1AC
Same as round 2
2AC
T
A2: US = USFG
We meet – the plan includes USFG action and the states are clearly part of the
“federal” government – your interp assumes the NATIONAL government
“United States” means the federal government and the 50 states – federal
jurisprudence proves
Bland 5 (Jane, Judge - Texas Court of Appeals, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 664, lexis)
Although his appellate brief does not present a specific issue, Leaf's contention on appeal appears to be that the trial court erred in granting CDI's
motion for summary judgment, declaring that CDI has the legal authority to withhold federal taxes from Leaf's wages. Leaf claims that by
withholding federal taxes from his wages, CDI attempted to "compel and entrap [Leaf] to volunteer into a foreign jurisdiction and consent to be
governed within the federal government's exclusive legislative jurisdiction." Leaf asserts that he is not subject to "federal [*4] statutes that are
locally inapplicable." Relying on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, Leaf contends that the social
security and income tax laws are applicable only to areas where Congress has the power to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction--those areas set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, and that Congress is not
constitutionally empowered to tax citizens of the State of Texas. U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 8, cl. 17. 1 In further support of his argument, Leaf
cites to the definition section of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides the following: (e) HN2Go to this Headnote in
the case.State, United States, and citizen. For the purposes of this chapter- (1) State. The term "State" includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (2) United
States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. 26 U.S.C. § 3121(e) (2000). Leaf claims that, as these
definitions do not refer to the fifty states, subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code governing employment [*5] taxes and the
collection of income tax is not applicable to the fifty states, including Texas. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
HN3Go to this Headnote in the case."Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of
the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall
be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 8, cl. 17. - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Leaf's contention is without merit . Federal courts have consistently
rejected similar arguments . In United States v. Ward, the Eleventh Court of Appeals held that HN4Go to this
Headnote in the case.the term "included" in 26 U.S.C. § 3121(e) is not a term of limitation, but rather is a term of definition that clarifies that
the United States includes not only the fifty states, but also the District of Columbia
[*6]
and
United States territories . Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); see also United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499,
501 (7th Cir. 1991) (stating that "all individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they
requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government"); In re Becraft), 885 F.2d 547, 548-49 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that
federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of non-apportioned direct income tax on
United States citizens residing in United States and validity of federal income tax laws applied to such citizens).
That’s best –
--key to Aff innovation – USFG only stifles aff innovation and creativity –
alternative agents like the states encourages new, refreshing takes on the topic
AND
No limits explosion – literature and solvency advocates check topic explosion AND
we’re not “the state of Delaware should legalize” pot
AND
Your interp is IMPRECISE - “United States” doesn’t mean federal only
Erb 11 (Jason, Financial/Economic Analyst, "The United States isn't a federal corporation,"
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2011/01/29/the-united-states-isnt-a-federal-corporation/)
Some point to the United States Code (USC) to claim that the United States is a federal corporation, and not
a union of states as described in the original Constitution. From Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, Section 3002 of the USC:
(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States. If
you look at the context of that definition, it becomes clear that it’s
not saying that the United States is a federal corporation , but rather, it’s referring to federal
corporations incorporated by the United States. At the beginning of the section, it says: “As used in this chapter:“ Therefore,
the reference to the “United States” as “a federal corporation” is only applicable to Title 28, Part VI,
Chapter 176 of the United States Code. Even within that limited context, it’s not referring to the
United States as a federal corporation . If that was the intent, it would have been defined as “the United
States, a Federal corporation.” Looking at a different subchapter of the same chapter, namely, Subchapter D, Section 3306 (Remedies
of the United States), (a): “(1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt to the United States;“ If the
meaning of “(A) a Federal corporation” is substituted, we get: (1) avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the debt
to a Federal corporation. Examples of United States federal corporations can be found here. In my article, A Constitution for the United States of
America or of the United States?, I show how the Founding Fathers who signed the Constitution drew no distinction
between the two, despite the claim that the United States of America is a nation and the United States is a
corporation.
AND
Aff Flex – non-USFG mechanisms are critical to aff innovation and solvency –
there’s no lit base for a USFG-only weed aff
AND
No ground loss – plenty of generic ground against state-level action given the
controversy of marijuana AND you still can say pot bad
AND
Extra T is good – Increases neg link ground through disad links and increase policy
analysis and topic education by ensuring we debate specific legalization proposals
AND
Reasonability checks – good is good enough – competing interps is arbitrary and
justifies continually shifting the goal posts to exclude high-quality affirmatives
clearly grounded in the literature
A2: Legalize = Tax and Regulate
We meet – we create state stores and regulate – 1AC kleiman – we specified in the
1AC and crossx
Counter interp – legalize means regulate – includes state-run systems like kleimans
Blumer 13 (Emma, JD Candidate @ NYU, "COMMENTS: Beinor v. Industrial Claims Appeals
Office," 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 205, lexis)
Subsection (4)(a) of the Medical Marijuana Amendment reads, "A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana, with no more marijuana
than is medically necessary to address a debilitating medical condition. A patient's medical use of marijuana, within the following limits, is
lawful," n98 which means "legal." n99 The courts have recognized a difference between decriminalization and
legalization. n100 Decriminalization involves the removal of criminal penalties and therefore the removal
of the threat of incarceration and loss of freedom. n101 For example, when Connecticut decriminalized the possession of
marijuana under one-half ounce, it did not thereby create a right to possess marijuana, but rather made such possession a criminal infraction and
not a criminal act. n102
In contrast, legalization means the government has the ability to regulate use and
distribution . n103 Colorado made it "lawful" to use marijuana for medical purposes, and thus created a right to use medical marijuana
within the prescribed conditions. Thus, the question is whether "lawful" indicates that the Amendment arguably did more than remove a criminal
[*218] prohibition and created a right to use medical marijuana under the conditions specified. At the very least the Amendment was ambiguous
in this regard. The Colorado Court of Appeals was bound to construe the Amendment by giving meaning to every word it contained, using the
ordinary meaning of the Amendment's words. n104 The word "lawful" means "legal"; therefore the result of making something
lawful (when it previously was not) is to legalize, something materially different than a mere
exemption from criminal prosecution . n105 Legalization typically means that civil and other penalties
cannot be imposed for engaging in a given behavior. n106 The majority noted that it was not empowered to "add or subtract language from
the express words of the amendment." n107 Yet, by construing the word "lawful" to mean decriminalize rather than anything other than "legal,"
the court changed the apparent meaning of the Amendment, thereby allowing it to find that no ambiguity existed and to avoid looking at extrinsic
evidence that would have clarified what the voters intended in approving the initiative. n108 n99 See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 965 (9th
ed. 2009) (defining lawful as "[n]ot contrary to law; permitted bylaw. See LEGAL"); see also ERICH GOODE, BETWEEN POLITICS AND
REASON: THE DRUG LEGALIZATION DEBATE, 78 (1997) ("Legalization
refers to a state licensing system more or
less similar to that which prevails for alcohol and tobacco."). n100 See SAM KAMIN 8C CHRISTOPHER S. MORRIS,
THE IMPACT OF THE DECRIMINALIZATION AND LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA: AN IMMEDIATE LOOK AT THE CANNABIS
REFORM MOVEMENT, 2010 ASPATORE SPECIAL REP. 22 (2010) (explaining the difference between legalization and decriminalization).
Cf. People v. Trippet, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 559, 568 8c n.8 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (explaining that California's Proposition 215, which merely
decriminalized the use of medical marijuana, did not change its use from a crime to a "right"). n101 Decriminalize Definition, MERRIAMWEBSTER.COM, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decriminalize (last visited Aug. 21, 2012). n102 See CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN.
§ 21A-279(c) (West 2012). n103 See Cynthia S. Duncan, The Need for Change: An Economic Analysis of Marijuana Policy, 41 CONN. L. REV.
