Tournament: Navy | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kentucky GV | Judge: Patrick Waldinger

The President should release an Executive Order committing the branch to Solicitor General Representation and advance consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes.  
The Department of Justice officials involved should call for providing all relevant executive documents outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes to Congress.  
The Executive Order should also require written disclosure of these Office of Legal Counsel opinions.  
The Executive Branch should outline the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes in the area of targeted killing.

Executive pre-commitment to DOJ advice solves the aff

Pillard 5 (February, Cornelia T., Michigan Law Review, 103.4, “The Unfulfilled Promise of the Constitution in Executive Hands”, 103 Mich. L. Rev. 676-758, http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/189/)

The courts indisputably do not and cannot fully assure our enjoyment of our constitutional rights, and it
AND
rights is part of the executive's interest, not counter to it.

Tournament: Navy | Round: 6 | Opponent: Navy MR | Judge: John Katsulas

4-4 split on Bond now—overrule impacts treaty power and federalism

Greve 13 (Michael, 2013 “Straight Up, With Multiple Twists: Bond v. United States” Library of Law and Liberty http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/01/21/straight-up-with-multiple-twists-bond-v-united-states/) RDH 

Herewith, Bond v. United States is making its fourth appearance on this blog (prior entries here, here, and here.)
AND
constitutional boundaries for many, many years to come.

Actions to limit the presidency are controversial—they sap judicial capital

McGinnis, Assistant Professor, Cardozo School of Law (John 1993 “Foreign Affairs and War Powers” http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4213andcontext=lcp) 

A useful thought experiment to aid in evaluating the interests of the Court in deciding war powers and other separation of powers
AND
minimizes the chance of retaliation against its own interests.

Decsion in Bond reverses precedent—functionally eliminates non self-executing treaties

Ku 13 (Julian 2013, “Will Bond v. United States Matter?” Opinio Juris http://opiniojuris.org/2013/01/19/will-bond-v-united-states-matter/) RDH 

Bond v. United States is one of those cases that promises both more and less than it seems.¶ At first glance, it seems an
AND
route to avoid futureBond-like challenges to their treaties.

Treaties solve extinction

Koh and Smith 3 (Harold, Professor of International Law, and Bernice, Yale Law School; Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, “FOREWORD: On American Exceptionalism,” May 2003)

Similarly, the oxymoronic concept of "imposed democracy" authorizes top-down regime change in the name of democracy. Yet the
AND
Iraq, the Middle East crisis, or the renewed nuclear militarization of North Korea.

Tournament: Navy | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kentucky GV | Judge: Patrick Waldinger

There’s executive war power authority in the status quo- the plan reverses that trend

Posner 13 (Eric Posner, 9/3/13, Obama Is Only Making His War Powers Mightier, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/09/obama_going_to_congress_on_syria_he_s_actually_strengthening_the_war_powers.html)

President Obama’s surprise announcement that he will ask Congress for approval of a military attack on Syria is being hailed as a
AND
it will stand in his way.

Presidential flexibility is key to responding to terrorism and WMD attacks

Yoo 13 (John, law professor at the University of California Berkeley, “Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval,” Fox News, August 30, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/30/constitution-allows-obama-to-strike-syria-without-congressional-approval/#ixzz2dt2z2ocD) 

Since World War II, it has been Congress that has authorized and funded our large standing
AND
proliferation, now is not the time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.

Terrorist groups and proliferation require efficient executive action

Li 9 (Zheyao, George University, Yale Law School, internship in the department of justice, “War Powers for the Fourth Generation: Constitutional Interpretation in the Age of Asymmetric Warfare,” Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 7, pp. 380-381) 

Another shortcoming of Professor Koh's proposal to introduce new institutional checks and balances on the war powers through
AND
to wait on congressional debate and approval before acting to prevent the loss of American lives.

Terrorism causes extinction

Hellman 8 (Martin E, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence” SPRING, THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)

The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article
AND
World War III is a necessity—not an option.

Tournament: Navy | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kentucky GV | Judge: Patrick Waldinger

Obama waging an intense fight to block new round of sanctions – he wins now but failure would scuttle US-Iran negotiations and risk war

Landler and Wiesman 1-13-14 (Obama Fights a Push to Add Iran Sanctions. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/world/middleeast/obama-fights-a-push-to-add-iran-sanctions.html?_r=0)

WASHINGTON — With the United States and Iran about to embark on a critical phase of
AND
allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work.” 

Challenges to war powers authority drains political capital which spills over to the broader political agenda

Kriner 10 (Douglas, Assistant professor of political science at Boston University, “After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War,” University of Chicago Press)

While congressional support leaves the president’s reserve of political capital intact,
AND
stood behind him in the international arena.

Obama’s clout will be critical to hold off Congressional hawks and new sanctions – failure crushes US global leadership

Leverett 11-7-13 (Profs of International Relations at Penn State. America’s Moment of Truth on Iran. http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/23789)

America’s Iran policy is at a crossroads.  Washington can abandon its counterproductive
AND
future standing as a great power depends significantly on his readiness to do so.

U.S. leadership solves great power war

Khalilzad 11 (Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, February 8, 2011, “The Economy and National Security; If we don’t get our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity,” online:  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)

We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as
AND
Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.

Tournament: Navy | Round: 3 | Opponent: John Carroll MS | Judge: Garrett Crane

Sanctions cause violence against those imposed upon—it’s an ethical constraint

Anderson 10 (David E., September 13, Religion and Ethics Weekly, “The Ethics of Sanctions”, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2010/09/13/the-ethics-of-sanctions/7016/, accessed 7/6/13)

Sanctions are attractive to policy makers—and the public—for a number of reasons. They
AND
that the sanctions regime could properly be termed genocidal.”

Tournament: Navy | Round: 3 | Opponent: John Carroll MS | Judge: Garrett Crane

Interpretation: indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person without trial

ASK 13 (“Indefinite Detention,” May 29, 2013, ASK, http://www.ask.com/wiki/Indefinite_detention) 

Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law
AND
governments have indefinitely held those suspected to be involved in terrorism, declaring them as enemy combatants.

Tournament: Navy | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kentucky GV | Judge: Patrick Waldinger

Restrictions are prohibitions on action -~-- the aff is oversight

Schiedler-Brown 12 (Attorney, Jean Schiedler-Brown and Associates, Appellant Brief of Randall Kinchloe v. States Dept of Health, Washington,  The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division 1, http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A01/68642920Appellant20Randall20Kincheloe27s.pdf)

3. The ordinary definition of the term "restrictions" also does not include the reporting and
AND
restrict his license.

Restrictions on authority are distinct from conditions

Conner 78 (former federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York United States District Court, S. D. New York, CORPORACION VENEZOLANA de FOMENTO v. VINTERO SALES, http://www.leagle.com/decision/19781560452FSupp1108_11379)

Properly interpreted, the "conditions" that had been imposed by plaintiff's Board of Directors and by the
AND
were not authorized to act except upon the fulfillment of the specified conditions.