War Power: Examining the Shadowy Bends of Constitutional  Curvature" He specializes in Supreme Court Jurisprudence, International  Law, Comparative Constitutionalism, Capital Jurisprudence, and Cyberspace Law, among others. His work has appeared in Albany Law Review, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, European Law Journal ERAForum, Toledo Law Review, Temple Political 26 Civil Rights Law Review, Catholic Law Journal, Georgetown International Law Review, Fordham Law Journal, Santa Clara Law Review, and Loyola Law Journal, among others.http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=109526context=lawreview
9-20 kjl)

This raises the question of whether every complex¶ scenario of today can be adequately
AND
reacting to the change in pace.¶ This was echoed by Professor Tribe: 

Policymaking through law is a complex adaptive system – that takes out their impacts and turns the aff

Ruhl 7
(J.B. Georgia State University Law Review Volume 24 "Law’s Complexity: A Primer"¶ Issue 4 Summer 2008 Article 9 kjl)
What lessons come out of this exercise? Many are possible, but¶ three
AND
complexity counsels us ¶ to design law to think like complex adaptive system.

Linear policy making creates a false solution preventing the adaptability necessary to respond to global threats

Tabara 11
(David. J. Global Systems Dynamics and Policy GSDP is an initiative to develop a research program for the study of global systems, complexity and sustainability in an ongoing dialogue with decision makers. GSDP operates as an open network evolving through workshops, working papers, publications, and open conferences. It aims at consolidating an international community of researchers engaged in dialogues with decision-makers. GSDP operate over a period of three years. GSPD work is broken down into seven work packages that operate in parallel, synchronized by annual conferences and interacting through meetings, documents, and intensive use of ICT. "An emerging research program for Global Systems Science" http://gsdp.eu/fileadmin/images/about/GSDP_1st-year-deliverables.pdf kjl)

The recent financial crisis highlights the challenges of, and the potential of catastrophic impacts
AND
closest to a definition, no coherent understanding of systemic risk yet exists.

The alternative is to reject linear thinking in complex adaptive systems in favor of complexity analysis.

Reimagining the legal process through complexity is key – it provides a better perspective to respond to the constant changing socio-legal environment

Ghoshray 9
(Dr. Saby." "False Consciousness and Presidential War Power:¶ Examining the Shadowy Bends of Constitutional¶ Curvature" He specializes in Supreme Court Jurisprudence, International¶ Law, Comparative Constitutionalism, Capital Jurisprudence, and Cyberspace¶ Law, among others. His work has appeared in Albany Law Review, ILSA¶ Journal of International and Comparative Law, European Law Journal ERAForum,¶ Toledo Law Review, Temple Political 26 Civil Rights Law Review,¶ Catholic Law Journal, Georgetown International Law Review, Fordham Law¶ Journal, Santa Clara Law Review, and Loyola Law Journal, among others.http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=109526context=lawreview
9-20 kjl)
These two scenarios reveal situations in which the¶ needed information remains occluded from view
AND
are better equipped to deal with uncertainties of changing socio-legal  environment.

CP

CP Text: The Executive branch of the United States should limit targeted killings to individuals who U.S. officials claim are being targeted, provide a public accounting of how it meets the principles of distinction and proportionality that the Obama administration claims, review its current policy whereby the executive authority for drone strikes is split between the CIA and JSOC, provide information to the public, Congress and UN special rapporteurs on what procedures exist to prevent harm to civilians, ban the use of signature strikes and never conduct non battlefield targeted killings without an accountable human being authorizing the strike.

Self-Restraint solves

YOUR AUTHOR Zenko 13 (Micah, Dr. Zenko is a Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), he worked for five years at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution, Congressional Research Service, and State Department’s Office of Policy Planning, Council Special Report No.65, January 2013, Reforming US Drone Strike Policies, i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Drones_CSR65.pdf)

The president of the United States should¶ ?? limit targeted killings to individuals who
AND
in warfare in response to ground-based antiaircraft fire or aerial combat).