1701, 1731 (2009) ("Having failed to effectively exert control over marijuana availability and marijuana use from the outside through prohibition,
legalization exerts control from the inside- replacing
government
prohibition
of marijuana
with government
regulation ."). n104 See Wash. Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Petron Dev. Co., 109 P.3d 146, 149 (Colo. 2005) ("We construe [constitutional
and statutory] provisions as a whole, giving effect to every word and term contained therein, whenever possible."). n105 See also Jordan Blair
Woods, A Decade After Drug Decriminalization: What Can the United States Learn from the Portuguese Model, 15 UDC/DCSL L. REV. 1, 6-14
(2011) ("There are three main legal approaches to drug use, each of which has benefits and drawbacks. At one end of the spectrum is
criminalization. ... At the other end of the spectrum is legalization."). n106 Id. at 6 (" In a legalized regime, people are legally
permitted to use drugs under regulated conditions without the threat of criminal, civil, or administrative
sanctions. In between these two options is decriminalization. In a decriminalized regime, drug use is not a criminal
offense, but may remain subject to non-criminal sanctions (such as administrative sanctions)."). n107 Beinor v.
Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 262 P.3d 970, 975 (Colo. App. 2011) (citing Turbyne v. People, 151 P.3d 563, 567 (Colo. 2007)). n108 However,
the clear meaning of "legal" does not demonstrate that the text of the Medical Marijuana Amendment as a whole is unambiguous. Subsection (2)
creates an exemption from criminal prosecution and, as I argue, subsection (4)(a) legalizes medical use. It is difficult to conjure up a scenario
where legalization would not automatically decriminalize and thus the two provisions are inconsistent. This internal conflict, between the
competing subsections, begets sufficient ambiguity in the text that the court should have examined extrinsic evidence (i.e., the Bluebook) to
ascertain what voters intended the amendment to mean.
We meet – aff creates a minimum retail price and sells only in state-run stores –
that’s Kleiman
Prefer our Interpretation- this is at best a solvency press for an unprepared team
Competing interpretations is bad – causes a race to the bottom and trades off with
substantive debate about the topic – reasonability is best and good is good enough.
Farms
Cartels
Cartels 2AC Updated
Legalization crushes the cartels – it destroys profits, frees up crimefighting
resources, creates space for Mexican solutions and undermines cartel infrastructure
– that’s O’Roarke
And it’s 60% of revenue
Don 14 (Allison, JD Candidate @ Univ. of Minnesota School of Law, “Lighten Up: Amending the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,” 23 Minn. J. Int'l L. 213, Summer, lexis)
The black market for marijuana in the United States has led to the formation of drug cartels in
Mexico . The cartels smuggle marijuana into the United States and the proceeds from the sale are then smuggled
back into Mexico where they account for over sixty percent of the cartels overall revenue. n190 Without any
legal avenues for settling disputes among rival cartels, they are ultimately pitted against each other in a violent fight for control over territory,
smuggling routes and cities along the border between the United States and Mexico. n191 The resulting violence has caused approximately
"60,000 drug-related murders since ... 2006." n192 In 2011, Mexico's former President, Vicente Fox, explained that ""the drug
consumer in the U.S. yields billions of dollars, money that goes back to Mexico to bribe police and money that buys
guns ... . So when you question yourselves about what is going on in Mexico, it depends very much on what
happens in this nation.'" n193 By not forcing marijuana producers underground, the United States
could substantially alleviate the violence in Mexico . n194
Fewer profits means cartels lack the means to ESCALATE violence - we still solve
Fixed costs means no competitive alts
Kelley 12 (Michael, Editor @ Frong Page News + Military/Defense Columnist @ Business Insider,
"Voters May Have Won The Drug War On Election Night," http://www.businessinsider.com/drug-warlegalization-marijuana-2012-11#ixzz3CsGHeyt4,
The Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO), a Mexico City think-tank, published a report
detailing how legalization at the state level could sink cartel revenues from drug trafficking because "one
or more states could meet most of its domestic demand with domestic production." Since the quality of
U.S.-grown marijuana is much better than Mexico-grown, the IMCO figures that domestic bud from
Colorado or Washington would be cheaper everywhere in the country besides near the border.
Consequently, the IMCO estimates that cartels would lose about $1.4 billion of their $2 billion revenues
from marijuana. Furthermore, other drug exports would become less competitive as fixed costs such
as bribes, transportation and fighting rivals would remain the same . The study notes that there is
"considerable uncertainty about the effect a substantial loss of income might have on the behavior of
Mexican criminal organizations and, therefore, on the security environment in Mexico." Nevertheless,
it's a potential gamechanger . The Economist puts it best: " Legalization could , in short, deal a blow
to Mexico’s traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving . The stoned
and sober alike should bear that in mind when they cast their votes on Tuesday."
Ends gateway effect
Herrington 12 (Luke, MA Global and International Studies, UKansas, Editor-At-Large for E-IR and
Assistant Reviews Editor for Special Operations Journal, Aug 24, Marijuana Legalization: Panacea in the
War on Drugs or Stoners Blowing Smoke?, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/24/marijuana-lagalizationpanacea-in-the-war-on-drugs-or-stoners-blowing-smoke/)
A chorus of Latin American leaders think legalization will undermine the cartels, and they advocate it as a new strategy
in the war on drugs. In March, Otto Perez Molina, the president of Guatemala, announced his interest in legalizing drugs in an effort to fight the
cartels, including the Zetas, who were allegedly behind a May 2011 attack that left 27 dismembered workers on a farm in northern Guatemala.
Molina, however, is not the only leader to suggest that drug legalization could help stem the rising tide of drug-related violence in Latin America.
In fact, former Mexican President Vicente Fox also supports the legalization of marijuana, [7] as do César Gaviria, Ernesto Zedillo, Fernando
Henrique Cardoso, and Ricardo Lagos, former presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Chile respectively. [8] The government of Uruguay is
also agitating for legalization. There, officials announced that marijuana legalization and regulation may be used to help fight cocaine use and
abuse. The government also says it would sell the drug directly, tracking buyers in the process and limiting
the black market’s ability to usurp this new supply. [9]¶ Grillo agrees. He suggests that mass-burnings of marijuana
in Mexico, for instance, a hallmark in source control, do more to illustrate exactly how hulking the narco-economic edifice of the cartel’s drug
industry really is, than it does to elucidate how Mexico constantly hammers their organizations. It also demonstrates that U.S. demand
for product will continue to encourage the flow of marijuana and, by extension, other drugs over the border. Citing a
narrowly defeated attempt by California voters to legalize marijuana, and petitioners in Colorado promoting a referendum to do the same, Grillo
highlights the fact that campaigns for legalization view the Mexican Drug War “as a reason to change U.S. drug laws.” Moreover, these
campaigners argue that “American ganja smokers are giving billions of dollars to psychotic Mexican drug cartels, […] and legalization is the only
way to stop the war.” [10] Grillo concedes that the cartels have morphed into diversified, 21st century firms with entrenched
profit sources well beyond the scope of the marijuana industry. Nevertheless,
he concludes, legalization as a strategy in the
war on drugs could still do more in the effort to undermine cartel profits than the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) and the Mexican army ever have. Legalization “might not kill the Mexican cartels,” he says, however it certainly could
inflict a deep wound upon their organizations.¶ Armstrong accuses the U.S. of failure in its war on drugs, and asserts that the violence in Mexico
is only one consequence. Despite the tightening of post-9/11 border regulations, tons of cocaine and marijuana continue to pass into the U.S. and
billions of dollars in illicit money and weapons are passing into Mexico. Traditional policies hardly curb this two-way flow of illicit traffic, in
essence, because secondary and tertiary criminal lieutenants are prepared to fill the void when their leaders are arrested or killed. Indeed, General
Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., the leader of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), testified before the U.S. Senate, stating that the “decapitation
strategy” may succeed in killing key drug figures, but “it ‘has not had an appreciable effect’ in thwarting the drug trade.” [11] ¶ The Mexican
government has even started rethinking its approach. Instead of focusing on the interdiction of drugs bound for U.S. markets, Mexican authorities
are starting to focus more on their citizens’ safety. Obama Administration officials, for their part, have chastised Latin American leaders for
debating the legalization strategy, whilst also stressing the importance of shared responsibility to the Mexican government. In spite of this, the
U.S. has done little on its end to stem the actual demand for illicit drugs. Armstrong believes U.S. policymakers ¶ must launch a serious dialogue
here [in America] on legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, the drugs. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than no solution at all. […] The
United States needs a strategy to win the war or to settle it. [12] ¶ Indeed, if shared responsibility means anything, it means that the U.S. must
do its part not to enable the continuation of the drug wars. That means that in addition to the possible legalization or
decriminalization of marijuana (and other drugs for that matter), the U.S. must slow the flood of weapons and cash, the cartels’ raison d’etre.
