1NC
1NC—T Domestic
Interpretation:
DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE IS SURVEILLANCE OF US PERSONS
Small 8 MATTHEW L. SMALL. United States Air Force Academy 2008 Center for the Study
of the Presidency and Congress, Presidential Fellows Program paper "His Eyes are Watching
You: Domestic Surveillance, Civil Liberties and Executive Power during Times of National Crisis"
http://cspc.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/Fellows2008/Small.pdf
Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first
necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a
subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is
“information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been
collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence,
domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence
community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information
concerning United States persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic
surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s
policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining
caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines
electronic surveillance as:
US person defined
Jackson et al 9 Brian A. Jackson, Darcy Noricks, and Benjamin W. Goldsmith, RAND
Corporation, The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A.
JACKSON, EDITOR
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf
3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a
substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated).
Although this definition would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons
located abroad, our objective was to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence
organization that would focus on—and whose activities would center around—individuals and
organizations located inside the United States . Though such an agency might receive
information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by other intelligence agencies, it
would not collect that information itself.
Violation: Eliminating TSA surveillance measures curtails surveillance of
individuals, regardless of whether they are US persons
Vote negative—
Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash--their interpretation
unlimits the topic. Their surveillance of non US persons opens up an unlimited
amount of other issues—that kills fairness and clash
1NC—T Surveillance
Interpretation – surveillance must be covert
Baker 5 – MA, CPP, CPO
(Brian, “Surveillance: Concepts and Practices for Fraud, Security and Crime Investigation,”
http://www.ifpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/surveillance.pdf)
Surveillance is defined as covert observations of places and persons for the purpose of
obtaining∂ information (Dempsey, 2003). The term covert infers that the operative conducting
the∂ surveillance is discreet and secretive. Surveillance that maintains a concealed, hidden,
undetected∂ nature clearly has the greatest chance of success because the subject of the
surveillance will act∂ or perform naturally. Remaining undetected during covert surveillance
work often involves∂ physical fatigue, mental stress, and very challenging situations. Physical
discomfort is an∂ unfortunate reality for investigators, which varies from stinging perspiration in
summer to hard∂ shivers during the winter.
Violation – the aff curtails body imaging technology that is not covert
Vote negative –
a) Limits—allowing the ending of public surveillance explodes the limits of the
topic by allowing affirmatives that deal with programs that known surveillance
like detention facilities
b) Ground—key to neg ground like terrorism and politics disads
Voting issue for competitive equity
1NC—Politics
Obama can hold of an override now – but PC is key to convince House Dems
French 7/30 (Lauren, Congress Reporter for Politico, GWU Journalism, “Obama gets personal
with Dems on Iran,” Politico, 7/30/2015, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/barackobama-personal-white-house-meeting-democrats-iran-nuclear-deal-120824.html)//duncan
*YELLOW is shorter
It was a side of President Barack Obama many of the 20 House Democrats who gathered in the White House’s
Blue Room Wednesday night hadn’t seen before: engaged, direct, even a little bit personal.¶ Obama
dived into his pitch on the Iran nuclear deal, demonstrating his command of the nuances as lawmakers peppered
him with questions. But the president who has infamously shied away from hardball politics when it
comes to selling his policies also made abundantly clear he’s making an exception to secure
what would be the biggest foreign policy triumph of his two terms.¶ He told the lawmakers they
“owe me” the chance to persuade them to support the nonproliferation agreement, according to
multiple members in attendance. He repeated comments made to lawmakers last week that they would
not get a pass on the Iran bill — that he wants, and expects, their support.¶ “This is the most
intense I’ve ever seen him,” Vermont Rep. Peter Welch, who supports the deal, said.¶ Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York
Democrat, said Obama told the lawmakers: “This is very important and you should vote on your real convictions, not based on
The president’s focus on marshaling enough Democratic votes to sustain a veto of
legislation disapproving of the nuclear deal is evident. He blew past a deadline to say goodnight
to his daughters, Sasha and Malia, in order to keep taking questions from lawmakers on the ins and
outs of the deal. The majority of House Democrats had gone to the White House earlier
Wednesday, but roughly 20 returned to hear from Obama and a handful of Cabinet secretaries.¶ Lawmakers say this is
the most invested in winning over lawmakers on a policy priority they’ve seen Obama during his
seven years in office. He’s pitching Democrats on a variety of fronts : sending emissaries to
Capitol Hill for briefings, inviting lawmakers on golf outings and spending hours personally
calling and meeting with lawmakers to answer questions about the agreement.¶ “ He is very
engaged on this issue … and it was probably one of the most remarkable moments I’ve had in
Congress,” said California Rep. Jackie Speier. “We were sitting in the Blue Room … and the president spent almost
two hours with us and answered every question with specifics, clarity and — I think —
persuasion.Ӧ Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a strong supporter of the deal, organized the Wednesday night meetings at the
politics.Ӧ
White House. They occurred on the eve of lawmakers’ departure from Washington for their long summer recess, when they’re
expected to face heavy pressure to oppose the Iran accord.¶ Obama, of course, has become well known for avoiding the grueling
task of building relationships with lawmakers, which many in Congress used to being stroked and cajoled have taken as a snub. The
lack of outreach has even hurt the president in the past. This year, Democrats bucked the White House on major trade legislation
and a bill giving Congress a say on the Iran deal. In the past, congressional Democrats have been at odds with Obama on budget and
tax deals he’s hatched with Republicans.¶ But it appears, at this late date, that the
White House has learned the value
of including lawmakers early, Democrats said.¶ “It’s a different White House. He’s working this
differently than I’ve ever seen him work anything and I think it’s making a difference,” said one
Democrat, who requested anonymity.¶ Obama asked Democrats who plan to support the deal to go public