Backlash against Obama on executive actions won’t gain traction

Ramsey 12
(MICHAEL D. RAMSEY, is Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, "THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION—2011: MEET THE NEW BOSS: CONTINUITY IN PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS?" Summer, 2012, Harvard Journal of Law 26 Public Policy, LexisNexis, KB)

Thus there has been an escalation in the use of unconstitutional executive war power under
AND
to the prior administration, but rather the increased disregard of constitutional limits.

PLTX

Debt Ceiling Will Pass, Republicans Afraid of Getting Blame for a Govnt Default

CBS News -"Obama: ’Threat Of Not Raising The Debt Ceiling Being Used To Extort’ Me"September 19, 2013 8:27 AM, Date Accessed 9/19/13 8:58PM. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/obama-threat-of-not-raising-the-debt-ceiling-being-used-to-extort-me/ VED
R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the Chamber of Commerce for government
AND
without action by Congress, that default will arrive in mid-October.

Obama will exhaust PC fighting restrictions

Walker 13 ~Richard, Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer who now works as a political corrspondent for American FreePRess.com, "Obama Expands War Powers; Can Unleash Cyberwar Any Time", http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11966, August 02, 2013; DOA: 9-12-2013~JCP

The very moment United States President Barack Obama authorized the "dropping" of an
AND
should concern his allies as much as the American people," he warned.

Targeted Killing Hugely Popular - Public Sees it as Necessary to Fight Terrorism

Merolla 13
(Jennifer Merolla, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University… 5/28/13… "Terrorism Threat Elevates Public Support for Drones"… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-merolla-phd/public-opinion-drones_b_3340280.html ... 6/4/13… RTV)
This past week the Obama administration released records indicating that, alongside the many civilian
AND
efforts will be needed to shift the general opinion of a threatened public. 

Negotiations over debt ceiling risks possible failure and causes massive drawn out fight and hostage taking – tanks economy

Chait, 7/12
Jonathan Chait, commentator and writer for New York magazine. He was previously a senior editor at The New Republic and a former assistant editor of The American Prospect. He also writes a periodic column in the Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, 7/12/13, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/john-boehners-coming-sharknado.html

Meanwhile, the tornado is the debt ceiling. After the 2011 debacle, the
AND
wind, and he will reap the whirlwind — a whirlwind of sharks.

Solvency

Empirically proven, statutory restrictions are flimsy

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
As much as the Court’s own doctrine suggests that the conventional scholarly template has been
AND
to control the conduct of a war once it is under-way.

Empirically proven for war

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
38 The infamous 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum on torture,
AND
right to act in defiance of congressional limitations in a range of areas.

Administration call restriction of force unconstitutional when they want – Iran proves

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
5. Further Assertions of the Preclusive Commander in Chief Power.¶ — In light
AND
OLC memorandum drafted two weeks after the attacks of ¶ September 11.¶ 69

In times of war, presidents ignore statutory restrictions via statutory construction

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
3. The Criminalization of Wartime Conduct. — The potential for ¶ interbranch constitutional
AND
readings of statutes in ¶ order to avoid allegedly serious Article II questions).

Multiple examples prove, restrictions everyday and they are ignored

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
5. Congressional Responses to Increasingly Aggressive Assertions of ¶ Unilateral Presidential Authority To Use
AND
military force overlooks the frequency of congressional intervention ¶ once a conflict has begun

Drone Prolif

Aff can’t stop drone prolif

Metz 2013 ~Steven Metz is a defense analyst and the author of "Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy." His weekly WPR column, Strategic Horizons, appears every Wednesday 27 Feb 2013 World Politics Review "Strategic Horizons: The Strategy Behind U.S. Drone Strikes" http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12747/strategic-horizons-the-strategy-behind-u-s-drone-strikes~~
Both of these arguments are shaky. There is little or no evidence that nations
AND
terrorists or terrorist supporters were motivated exclusively or primarily by American drone strikes. 