[13]¶ Most importantly,
marijuana, the
legalization could undermine Latin American cartels by removing from
so-called “ gateway
effect. ” As has happened in other countries, such as Portugal, where
isolating marijuana from the black market makes it more
difficult for drug dealers to push “harder” narcotics on individuals using marijuana. More will be said on this
subject below, but for now, suffice it to say that this has the potential to undermine the cartels—perhaps the
foundations of the black market itself—across the board, from the ground up. [14]
decriminalization has been experimented with on a large scale,
Resource allocation
Hale 14 (Gary, nonresident fellow in drug policy at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy +
former Chief of Intel @ DEA Houston field division, "Pot legalization is no longer a trend, it's policy,"
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Gary-Hale-Pot-legalization-is-no-longer-a-trend5626411.php)
The DEA is fighting an uphill battle by enforcing marijuana laws in the face of a new era of understanding, education and
public sentiment, all of which represent a complete U-turn from long-held beliefs regarding the substance. The agency in which I worked for 31
years, many of them at a high level, must accept that the American people simply do not wish to have our federal government continue to spend
time, money and resources fighting marijuana possession and use, especially in light of convincing evidence that cannabis provides alternative
medicinal choices for epileptics, veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, those suffering the pains of cancer and others. Notwithstanding the
enormous contributions the DEA has made to public safety since its inception in 1973, it is time for it to realign its strategic thinking and adjust
its policies to adopt this new paradigm. In April, Holder said that the Justice Department is disposed to work with Congress should it wish to
reschedule marijuana into a less dangerous but still regulated category within the Controlled Substances Act. I believe rescheduling
marijuana is the right road to take, given the lack of convincing evidence that it is the evil portrayed by a more conservative public of the
1960s and '70s, a label some refuse to let go even today. Rescheduling would not mean the government would give free rein to the growing
marijuana industry, but it would mean the DEA is listening to the public and the Congress and making well-reasoned decisions. It is also in
the
best interests of the DEA's organizational and political survival. My predictive and objective analysis is that Congress
eventually will remove the designation of marijuana as one of the most threatening of drugs, thereby redirecting federal counterdrug resources to focus on more clear and present dangers. Federal tax revenues generated by marijuana
legalization could provide the DEA with a much-needed boost in funding to confront drug-related
terrorism and other more pressing threats .
Massive instability and on the brink now – it’s try or die for the aff
Non-unique – cartels sell other drugs and engage in other violent activities now
Squo thumps – your evidence is prop 19 specific – state legalization should cause the
impact
Off
Referendum CP
Perm do the CP
-“Should” means desirable
AC 99 (Atlas Collaboration, “Use of Shall, Should, May Can,”
http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html)
shall 'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without
fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be
rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This
is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong. should 'should' is
weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is desirable enough
that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably means that something is not
being stated clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better. Examples: # "C++ code should be
ANSI compliant." A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all platforms, but we should try. # "Code should be tested
thoroughly." Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated anywhere (to say nothing of defining what
'thoroughly' means).
Conditionality is a voterA – it results in argument irresponsibility because it encourages contradictory
positions
B – creates time and strat skews by making the neg a moving target
no cost options in the 1nc make the 2ac impossible- one condo advocacy/ dispo
solves your offense
Uniquely worse with multiple worlds – forces us into strategic double binds and
tradeoffs
CP links to politics - triggers massive political backlash
DuVivier 6 (K.K., Associate Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. “The
United States as a Democratic Ideal? International Lessons in Referendum Democracy” 79
Temp. L. Rev. 821 [lexis])
Efforts to implement a constitutional amendment for a direct, binding referendum system in this
country have occurred in the past and failed. Such an amendment also might be ill-advised
because it would bypass the balanced, deliberative process that is the hallmark of United States
governance. The failure to amend the Constitution to allow a national initiative or referendum is
not a result of any lack of effort. Between 1895 and 1943, proponents submitted more than 108
proposals to amend the United StatesConstitution to add a national initiative and referendum
scheme. Most recently, Mike Gravel, former senator from Alaska, has used the Internet to garner
support for a National Initiative For Democracy. Although opinion polls show that the majority
of Americans back the concept of a national initiative, congressional disfavor with the
process makes it unlikely a national initiative will become law anytime soon.
Public opposes legalization
Abdullah 14 (Halimah, Political Analyst @ CNN, "Up in smoke: The Obama administration's pot
politics problem," http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/04/politics/pot-politics/)
Jon Gettman, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Shenandoah University, said it is "politically convenient"
for the administration to allow the states to tackle pot policy rather than change the federal approach.¶ "They
see social change happening and they're caught between a rock and a hard place," Gettman said.¶ That social change includes a
sea change in the way Americans view pot use.¶ A CNN/ORC International poll last month showed that just over half the country — 55% —
supports marijuana legalization. This is up from the 16% who felt that way a quarter century ago. ¶ Nearly three-quarters of those polled say
alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.¶ Where pot is legal¶ It's a sentiment the president shares.¶ "As has been well documented, I smoked
pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk
of my adult life," the President told the New Yorker in a recent interview. "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."¶ Shortly after the
interview was published, the administration rushed to clarify the President's position. It said the White House opposes a national
move to decriminalize pot despite Obama's personal views on marijuana use.¶ Marijuana is currently classified under the Controlled
Substances Act as "Schedule I," much like heroin or cocaine, with a high likelihood for abuse and no medical value.¶ "What is and isn't a
Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress," Obama told Tapper during the CNN interview. However, the President did not say during the
interview whether he would urge Congress to move to reclassify marijuana.¶ Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, has been working to gather
lawmaker signatures on a letter to Obama in support of reclassifying marijuana. The administration has previously indicated that it is unlikely to
reclassify marijuana under a less stringent category of drugs.¶ Frustration with what some lawmakers see as the administration's mixed messaging
on marijuana was evident during a House Government Operations Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday. ¶ When Michael Botticelli, deputy director
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, hedged on answering whether cocaine, methamphetamine or marijuana is more dangerous and
addictive Blumenauer pounced.¶ "If a professional like you cannot answer clearly that meth is more dangerous than marijuana which every kid on
the street knows, which every parent knows -- if you can't answer that maybe that's why you are failing to educate people about the dangers," he
said.¶ "I don't want kids smoking marijuana. ... But if the deputy director of the office of drug policy can't answer that question how do you
expect high school kids to take you seriously?"¶ Feds working on new pot banking rules¶ Obama on legalizing marijuana Obama, Perry
backpedal on marijuana Should marijuana be legalized?¶ The administration has "a bad political problem" when it comes
to pot, said Kevin Sabet, an assistant professor at the University of Florida's Drug Policy Institute.¶ "I think this is a very difficult
position for them and they see it as a lose-lose ," said Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser to both Republican and Democratic
administrations and is on the board of directors of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-pot legalization group. " They
don't want to
alienate a voting bloc in favor of legalization ."
doesn’t solve cartel profits –patchwork regulations and exceptions encourage
continued use of the black market – that’s Kleiman
doesn’t solve small farms – lack of a state-store mechanism ensures the rise of big
pot which worsens our environment scenarios – that’s Vlahos
Perm do both – 1NC not weed specific
Initiatives don’t make it on the ballot – one more referendum won’t increase its use.
Dane Waters. 1. Initiative and Referendum Institute @ the University of Southern California (CITIZEN
LAW-MAKING IN DEPTH, http://www.iandrinstitute.org/)
Additionally, it is important to point out that very
few initiatives actually make it to the ballot. In California,
according to political scientist Dave McCuan, only 26% of all initiatives filed have made it to
the ballot and only 8% of those filed actually were adopted by the voters. During the 2000
election cycle, over 350 initiatives were filed in the 24 initiative states and 76 made the ballotabout 22%.
-- Process counterplans are bad --A) Crushes topic education --- it diverts from core questions of legalization and causes
stale and repetitive debates about non-central questions --- there’s no literature about
most in the context of the topic
B) Fairness --- makes being Aff impossible --- solvency deficits are contrived and the neg
gets limitless alternative processes of enactment --- consult, recommend, bargain,
condition make the research burden huge
Injection of pluralism causes elite manipulation and nationalism in new states.
Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder. 2000. Perspectives on American Foreign Policy, Readings and
Cases pg 320-321
A top priority must be placed on creating a free, competitive, yet responsible marketplace of ideas in the newly democratizing states. Most
of
the war-prone democratizing great powers had pluralistic public debates, but the terms of these
debates were skewed to favor groups with money, privileged access to the media of communication, and propriety
control over information, ranging from historical archives to intelligence about the military balance. Pluralism is not enough. Without an
even playing field, pluralism simply creates the incentive and the opportunity for privileged
groups to propound self-serving myths, which historically have often taken a nationalist turn.
That causes war.
Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder. 2000. Perspectives on American Foreign Policy, Readings and
Cases pg 320-321
Why should democratizing states be so belligerent? The pattern of democratizing great powers suggests that the problem
lies in the nature of domestic political competition after the breakup of the autocratic regime. Elite groups left over from the
ruling circles from the old regime, many of whom have a particular interest in war and empire, vie for power and
survival with each other and with new elites representing rising democratic forces. Both old and new elites use all the
resources they can muster to mobilize mass allies, often through nationalist appeals, to defend their threatened positions and to stake out new
ones. However, like the sorcerer’s apprentice, these
elites typically find that their mass allies, once mobilized are
difficult to control . When this happens, war can result from nationalist prestige strategies that hardpressed leaders use to stay astride their unmanageable political coalitions.
Delay – government must educate all citizens first and voters can challenge the issue
before the vote is even held.
Waters 2 Dane “Initiative and Referendum in the United States” International Symposium on
Initiatives, Referendums, and Direct Democracy. [Founder, President and Co-Chairman of the Initiative
& Referendum Institute]
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:RuzOAjOKLM4J:www.tfd.org.tw/english/docs/Report_03_DM_P
_15_30.pdf+referendum+United+States&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a
However, it is critical that the legislative referendum process be constructed in a manner that is fair and balanced to all sides – both the
government and the people. The
process must be transparent so that the citizens can voice concerns and
objections about the referendum being proposed. Earlier in this speech I discussed the four most important aspects that
should be part of any direct democracy tool that is put in place. When it comes to legislative referendum, point number three is of the utmost
importance, “any direct democracy tool utilized by the government – the legislative referendum process – must be fair and balanced and must
give the citizens the ability to freely object to how the government presents the referendum in question and the government must be obligated to
address the concerns raised by the citizenry.” What this is saying is simply that the citizens
must have the right and ability to
challenge every aspect of the referendum before the actual vote takes place. There have been numerous
examples in the United States and around the world in which the legislature drafted a ballot title for the referendum – the question that you the
voter actually see in the voting booth – that was misleading, unfair and unbalanced. When this occurs the citizens need to have the ability to
challenge the wording of the ballot title so as to ensure a fair and unbiased title. A
system must be put in place that will not
only allow the citizens the ability to challenge the wording of the ballot title, but also require
that the government address the concerns of the citizens, and if they refuse, then the regulation
must establish a third party that has the power to resolve the conflict. Additionally, the
government must allow for the citizens to be properly educated on the measure. They should
issue voter guides and hold public forums that not only allow for the viewpoints of the
government to be espoused, but that should also contain an equal number of viewpoints from individuals that both support the
referendum as well as oppose it. Once again, the citizens must have the ability to challenge anything that the government provides as information
on the issue if the citizens feel that the information being provided is unfair and biased. Another key to a truly free and fair initiative and or
referendum election is that the
government ensures that all parties have equal access to radio, television
and print media outlets, and that any government sponsored media outlet allows for equal time
on their programming. The regulation must clearly state that the citizens can file a complaint if
this is not occurring and that either the government or an independent third party must correct the
problem in a pre-set and reasonable amount of time. Any legislative referendum that does not
contain these core points will, in my humble opinion, be both unfair and show that the government does
not wish to hold truly free and open elections.
**NB**
Doesn’t solve democracy – no reason other countries become democratic just
because the US does a referendum
Can’t solve democracy
Haass 5 (Richard, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Former Director of Policy Planning for
the State Department, Washington Post 1-24)
It is also difficult to spread democracy. It is one thing to oust a regime, quite another to put
something better in its place. Prolonged occupation of the sort the United States carried out in Japan and West Germany after
World War II is the only surefire way to build democratic institutions and instill democratic culture. But as Iraq demonstrates, the rise of
modern nationalism and modern methods of resistance means that such opportunities will be
rare, costly and uncertain to succeed, despite an investment of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Prospects for the
democratic improvement of a society can prove even worse absent occupation. Tho8se who rejoiced 25 years ago in the overthrow of the
shah of Iran should reflect on the fact that unattractive regimes can be replaced by something far worse. We thus
need to be measured in what pressures we place on such countries as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Here as elsewhere it is important to observe
the Hippocratic oath and first do no harm. Time is a factor in another sense. There
is no realistic way that democracy
will arrive in either North Korea or Iran before nuclear weapons do. And even if "freedom"
were somehow to come to Tehran, it is almost certain that free Iranians would be as enthusiastic
as the mullahs are about possessing nuclear weapons owing to the political popularity of these weapons and their
strategic rationale given Iran's neighborhood.
Democracy doesn’t prevent war
Goldstein, ’11 (Joshua, is professor emeritus of international relations at American University and author of Winning the War on War: The
Decline of Armed
Conflict Worldwide, Sept/Oct 2011, “Think Again: War. World peace could be closer than you think”, Foreign Policy)
"A More Democratic World Will Be a More Peaceful One." Not necessarily. The well-worn observation that real democracies almost never fight
each other is historically correct, but it's also true that democracies have always been perfectly willing to fight nondemocracies.
In fact, democracy can heighten conflict by amplifying ethnic and nationalist forces, pushing leaders
to appease belligerent sentiment in order to stay in power. Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant both believed that selfish
autocrats caused wars, whereas the common people, who bear the costs, would be loath to fight. But try telling that to the leaders of
authoritarian China, who are struggling to hold in check, not inflame, a popular undercurrent of nationalism against
Japanese and American historical enemies. Public opinion in tentatively democratic Egypt is far more hostile
toward Israel than the authoritarian government of Hosni Mubarak ever was (though being hostile and actually going to war are
quite different things). Why then do democracies limit their wars to non-democracies rather than fight each other? Nobody really knows As the
University of Chicago's Charles Lipson once quipped about the notion of a democratic peace, "We know it works in practice. Now we have to see
if it works in theory!" The best explanation is that of political scientists 9/29/2011 Think Again: War - By Joshua S. Goldst…
foreignpolicy.com/…/think_again_war?… 6/9Bruce Russett and John Oneal, who argue that three elements -- democracy, economic
interdependence (especially trade), and the growth of international organizations -- are mutually supportive of each other and of peace within the
community of democratic countries. Democratic leaders, then, see themselves as having less to lose in going to war
with autocracies.
Legalization is key to restoring US human rights credibility
Mitchell 14 (Lincoln, Author, Foreign Policy Analyst/Expert, and former Prof of Poly Sci @ Columbia
University's School of International Affairs, "Marijuana, Human Rights and the US Image,"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/marijuana-human-rights-an_b_4783782.html)
The prison system is inextricably linked to US drug policy as just under 25 percent of people in prison or jail are there for drug-related crimes.
While the proportion of people in jail for marijuana possession is not enormous, hundreds of thousands of people are arrested
for marijuana use every year, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. This drug policy has also contributed to an environment in which
African Americans are far more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than members of any other racial group in the US.
The movement to legalize marijuana has picked up momentum recently, particularly now that several states have legal medical marijuana; and
Washington and Colorado partially decriminalized marijuana this year. Full legalization, even in Washington and Colorado, is still reasonably far
off, but the question of legalizing marijuana is being discussed now more than any other time in the last few decades. Even the president
conceded that marijuana is not "more dangerous than alcohol." It is likely that in the next few years the movement to legalize marijuana will get
stronger. While this would be a good thing on its own, it will be better if it begins a broader effort to change our flawed drug policy, allowing us
to address the prison related human rights issues that define our criminal justice system and plague our country. Recently, Attorney General Eric
Holder has drawn attention to another nefarious byproduct of prison system, the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans not because they
are in prison but because they were once in prison. These people have served their terms, but are still not allowed to vote. This is a violation of
democratic rights at the individual level, but because of racial disparities in the prisons, it is one that is also a significant civil rights issue that has
bearing on political and electoral outcomes. The debate about legalizing marijuana is beginning in earnest. It is a debate about individual rights,
criminal justice, medicine and economics. It is also a debate where a lot of money is at stake. There are people who stand to lose a lot if the
prisons are not full and if new ones are not being built. Those who have profited from the prison-industrial complex will fight hard to ensure that
marijuana remains illegal because they know that legalizing it is the first step toward a drug policy that is more
rational and humane, although less profitable for them. Keeping marijuana illegal and our jails full may make some wealthier,
but it also exacerbates a serious human rights problem and weakens the ability of the US to present
itself to the rest of the world as being on the side of human rights . This is already a problem for the US, continuing
to keep so many people behind bars will only make it worse.