====It’s too late to solve drone prolif – more than 50 countries have the tech and China is about to mass-produce them ====
Noel Sharkey, December 1, 2011, Professor of AI and Robotics and Professor of Public Engagement at the University of Sheffield and Leverhulme Research Fellow on Battlefield Robots, "The Automation and Proliferation of Military Drones and the Protection of Civilians," http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=03668503-81b1-4af6-9fef-7418e646682840sessionmgr10426vid=226hid=106
There are now at least 50 countries using UAVs.2 Many of these are
AND
a significant impact on how disputes are handled and what constitutes a war. 

Doesn’t lower the threshold for conflict

Carpenter and Shaikhouni 2011 ~Charli Carpenter is associate professor of international relations at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and blogs about human security at the Duck of Minerva. Lina Shaikhouni is completing a degree in political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, with an emphasis on human rights and humanitarian law. June 7 2011 Foreign Policy "Don’t Fear the Reaper" http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/07/dont_fear_the_reaper?page=0,1~
Misconception No. 2: Drones Make War Easy and Game-Like, and
AND
to serve humanitarian outcomes — by embedding war law programming into game designs.

Drone courts don’t solve – they aren’t transparent

Shane, 2013 (Scott Shane, New York Times, February 8, 2013, "Debating a Court to Vet Drone Strikes" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html)*~~~~ inserted for clairty
With such limits, however, a drone court would not address many of the
AND
to decide without an adversary party to sign a death warrant for somebody."

1. No impact —aggressors don’t have the intel or experience to be capable of attack

Admiral Dennis Blair, Former Director of National Intelligence, "U.S. Drone Strike Policies: Speakers: Admiral Dennis Blair, Former Director of National Intelligence, and Micah Zenko, Douglas Dillon Fellow," Conversation at CFR, January 22, 2013.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from KT McFarland with Fox News.¶ QUESTIONER:
AND
cause us to have to take some more defensive measures in the future.

2. No prolif – no major prolif over next 10 years – too costly and not effective enough

Micah Zenko, Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies," CPA at CFR, Council Special Report No. 65, January 2013.
Based on current trends, it is unlikely that most states will have, within
AND
will undertake the significant investment required for armed drones in the near term.

3. Expansion of drones is inevitable—Manufacturers want money and human operated aircraft aren’t being developed anymore

Right Vision News 2012
~Pakistani news agency, "Pakistan: 76 countries acquire drones, pose new threat to global security," 03 Oct 2012, proquest, wyo-sc~
¶ Recently, in an unconfirmed report, it was alleged that Israel used a
AND
of unmanned aerial systems than fighter and bomber pilots combined, the report added

Tournament: GSU | Round: 1 | Opponent: Iowa HK | Judge:
Targeted Killing Neg 

T

Interpretation: The aff must increase EXISTING restrictions.

"Increase" means a net increase

Rogers 5 (Judge – New York, et al., Petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12378, ; 60 ERC (BNA) 1791, 6/24, Lexis)

~48~  Statutory Interpretation. HN16While the CAA defines a "modification" as
AND
car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.

Violation: Plan creates new types of restrictions—- voting issue:

1. Limits —- they can create any restriction, the entire range of possible forms of restrictions becomes topical —- overstretches Neg research burdens —- we allow a fair number of existing types like …

2. Ground —- best links assume existing X, they change the debate from improving current capabilities to creating new forms —- undermines core ground and fairness

T

Interpretation –

Introduction of "United States Armed Forces" only means personnel

Eric Lorber – January 2013, EXECUTIVE WARMAKING AUTHORITY AND OFFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS: CAN EXISTING LEGISLATION SUCCESSFULLY CONSTRAIN PRESIDENTIAL POWER?, J.D. Candidate, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Ph.D Candidate, Duke University Department of Political Science, JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Vol. 15:3 , https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1773-lorber15upajconstl9612013

As discussed above, critical to the application of the War Powers Resolution—especially
AND
human members of the armed forces, such a conclusion is not determinative. 