US human rights cred solves global WMD conflict
Burke-White 4 (William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to
the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and
Ph.D. at Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard
Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis)
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights should be
given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human
rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national
security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the
Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the
post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also
those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human
rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can
significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be
a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign
policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is
accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through
the promotion of human rights . A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of
important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest
concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent
through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future
governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the
particular threat of human rights abusing states
U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.
obtaining weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ). Finally, it offers a mechanism for
ISIS Strikes PTX 2AC
No pol cap now AND it's ineffective - multiple issues prove
Kahn 9/16/14 (Paul, Robert W. Winner professor of law and the humanities and the director of the
Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, "President Obama does
not need Congress to act against ISIL," http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/obama-islamicstateisilwarstrategycongress.html)
The accusation fails the test of common sense. The overwhelming problem of Obama’s presidency has been his lack
of power . On virtually every issue , from immigration reform to fiscal policy, he has been rendered
incapable of action . Not only has he been unable to get his budgets passed, but he has also barely been
able to keep the federal government open for business. When we look abroad, the story is much the same. The United States’
allies act with little regard for the president’s foreign policy. Israel actively campaigns against him while our Arab “allies” have long stopped
following U.S. suggestions. Relations with Russia and China are at new lows. A little more presidential power might be quite useful in dealing
with the world’s crises, whether confronting climate change and Ebola or Vladimir Putin and ISIL. If there is a crisis in the U.S.
presidency, it is its lack of power . As Americans head into midterm elections, all indications are that this
situation will only get worse as a lame duck president faces an even more hostile Capitol Hill . To call
this presidency imperial is a misanalysis that will be used for political purposes by those determined to continue to frustrate the policies of any
Democratic president.
Doesn't sap capital AND is increasingly bipartisan and broad-based support
Hoff 14 (Tom, Columnist @ Studentws for Sensible Drug Policy, "Marijuana Legalization Seemingly
the Only Bipartisan Issue in Congress," http://ssdp.org/news/blog/marijuana-legalization-seemingly-theonly-bipartisan-issue-in-congress/)
Today, the United States Judiciary Committee passed legislation reforming federal drug sentencing, as the Drug Policy Alliance reported, that
was almost as surprising — at least in terms of who combined to pass it — as it is significant. The Smarter Sentencing Act will cut minimum
mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses, reform the sentencing disparity between those convicted of crack cocaine offenses vs. powder
cocaine, and expand a judge’s ability to use his/her own discretion in each individual case. The senators that combined to create
the bill include Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Patrick Leahy (D-VT),
Dick Durbin (D-IL), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Yes, Dick Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip for
the Democratic Party, and three other democrats from consistently blue states have combined with Ted
Cruz and Rand Paul, among others. You’re reading that right. How did this happen? No one here at SSDP is anything but overjoyed at
this news, but it still leads us to wonder just how this breakthrough took place, especially given the bipartisan nature of it. But, when we look at it
further, it seems that
reform of drug laws, is one of the few issues that is crossing party lines in 2014.
And
this is especially true as it relates to marijuana laws . Missouri recently became the newest state to introduce a cannabis
legalization bill, and even Governor Rick Perry of Texas said that the plant should be decriminalized. (By only supporting decriminalization, he
didn’t go far enough, but even supporting decriminalization is a big step for Texas.) The House of Reps in New Hampshire, the only New
England state that hasn’t decriminalized marijuana yet and the most conservative of the six states, looked at its New England counterparts and
said, “You know what? Let’s one up them. We’re voting for full blown legalization.” Most would assume that marijuana legalization, whether
medical or recreational, would be an issue supported by far more democrats than republicans. So why are some red states beginning to see the
light faster than many blue ones, and why is marijuana legalization seemingly the only issue that brings liberals and
conservatives together these days? Well, for one, marijuana legalization might be an easier concept for
republican leaders than we would assume. If Ted Cruz or Rand Paul can turn to their supporters and say, “I realized
just how much marijuana prohibition cost the United States taxpayers, and I viewed this legislation as a
way to put more money back in your pockets,” that might be a relatively easy sell to their bases. Or maybe the
US Judiciary Committee got wind of our very own Devon Tackels cross-examining the Drug Czar in 2012 on National TV. But if I had to guess
the most important reason that party lines are being crossed in the matter of marijuana legalization, it’s
this: No fingers have been pointed so far . What I mean is that politicians around the country have not turned this
issue into one that is overly-partisan. We’ve had many a liberal blame other side and say to our senior citizens “These guys wanna
take away your medicare,” and we’ve had many a conservative yell “These guys are socialists” about liberals on the issue of taxing the rich. We
haven’t had that level of finger-pointing about marijuana. If there’s one thing we know about our congress that had its lowest number of bills
passed last year in our country’s 237 year history, it’s that, when the argument becomes even slightly personal, they can resemble spiteful eighth
graders and refuse to work together on an issue, no matter how important it might be.
No reason Obama gets involved - cx
US efforts can't solve ISIS - only local efforts will be effective
Kahn 9/16/14 (Paul, Robert W. Winner professor of law and the humanities and the director of the
Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, "President Obama does
not need Congress to act against ISIL," http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/obama-islamicstateisilwarstrategycongress.html)
When the president decides to use force, the law professor’s expertise is pretty much beside the point. The important question is the quality of the
judgment expressed in the political decision. On this point, I have severe doubts. Obama’s plan sounds like a reasonable,
measured response. The problem is that we won’t get the war the president wants; we get the war that our
opponents want. We simply don’t control events. The imperialism of the presidency has nothing to do with this. To take up violence is to
invite a politics of raw emotions that will drive events on both sides. Obama may believe that there will be no boots on the ground, but what
would happen if U.S. warplanes were shot down and American airmen held captive? What would happen if they were beheaded before a world
audience? What would happen if there were a bombing in Times Square in response to our intervention abroad? Does anyone really think that
Congress would assert a calming influence? Would Obama maintain his cool? These risks might be worth taking if there were
some substantial chance of military success on its own terms. Everything we know about American
interventions abroad suggests otherwise. America spent years and billions of dollars trying to build a
stable Iraq. It is a country of 33 million people. How was it unable, after such a massive U.S. investment,
to defend itself against some 10,000 ISIL fighters? ISIL-controlled territory borders Turkey, a member of NATO with
substantial forces and a population of 75 million. Why does it need the U.S. to deal with this threat? The answer is that it is more worried about
the Kurds than it is about ISIL. The tangled political story is the same across the region. The lesson has been learned but always
seems to be forgotten: U.S. force cannot change other countries’ politics. ISIL must be dealt with locally.
We can help, but we cannot lead. It is not our fight if it is not theirs first.
Link non-unique – Obama soft on marijuana now
Layton 14 (Josh, The Mirror, Jan 19, “Barack Obama says smoking cannabis is safer than drinking
alcohol - but tells his daughters it's a bad idea” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/barack-obamacannabis-president-says-3039799#ixzz3DcD7DBpe)
Barack Obama has said that smoking cannabis is safer than drinking alcohol in comments likely to fuel
further controversy over US drug laws. The President, who puffed on joints as a teenager, believes the substance is not as dangerous
“in terms of its impact on the individual consumer”. But he hastened to add: “It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think
it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” Marijuana has been legalised in Colorado and Washington by
referendum and Obama said it was “important” for the states to end the criminalisation of young smokers
from poor backgrounds. He said: “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do. “And African-American
kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” Obama
added that “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some
of
the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing”. Marijuana remains a controlled substance
under federal law despite being legalised in Colorado and Washington - and the Government has been unwilling to change its stance. The drug
went on sale to long queues in Colorado on January 1 and Washington is expected to follow. Obama said “it’s important for it to go
forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law
and only a select few get punished”.
War doesn’t escalate
Cook 7—CFR senior fellow for Mid East Studies. BA in international studies from Vassar College, an MA in international relations from the Johns
Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and both an MA and PhD in political science from the University of Pennsylvania(Steven, Ray Takeyh,
CFR fellow, and Suzanne Maloney, Brookings fellow, 6 /28, Why the Iraq war won't engulf the Mideast, http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6383265,
AG)
Underlying this anxiety was a scenario in which Iraq's sectarian and ethnic violence spills over into neighboring countries, producing conflicts between the major Arab states and Iran as well as Turkey and the Kurdistan
Regional Government. These wars then destabilize the entire region well beyond the current conflict zone, involving heavyweights like Egypt. This is scary stuff indeed, but with the exception of the conflict between Turkey
and the Kurds, the scenario is far from an accurate reflection of the way Middle Eastern leaders view the situation in Iraq and calculate their interests there. It is abundantly clear that major outside powers like Saudi Arabia, Iran
and Turkey are heavily involved in Iraq. These countries have so much at stake in the future of Iraq that it is natural they would seek to influence political developments in the country. Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians,
Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq. The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern
leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the
conflict went badly, could threaten domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather
than projecting power and
thus
have little capability
for sending troops to Iraq. Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in
which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region into conflict. Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against
the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries. In the last month, the Saudi
government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom. Finally,
there is no precedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly
involved. The Iraqis and the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other
than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed
forces
either to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis or from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was
regarded as someone else's fight. Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo, Amman
and Riyadh, the situation in Iraq is worrisome, but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight . As far as Iranian mullahs are concerned,
they have long preferred to press their interests through proxies as opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access and influence over powerful Shiite militias, a massive cross-border incursion is both unlikely
The Middle East is a region both
prone and accustomed to civil wars. But given its experience with ambiguous conflicts, the region has also
developed an intuitive ability to contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from
enveloping the entire Middle East.
and unnecessary. So Iraqis will remain locked in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may abet, but will remain within the borders of Iraq.
No overuse of power – individual situations dictate
William Howell, 13 Sydney Stein professor in American politics at the University of Chicago, 9/3, All
Syria Policy Is Local,
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/03/all_syria_policy_is_local_obama_congress?page=full
From a political standpoint, seeking
congressional approval for a limited military strike against the Syrian regime, as President
made lots of sense. And let's be clear, this call has everything to do with
Barack Obama on Saturday announced he would do,
political considerations, and close to nothing to do with a newfound commitment to constitutional fidelity. The first reason is eminently
local. Obama has proved perfectly willing to exercise military force without an express authorization, as he did in Libya -just as he has expanded
and drawn down military forces in Afghanistan, withdrawn from Iraq, significantly expanded the use of drone strikes, and waged a largely
clandestine war on terrorism with little congressional involvement. The totality of Obama's record, which future presidents may
selectively cite as precedent, hardly aligns with a plain reading of the war powers described in the first two articles of the
constitution. Obama isn't new in this regard. Not since World War II has Congress declared a formal war. And since at least the Korean War,
which President Harry Truman conveniently called a "police action," commanders-in-chief have waged all sorts of wars -small and large -without
Congress's prior approval. Contemporary debates about Congress's constitutional obligations on matters involving war
have lost a good deal of their luster. Constitutional law professors continue to rail against the gross imbalances of power that
characterize our politics, and members of whichever party happens to be in opposition can be counted on to decry
the abuses of war powers propagated by the president. But these criticisms -no matter their interpretative validity -rarely
gain serious political traction. Too often they appear as arguments of convenience, duly cited in the lead-up to war, but serving
primarily as footnotes rather than banner headlines in the larger case against military action. Obama's recent decision
to seek congressional approval is not going to upend a half-century of practice that has shifted the
grounds of military decision-making decisively in the president's favor, any more than it is going to imbue the ample
war powers outlined in Article I with newfound relevance and meaning.
For that to happen, Congress itself must
claim for itself its constitutional powers regarding war.
Obama did not seek Congress's approval because on
that Friday stroll on the White House lawn he suddenly remembered his Con Law teaching notes from his University of Chicago days .
He did
so for political reasons. Or more exactly, he did so to force members of Congress to go on the record today in
order to mute their criticisms tomorrow. And let's be clear, Congress -for all its dysfunction and gridlock -still has the
capacity to kick up a good dust storm over the human and financial costs of military operations. Constitutional musings from
Capitol Hill -of the sort a handful of Democrats and Republicans engaged in this past week -rarely back the president into a political corner. The
mere prospect of members of Congress casting a bright light on the human tolls of war, however, will catch any president's attention. Through
hearings, public speeches, investigations, and floor debates, members of Congress can fix the media's attention -and with it, the public's -on the
costs of war, which can have political repercussions both at home and abroad. Think, then, about the stated reasons for some kind of military
action in Syria. No one is under the illusion that a short, targeted strike is going to overturn the Assad regime and promptly restore some
semblance of peace in the region. In the short term, the strike might actually exacerbate and prolong the conflict, making the eventual outcome
even more uncertain. And even the best-planned, most-considered military action won't go exactly according to plan. Mishaps can occur,
innocent lives may be lost, terrorists may be emboldened, and anti-American protests in the region will likely flare even hotter than they currently
are. The core argument for a military strike, however, centers on the importance of strengthening international norms and laws on chemical and
biological weapons, with the hope of deterring their future deployment. The Assad regime must be punished for having used chemical weapons,
the argument goes, lest the next autocrat in power considering a similar course of action think he can do so with impunity. But herein lies the
quandary. The most significant reasons for military action are abstract, largely hidden, and temporally distant. The potential downsides, though,
are tangible, visible, and immediate. And in a domestic political world driven by visual imagery and the shortest of time horizons, it is reckless to
pursue this sort of military action without some kind of political cover. Were Obama to proceed without congressional
authorization, he would invite House Republicans to make all sorts of hay about his misguided, reckless
foreign policy. But by putting the issue before Congress, these same Republicans either must explain why
the use of chemical weapons against one's people does not warrant some kind of military intervention; or they must
concede that some form of exacting punishment is needed. Both options present many of the same risks for members of Congress as they do
for the president. But crucially, if they come around to supporting some form of military action -and they just might -members of
Congress will have an awfully difficult time criticizing the president for the fallout. Will the decision on
Saturday hamstring the president in the final few years of his term? I doubt it. Having gone to Congress on this crisis,
must he do so on every future one? No. Consistency is hardly the hallmark of modern presidents in any policy domain, and
certainly not military affairs. Sometimes presidents seek Congress's approval for military action, other times they request support for a military
action that is already up and running, and occasionally they reject the need for any congressional consent at all. And for good or ill, it is virtually
impossible to discern any clear principle that justifies their choices. The particulars of every specific crisis -its urgency, perceived
threat to national interests, connection to related foreign policy developments, and what not -can
be expected to furnish the
president with ample justification for pursuing whichever route he would like. Like jurists who find in the facts of a
particular dispute all the reasons they need for ignoring inconvenient prior case law, presidents can characterize contemporary military challenges
in ways that render past ones largely irrelevant. Partisans and political commentators will point out the inconsistencies, but their objections are
likely to be drowned out in rush to war. Obama's decision does not usher in a new era of presidential power, nor does it
permanently remake the way we as a nation go to war. It reflects a temporary political calculation -and in my view, the right one of a president in a particularly tough spot. Faced with a larger war he doesn't want, an immediate crisis with few good options, and yet a moral
responsibility to act, he is justifiably expanding the circle of decision-makers. But don't count on it to remain open for especially long.
1NC Stratfor is about why we always need military doctrines – Obama already
attacked ISIS without one and the impact didn’t happen.
Their evidence concludes our way – the bills won’t be enough
Savage, NYT, 9-18-14¶ [Charlie, New York Times, “Congress’s Inaction Could Be Legal Basis for
Stronger Executive War Powers” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/us/politics/congresss-inactioncould-be-legal-basis-for-stronger-executive-war-powers.html]
Still, the Obama administration’s broad claims, and the fact that “Congress has done nothing to push back,” may become a precedent that the
executive branch could use for future interpretations of statutory authorizations to use military force, said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School
professor and former Justice Department official.
^^Where Mary Wash’s evidence ends^^
A related issue runs through various bills introduced by members of Congress that would provide explicit authority to fight the Islamic State.