The aff is not topical —- introducing armed forces only refers to human troops, not weapons systems such as nuclear weapons —- prefer our interpretation because it’s based on textual analysis, legislative history, and intent of the WPR

Lorber 13 – Eric Lorber, J.D. Candidate, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Ph.D Candidate, Duke University Department of Political Science. January 2013, "Executive Warmaking Authority and Offensive Cyber Operations: Can Existing Legislation Successfully Constrain Presidential Power?" University of Pennsylvania Journal of Contsitutional Law, 15 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 961, lexis nexis
As is evident from a textual analysis, n177 an examination of the legislative history
AND
is highly unlikely - such operations will not trigger the War Powers Resolution.
Vote negative for predictable limits —- nuclear weapons is a whole topic on its own —- requires research into a whole separate literature base —- undermines preparedness for all debates.

Violation – the Aff includes weapons systems / other non-human capabilities

Vote Neg –

Extra topical – impossible to predict infinite number of things they could add on to the plan

Predictable limits – The United States has hundreds of different weapons systems that could be deployed by any of the 4 services across over 200 countries – These include nukes, which was its own entire topic 4 years ago

Ground – Deploying troops is the core question of the president’s war power because it puts troops in harm’s way – there’s no disadvantage to repositioning a forward-deployed systems

K

Linear construction ignores the complexity which taints predictions—the aff’s linear policy making fails and makes analysis of presidential war power impossible

Ghoshray 9
(Dr. Saby." "False Consciousness and Presidential War Power: Examining the Shadowy Bends of Constitutional  Curvature" He specializes in Supreme Court Jurisprudence, International  Law, Comparative Constitutionalism, Capital Jurisprudence, and Cyberspace Law, among others. His work has appeared in Albany Law Review, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, European Law Journal ERAForum, Toledo Law Review, Temple Political 26 Civil Rights Law Review, Catholic Law Journal, Georgetown International Law Review, Fordham Law Journal, Santa Clara Law Review, and Loyola Law Journal, among others.http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=109526context=lawreview
9-20 kjl)

This raises the question of whether every complex¶ scenario of today can be adequately
AND
reacting to the change in pace.¶ This was echoed by Professor Tribe: 

Policymaking through law is a complex adaptive system – that takes out their impacts and turns the aff

Ruhl 7
(J.B. Georgia State University Law Review Volume 24 "Law’s Complexity: A Primer"¶ Issue 4 Summer 2008 Article 9 kjl)
What lessons come out of this exercise? Many are possible, but¶ three
AND
complexity counsels us ¶ to design law to think like complex adaptive system.

Linear policy making creates a false solution preventing the adaptability necessary to respond to global threats

Tabara 11
(David. J. Global Systems Dynamics and Policy GSDP is an initiative to develop a research program for the study of global systems, complexity and sustainability in an ongoing dialogue with decision makers. GSDP operates as an open network evolving through workshops, working papers, publications, and open conferences. It aims at consolidating an international community of researchers engaged in dialogues with decision-makers. GSDP operate over a period of three years. GSPD work is broken down into seven work packages that operate in parallel, synchronized by annual conferences and interacting through meetings, documents, and intensive use of ICT. "An emerging research program for Global Systems Science" http://gsdp.eu/fileadmin/images/about/GSDP_1st-year-deliverables.pdf kjl)

The recent financial crisis highlights the challenges of, and the potential of catastrophic impacts
AND
closest to a definition, no coherent understanding of systemic risk yet exists.

The alternative is to reject linear thinking in complex adaptive systems in favor of complexity analysis.

Reimagining the legal process through complexity is key – it provides a better perspective to respond to the constant changing socio-legal environment

Ghoshray 9
(Dr. Saby." "False Consciousness and Presidential War Power:¶ Examining the Shadowy Bends of Constitutional¶ Curvature" He specializes in Supreme Court Jurisprudence, International¶ Law, Comparative Constitutionalism, Capital Jurisprudence, and Cyberspace¶ Law, among others. His work has appeared in Albany Law Review, ILSA¶ Journal of International and Comparative Law, European Law Journal ERAForum,¶ Toledo Law Review, Temple Political 26 Civil Rights Law Review,¶ Catholic Law Journal, Georgetown International Law Review, Fordham Law¶ Journal, Santa Clara Law Review, and Loyola Law Journal, among others.http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=109526context=lawreview
9-20 kjl)
These two scenarios reveal situations in which the¶ needed information remains occluded from view
AND
are better equipped to deal with uncertainties of changing socio-legal  environment.