There appears to be little political appetite among congressional leaders to vote on the issue before the midterm elections in November, but
several congressional staff members said such a bill may be taken up in the lame-duck session at the end of the year.¶ Several Republican
bills would provide sweeping authority for air and ground warfare, including open-ended legislation
introduced by Republican lawmakers like Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia and Senator James
Inhofe of Oklahoma. An otherwise similar bill by Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California,
would expire after 120 days.¶ Several Democrats have introduced bills to permit a more limited air
war, including Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, whose law would expire after three years; Representative Adam
Schiff of California, 18 months; and Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, one year . Those bills explicitly say they do
not include authority for any major use of ground troops, and the last two restrict the geographical scope of authorizing fighting to Iraq and
Mr. Goldsmith wrote in a blog post that such limits are “entirely ineffective ” because they
would not prevent the executive branch from evading them by citing the 2001 law as separate authority.¶
Syria.¶ But
In an interview, Mr. Schiff questioned the legitimacy of relying on the old Al Qaeda law to get around the limits of a new one that focuses on the
Islamic State, but said his bill could easily be adjusted to foreclose that. ¶ He also said that after the election, Congress should repeal the 2001 and
2002 authorizations and enact a new law that sets out the scope and limits of authority to go after Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
Winners win.
Halloran 10 (Liz, Reporter – NPR, “For Obama, What A Difference A Week Made”, National Public
Radio, 4-6, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125594396)
Amazing what a win in a major legislative battle will do for a president's spirit. (Turmoil over spending and
leadership at the Republican National Committee over the past week, and the release Tuesday of a major new and largely sympathetic book about
the president by New Yorker editor David Remnick, also haven't hurt White House efforts to drive its own, new narrative.) Obama's Story
Though the president's national job approval ratings failed to get a boost by the passage of the health care overhaul — his numbers have remained
steady this year at just under 50 percent — he
has earned
grudging
respect even from those who don't agree with his
policies. "He's achieved something that virtually everyone in Washington thought he couldn't," says Henry Olsen, vice president and director
of the business-oriented American Enterprise Institute's National Research Initiative. "And that's given him confidence." The
protracted health care battle looks to have taught the White House something about power, says presidential
historian Gil Troy — a lesson that will inform Obama's pursuit of his initiatives going forward. "I think that Obama realizes that
presidential power is a muscle ,
and
the more you exercise it, the stronger it gets ," Troy says. "He
exercised that power and had a success with health care passage, and now he wants to make sure people realize it's not just a blip on the map." The White House now
has an opportunity, he says, to change the narrative that had been looming — that the Democrats would lose big in the fall midterm elections, and that Obama was
looking more like one-term President Jimmy Carter than two-termer Ronald Reagan, who also managed a difficult first-term legislative win and survived his party's
bad showing in the midterms. Approval Ratings Obama is exuding confidence since the health care bill passed, but his approval ratings as of April 1 remain
unchanged from the beginning of the year, according to Pollster.com. What's more, just as many people disapprove of Obama's health care policy now as did so at the
beginning of the year. According to the most recent numbers: Forty-eight percent of all Americans approve of Obama, and 47 disapprove. Fifty-two percent
disapprove of Obama's health care policy, compared with 43 percent who approve. Stepping Back From A Precipice Those watching the re-emergent president in
recent days say it's difficult to imagine that it was only weeks ago that Obama's domestic agenda had been given last rites, and pundits were preparing their pieces on a
failed presidency. Obama himself had framed the health care debate as a referendum on his presidency. A loss would have "ruined the rest of his presidential term,"
says Darrell West, director of governance studies at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "It would have made it difficult to address other issues and emboldened
his critics to claim he was a failed president." The conventional wisdom in Washington after the Democrats lost their supermajority in the U.S. Senate when
Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat long held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was that Obama would scale back his health care ambitions to get
something passed. "I thought he was going to do what most presidents would have done — take two-thirds of a loaf and declare victory," says the AEI's Olsen. "But
he doubled down and made it a vote of confidence on his presidency, parliamentary-style." "You've got to be impressed with an achievement like that," Olsen says.
But Olsen is among those who argue that, long-term, Obama and his party would have been better served politically by an incremental approach to reworking the
nation's health care system, something that may have been more palatable to independent voters Democrats will need in the fall. "He would have been able to show he
Muscling out a win on a sweeping health care
package may have invigorated the president and provided evidence of leadership , but, his critics
say, it remains to be seen whether Obama and his party can reverse what the polls now suggest is a losing
issue for them.
was listening more, that he heard their concerns about the size and scope of this," Olsen says.
Obama won't spend capital on ISIS strikes and capital not key - Syria vote proves
Davis 8/19/14 (Julie, NYT, "Neither Obama Nor Congress Seems Eager for a Vote on Military Action
in Iraq," http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/politics/in-washington-little-appetite-for-a-vote-oniraq.html?_r=0)
Mr. Obama has sometimes embraced that principle, but seldom reaped any political reward for doing so. Last year, the president
abruptly backed away from plans to carry out strikes against Syria and said he wanted congressional approval first.
Congress never acted on the request, and Mr. Obama did not take any military action against the government of
President Bashar al-Assad. After authorizing an air campaign against militants in Iraq, Mr. Obama has yet to seek
or receive a vote in Congress for what he has described as a potentially long-term mission. The change in approach was dictated partly
by circumstance: The situation in Iraq, where thousands of members of religious minorities were facing slaughter or starvation and American
personnel were threatened by the swift advance of the Sunni fighters, was arguably more urgent than the one in Syria a year ago. And Congress is
in the midst of a five-week summer break. But it also reflects
a significant shift by Mr. Obama, who spent considerable
political capital last year on a lobbying campaign to persuade lawmakers in both parties to back military
action in Syria. That push yielded paltry support , and Mr. Obama has little patience for repeating
the episode now, three months before midterm congressional elections. White House officials say Mr. Obama does not need such a vote,
arguing that his constitutional powers as commander in chief are sufficient to cover the current mission. “The president has the authority to take
the recent actions undertaken in Iraq,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council. She noted that Mr. Obama
provided a report to Congress on the initiation of airstrikes last week, and was keeping lawmakers informed regularly on American military
efforts in Iraq. Beyond that, senior administration officials note that congressional leaders, who met with Mr. Obama about Iraq in June, have
explicitly told them that Mr. Obama need not go to Congress to authorize military action. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority
leader, whose weekly conference calls with Democrats during the congressional break have been dominated by discussions of Iraq, said Mr.
Obama had wide latitude to act without Congress. She suggested that Republicans eager to criticize the president would not be as eager to vote.
“We’ll see where the Republicans will be who have been calling for this, that and the other thing, if they had to vote on Iraq,” Ms. Pelosi said in
San Francisco last week. She said she backed the limited mission Mr. Obama had described to provide “humanitarian assistance; protect
Americans; recognize that ISIL is a threat; no boots on the ground,” using an alternate acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “And if it
gets to a place where we need congressional action, then come to Congress.” Until then, she said, Mr. Obama “has a great deal of power to act.”
Even a number of Republicans who pressed Mr. Obama for a voice vote on military action in Syria last year are not demanding a vote in this case
— at least not yet. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the senior Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, who helped draft the resolution to
authorize strikes against Syria, has not called for a similar measure for the current operation in Iraq. He said he wanted administration officials to
testify at a hearing when Congress returned about their strategy for the airstrikes and what authority they intended to use in executing them.
Representative Howard McKeon, the California Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called Mr. Obama’s decision to
carry out airstrikes in Iraq “appropriate given the circumstances.” Mr. McKeon added in a statement: “The American people aren’t worried that
the president will send the military back to Iraq. They’re worried about a deadly terrorist state that can hit us from Wall Street to Main Street.” A
number of lawmakers in both parties do say the president would need congressional approval for any broader American military campaign in
Iraq. In a little-noticed move a week before leaving for its summer break, the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution to bar the
president from deploying American forces in a “sustained combat role” in Iraq without specific authorization. Administration officials worried
that the public would see the vote as a sign that Mr. Obama was considering a deeper military involvement. So the White House worked to pair
the House resolution with the repeal of a 2002 law that authorized the Iraq war in the first place. “Such a repeal would go much further in giving
the American people confidence that ground forces will not be sent into combat in Iraq,” Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser,
wrote in a letter to the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. But the Republican-dominated House rejected the White
House footwork — an indication of the political pitfalls for Mr. Obama in a congressional debate on
military action. “It’s especially tough for this president, because he’s obviously reluctant to use military
force,” said Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic House member who directs the Center on Congress at Indiana University. “Everybody
including the president recognizes that ISIS represents a malignant force in the region, that they represent a threat to us in some degree, but the
president has not spelled out for Congress or to the public just what we’re willing to do or not do about it.”
Nonintrinsic – do the plan and ______________ - logical policy maker could do both
Obama's executive actions on climate sapping his pol cap now
Colman 9/17/14 (Zach, Washington Examiner, "House energy votes double as post-election GOP
wish list," http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-energy-votes-double-as-post-election-gop-wishlist/article/2553509)
But Obama has staked much political capital on his climate change and environmental agenda, which
he is implementing largely through executive action. The administration, as the Office of Management
and Budget noted in its statement on the House energy package, will reject attempts to roll any of that
back.
Single instances of power don’t spillover
Kreider 6 [Dr. Kyle L. Kreider, Assistant Professor of Political Sciences at the Political Science
Department, Wilkes University June 2006
[http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/warber0606.htm]//DoeS
A part of the strategic environment surrounding executive orders is what Congress is likely to do in response. As Warber sees it, Congress has two options: apply
verbal pressure or pass legislation “to nullify or reform existing executive orders” (p.108). While Congress has these two options, the data show that “Congress
devotes a small portion of its time debating executive orders” (p.114) and “has been relatively inactive in reforming and
eliminating specific executive orders issued by presidents who served between the Kennedy and George H. W. Bush administrations” (p.120). Warber concludes with
a cursory examination of President George W. Bush’s use of executive orders and some thoughts on where future research should go. While his political opponents
and some members of the media criticize President Bush for his penchant for acting unilaterally (in both domestic and foreign affairs), expanding the powers of the
presidency, and sometimes bypassing the expertise found in Congress, “the results demonstrate that Bush has not significantly departed from previous presidents
regarding the types and quantity of executive orders that he issued during his first term” (p.124). However, what has been different under President Bush is his
willingness to change existing public policy by revoking, superseding, or amending executive orders made by previous presidents. Yearly averages show President
“presidents have not
dramatically expanded their power with [executive orders] across the modern presidency” (p.128).
Though Warber does not have the specific answers as to why presidents have not increased their use of
executive orders over time, he speculates the stasis in presidential directives to a number of [*437]
factors, one being the continued existence of separation of powers—specifically Congress’s ability to pass legislation to revoke
Bush to be second only to President Carter in revising inherited executive orders. A key finding of this book is that
or revise executive orders and the federal courts’ authority to decide upon their constitutionality
PC Theory is wrong – the prez is irrelevant
Dickinson 9 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard
University where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, 5/26, Presidential
Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, “Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power,”
http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/)
Political scientists, like
devised numerous means of measuring a president’s influence in
What is of more interest to me, however, is what her selection reveals about the basis of presidential power.
baseball writers evaluating hitters, have
Congress.
I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative “box scores”
designed to measure how many times a president’s preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is
approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members
of Congress vote with the president’s preferences? How often is a president’s policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These
measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power – they are a better indicator of
congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is
rarely influenced by anything a president does . Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus
on the legislative “endgame” to gauge presidential influence – will the President swing enough votes to get his
preferred legislation enacted? – this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence .
Once we control for other factors – a member of Congress’ ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings
of her constituency, whether she’s up for reelection or not – we can usually predict how she will vote without needing
to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a president’s veto power
for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential arm-twisting during the legislative endgame, then,
most legislative outcomes don’t depend on presidential lobbying. But this is not to say that presidents lack influence. Instead, the
primary means by which presidents influence what Congress does is through their ability to determine
the alternatives from which Congress must choose. That is, presidential power is largely an exercise in
agenda-setting – not arm-twisting. And we see this in the Sotomayer nomination. Barring a major scandal, she will almost certainly
be confirmed to the Supreme Court whether Obama spends the confirmation hearings calling every Senator or instead spends the next few
weeks ignoring the Senate debate in order to play Halo III on his Xbox. That is, how senators decide to vote on Sotomayor will have almost
nothing to do with Obama’s lobbying from here on in (or lack thereof). His real influence has already occurred, in the
decision to present Sotomayor as his nominee.
1AR
PC not key – congress hasn’t made up its mind how to vote yet – only the midterm
matters
Huey-Burns 9/19/14 (Caitlin, Political Columnist @ Real Clear Politics, "After Syrian Vote, War
Debate Will Follow Congress Back Home,"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/19/after_syrian_vote_war_debate_will_follow_congres
s_back_home_124038.html#ixzz3DnkJ23z6)
Left largely unresolved, however, is the delicate issue of war. Congress’ authorization of aid to the vetted Syrian opposition
expires on Dec. 11 along with the budget resolution, which means lawmakers must revisit the issue again. Senate Democratic leaders
said the chamber would vote during the lame duck session on authorizing military force in Syria, with the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee drafting the language. It’s not yet clear whether it will be rolled into the Defense Authorization bill, which
Congress must approve in the same session. “I think it’s time for Congress to step in on thoughtful conversation about our constitutional
responsibility,” said Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat. Referencing the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after the 9/11
terrorist attacks, Durbin said “the notion that this president or any president could use that forever and ever, amen, is troubling.” But there
are varying opinions within the party about the parameters of future authorizations, opinions influenced by the
lingering effects of the Iraq War and, perhaps more significantly, the midterms . “The outcome of the election
will clearly make a difference in terms of what happens in the lame duck,” said Republican Sen. John Hoeven,
referring to a host of issues, including war legislation. If Republicans win control of the upper chamber, the debate could
be kicked to the next Congress, when the GOP will have more influence. “We don’t think the president has the authority to do what’s
necessary to be successful in combating ISIL,” said John Cornyn, the GOP’s second in command in the Senate. But, he noted, his party’s leaders
want to see a “serious strategy” from the president before they make their next moves. “Then there is going to be a consensus from members in
the Senate for authorization.” (In a four-minute speech immediately after the Senate vote, President Obama thanked Congress for "strong
bipartisanship" that he said sends a message to "barbaric" ISIL terrorists that Americans, to be joined by France in airstrikes in Iraq, stand united.
He also repeated his assertion that the presence of more than 1,600 U.S. military personnel in Iraq is not a violation of what he called a "key
principle of our strategy" that American forces in Iraq “do not and will not have a combat mission.") A bipartisan group of lawmakers is urging
Congress to stay in town now to debate and vote on approving further military action, citing constitutional and constituent concerns. (The
administration has maintained that it already has the authority it needs for airstrikes inside Syria.) Several senators called for separating the Syrian
aid language from the budget measure to have a straight up-or-down vote on each, which would have more accurately reflected members’ views.
But doing so also figured to jeopardize some lawmakers up for re-election in November. Opposition to Syrian aid came from both sides of the
aisle, and included a mix of anti-interventionists as well as veterans, who expressed concerns about effectiveness, history, and duration of the
conflict. “We have been at war in that part of the world for the past 13 years. If money and military might could have made a difference, it would
have by now,” Democrat Joe Manchin said on the Senate floor. “Why do we think that training Syrian rebels would turn out any differently?”
“Intervention created the chaos,” said Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican with 2016 presidential ambitions. “Sending arms to socalled moderate Islamic rebels in Syria is a fool's errand and will only make [ISIL] stronger.” Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell
both supported Thursday’s vote, as did most of their respective leadership teams. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi backed the House measure,
which passed on a 273-156 vote. But beyond this first partial measure, Congress still needs to grapple with the larger
implications of military action. Pelosi said the president already has the authority he needs to move ahead with the rest of the ISIL
plan, but the House minority leader was firm in saying she and her caucus would not support putting U.S. combat
troops “in any of these engagements.” On Thursday, Boehner questioned Obama’s professed commitment to destroying the terrorist
group. “I am still waiting to see the bigger picture of how we win this war, how we destroy ISIL,” he said after a speech at the American
October recess will likely play a role in members’ appetite for the
debate post-election as lawmakers will gauge constituent interest and concern while campaigning.
Enterprise Institute. “I’ve not seen it yet.” The