CP

CP Text: The Executive branch of the United States should limit targeted killings to individuals who U.S. officials claim are being targeted, provide a public accounting of how it meets the principles of distinction and proportionality that the Obama administration claims, review its current policy whereby the executive authority for drone strikes is split between the CIA and JSOC, provide information to the public, Congress and UN special rapporteurs on what procedures exist to prevent harm to civilians, ban the use of signature strikes and never conduct non battlefield targeted killings without an accountable human being authorizing the strike.

Self-Restraint solves

YOUR AUTHOR Zenko 13 (Micah, Dr. Zenko is a Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), he worked for five years at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution, Congressional Research Service, and State Department’s Office of Policy Planning, Council Special Report No.65, January 2013, Reforming US Drone Strike Policies, i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Drones_CSR65.pdf)

The president of the United States should¶ ?? limit targeted killings to individuals who
AND
in warfare in response to ground-based antiaircraft fire or aerial combat).

Backlash against Obama on executive actions won’t gain traction

Ramsey 12
(MICHAEL D. RAMSEY, is Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, "THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION—2011: MEET THE NEW BOSS: CONTINUITY IN PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS?" Summer, 2012, Harvard Journal of Law 26 Public Policy, LexisNexis, KB)

Thus there has been an escalation in the use of unconstitutional executive war power under
AND
to the prior administration, but rather the increased disregard of constitutional limits.

PLTX

Debt Ceiling Will Pass, Republicans Afraid of Getting Blame for a Govnt Default

CBS News -"Obama: ’Threat Of Not Raising The Debt Ceiling Being Used To Extort’ Me"September 19, 2013 8:27 AM, Date Accessed 9/19/13 8:58PM. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/obama-threat-of-not-raising-the-debt-ceiling-being-used-to-extort-me/ VED
R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the Chamber of Commerce for government
AND
without action by Congress, that default will arrive in mid-October.

Obama will exhaust PC fighting restrictions

Walker 13 ~Richard, Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer who now works as a political corrspondent for American FreePRess.com, "Obama Expands War Powers; Can Unleash Cyberwar Any Time", http://americanfreepress.net/?p=11966, August 02, 2013; DOA: 9-12-2013~JCP

The very moment United States President Barack Obama authorized the "dropping" of an
AND
should concern his allies as much as the American people," he warned.

Targeted Killing Hugely Popular - Public Sees it as Necessary to Fight Terrorism

Merolla 13
(Jennifer Merolla, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University… 5/28/13… "Terrorism Threat Elevates Public Support for Drones"… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-merolla-phd/public-opinion-drones_b_3340280.html ... 6/4/13… RTV)
This past week the Obama administration released records indicating that, alongside the many civilian
AND
efforts will be needed to shift the general opinion of a threatened public. 

Negotiations over debt ceiling risks possible failure and causes massive drawn out fight and hostage taking – tanks economy

Chait, 7/12
Jonathan Chait, commentator and writer for New York magazine. He was previously a senior editor at The New Republic and a former assistant editor of The American Prospect. He also writes a periodic column in the Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, 7/12/13, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/john-boehners-coming-sharknado.html

Meanwhile, the tornado is the debt ceiling. After the 2011 debacle, the
AND
wind, and he will reap the whirlwind — a whirlwind of sharks.

Solvency

Empirically proven, statutory restrictions are flimsy

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
As much as the Court’s own doctrine suggests that the conventional scholarly template has been
AND
to control the conduct of a war once it is under-way.

Empirically proven for war

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
38 The infamous 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum on torture,
AND
right to act in defiance of congressional limitations in a range of areas.

Administration call restriction of force unconstitutional when they want – Iran proves

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
5. Further Assertions of the Preclusive Commander in Chief Power.¶ — In light
AND
OLC memorandum drafted two weeks after the attacks of ¶ September 11.¶ 69

In times of war, presidents ignore statutory restrictions via statutory construction

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
3. The Criminalization of Wartime Conduct. — The potential for ¶ interbranch constitutional
AND
readings of statutes in ¶ order to avoid allegedly serious Article II questions).

Multiple examples prove, restrictions everyday and they are ignored

Barron and Lederman 8
(?¶ Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. ¶ ?? Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. These articles grew out of a ¶ conversation that we began in 2004 with a group of our former colleagues from the Office of Legal Counsel, including Walter Dellinger, Vicki Jackson, Dawn Johnsen, Neil Kinkopf, Trevor ¶ Morrison, Randy Moss, Beth Nolan, Nina Pillard, Jeff Powell, Richard Shiffrin, Chris Schroeder, ¶ and Michael Small. WTHE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — ¶ FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, ¶ AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/barron_lederman.pdf kjl)
5. Congressional Responses to Increasingly Aggressive Assertions of ¶ Unilateral Presidential Authority To Use
AND
military force overlooks the frequency of congressional intervention ¶ once a conflict has begun

Drone Prolif

Aff can’t stop drone prolif

Metz 2013 ~Steven Metz is a defense analyst and the author of "Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy." His weekly WPR column, Strategic Horizons, appears every Wednesday 27 Feb 2013 World Politics Review "Strategic Horizons: The Strategy Behind U.S. Drone Strikes" http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12747/strategic-horizons-the-strategy-behind-u-s-drone-strikes~~
Both of these arguments are shaky. There is little or no evidence that nations
AND
terrorists or terrorist supporters were motivated exclusively or primarily by American drone strikes. 

====It’s too late to solve drone prolif – more than 50 countries have the tech and China is about to mass-produce them ====
Noel Sharkey, December 1, 2011, Professor of AI and Robotics and Professor of Public Engagement at the University of Sheffield and Leverhulme Research Fellow on Battlefield Robots, "The Automation and Proliferation of Military Drones and the Protection of Civilians," http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=03668503-81b1-4af6-9fef-7418e646682840sessionmgr10426vid=226hid=106
There are now at least 50 countries using UAVs.2 Many of these are
AND
a significant impact on how disputes are handled and what constitutes a war. 

Doesn’t lower the threshold for conflict

Carpenter and Shaikhouni 2011 ~Charli Carpenter is associate professor of international relations at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and blogs about human security at the Duck of Minerva. Lina Shaikhouni is completing a degree in political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, with an emphasis on human rights and humanitarian law. June 7 2011 Foreign Policy "Don’t Fear the Reaper" http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/07/dont_fear_the_reaper?page=0,1~
Misconception No. 2: Drones Make War Easy and Game-Like, and
AND
to serve humanitarian outcomes — by embedding war law programming into game designs.

Drone courts don’t solve – they aren’t transparent

Shane, 2013 (Scott Shane, New York Times, February 8, 2013, "Debating a Court to Vet Drone Strikes" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/a-court-to-vet-kill-lists.html)*~~~~ inserted for clairty
With such limits, however, a drone court would not address many of the
AND
to decide without an adversary party to sign a death warrant for somebody."

1. No impact —aggressors don’t have the intel or experience to be capable of attack

Admiral Dennis Blair, Former Director of National Intelligence, "U.S. Drone Strike Policies: Speakers: Admiral Dennis Blair, Former Director of National Intelligence, and Micah Zenko, Douglas Dillon Fellow," Conversation at CFR, January 22, 2013.
OPERATOR: Our next question comes from KT McFarland with Fox News.¶ QUESTIONER:
AND
cause us to have to take some more defensive measures in the future.

2. No prolif – no major prolif over next 10 years – too costly and not effective enough

Micah Zenko, Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies," CPA at CFR, Council Special Report No. 65, January 2013.
Based on current trends, it is unlikely that most states will have, within
AND
will undertake the significant investment required for armed drones in the near term.

3. Expansion of drones is inevitable—Manufacturers want money and human operated aircraft aren’t being developed anymore

Right Vision News 2012
~Pakistani news agency, "Pakistan: 76 countries acquire drones, pose new threat to global security," 03 Oct 2012, proquest, wyo-sc~
¶ Recently, in an unconfirmed report, it was alleged that Israel used a
AND
of unmanned aerial systems than fighter and bomber pilots combined, the report added