early, a message that lawmakers have heard repeatedly from their pro-deal colleagues. Many are following that
advice . Michigan Rep. Dan Kildee, who attended the White House briefings, announced Thursday that he would vote
to push the deal forward.¶ Republicans are united in opposition to the Iran deal and will likely pass
a resolution registering their opposition when Congress returns from its summer recess in
September. Obama has pledged to veto that measure, meaning it will likely fall on House Democrats
to sustain that veto. Senate Democrats could also provide the votes to preserve the Iran
agreement, but that conference is more skeptical than its counterpart in the House, where
senior staffers already predict they have the votes to back Obama.¶ “I’m confident [we have
the votes] because of the nature of the agreement,” Pelosi said Thursday. “It’s really pretty
exciting. It’s probably one of the most important endeavors members will be engaged in. It’s
your vote that they are going to be held accountable for
Obama supports TSA screening—he’ll fight the plan
CNN 10
(Suzanne Malveaux, reporter, “Obama stands by controversial air security screening methods,”
11/21/10, http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/20/obama.tsa/)
President Barack Obama stood by new controversial screening measures
Saturday, calling methods such as pat-downs and body scans necessary to assure airline safety.∂
Lisbon, Portugal (CNN) --
Speaking at a NATO press conference in Lisbon, Portugal, the president called the balance between protecting travelers' rights and
their security a "tough situation."∂ Per the new rules, travelers may be subject to full-body scans at 400 such machines in 69 airports
nationwide. Those who voluntarily opt out -- as well as those who set off a scanning machine or a metal detector -- are subject to a
pat-down. Some travelers have likened the pat-downs to groping.∂ The
president said such methods are needed
after what happened December 25, 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria allegedly
boarded a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underwear. Abdulmutallab
reportedly failed to set off the bomb, which metal detectors didn't detect, though his attempt led to airport screening procedures
that have caused a holiday travel uproar.TSA chief: Pat-downs will continue Cancer survivor's pat down humiliation Airport to dump
TSA, use private company Eliminate TSA Screeners?∂ RELATED TOPICS∂ Transportation Security∂ Air Travel∂ "At
this point, the
Transportation Security Administration, in consultation with our counterterrorism experts,
have indicated to me that the procedures that they've been putting in place are the only ones
right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the
Christmas Day bombing," said Obama.
The plan is a perceived loss for Obama that saps his capital and derails the
agenda
Loomis, 7 --- Department of Government at Georgetown
(3/2/2007, Dr. Andrew J. Loomis is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Leveraging legitimacy in the crafting of U.S. foreign
policy,” pg 35-36, http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/9/4/8/pages179487/p179487-36.php)
Ornstein writes of the domestic context,
In a system where a President has limited formal power, perception matters. The reputation for
success —the belief by other political actors that even when he looks down, a president will find a way to pull out a victory— is the most
valuable resource a chief executive can have . Conversely, the widespread belief that the Oval
Office occupant is on the defensive, on the wane or without the ability to win under adversity
can lead to disaster, as individual lawmakers calculate who will be on the winning side and
negotiate accordingly. In simple terms, winners win and losers lose more often than not.
Failure begets failure. In short, a president experiencing declining amounts of political capital
has diminished capacity to advance his goals. As a result, political allies perceive a decreasing benefit
in publicly tying themselves to the president, and an increasing benefit in allying with rising centers of authority. A president’s
incapacity and his record of success are interlocked and reinforce each other. Incapacity leads to political failure, which
reinforces perceptions of incapacity. This feedback loop accelerates decay both in leadership
capacity and defection by key allies.
Declining political authority encourages defection. American political analyst Norman
The central point of this review of the presidential literature is that the
sources of presidential influence—and thus their
prospects for enjoying success in pursuing preferred foreign policies—go beyond the structural
factors imbued by the Constitution. Presidential authority is affected by ideational resources in the form of public perceptions of
legitimacy. The public offers and rescinds its support in accordance with normative trends and historical patterns, non-material sources of power that
affects the character of U.S. policy, foreign and domestic.
This brief review of the literature suggests how legitimacy
norms enhance presidential influence in ways that
structural powers cannot explain. Correspondingly, increased executive power improves the prospects
for policy success. As a variety of cases indicate—from Woodrow Wilson’s failure to generate domestic support for the League of Nations to
public pressure that is changing the current course of U.S. involvement in Iraq—the effective execution of foreign policy depends on public support.
Public support turns on perceptions of policy legitimacy. As a result, policymakers—starting with the president—pay close attention to the receptivity
that U.S. policy has with the domestic public. In this way, normative influences infiltrate policy-making processes and affect the character of policy
decisions.]
Failure will spur prolif and war with Iran – the plan tanks Obama’s ability to
hold off Congress
Beauchamp 14 (Zack – B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an
M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas
and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan’s The Dish at
Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines, now
writes for Vox , “How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,”
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal-congress,)
There is one foreign policy issue on which the GOP's takeover of the Senate could have huge ramifications, and beyond just the US:
Republicans are likely to try to torpedo President Obama's ongoing efforts to reach a nuclear deal
with Iran. And they just might pull it off. November 24 is the latest deadline for a final agreement between the United
States and Iran over the latter's nuclear program. That'll likely be extended, but it's a reminder that the negotiations could soon
come to a head. Throughout
his presidency, Obama has prioritized these negotiations ; he likely doesn't
want to leave office without having made a deal. But if Congress doesn't like the deal, or just wants to see
Obama lose, it has the power to torpedo it by imposing new sanctions on Iran. Previously, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural powers to stop this from happening and save the nuclear talks. But Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell may not be so kind, and he may
have the votes to destroy an Iran deal. If he tries,
we could see one of the most important legislative fights of Obama's presidency. Why Congress
can bully Obama on Iran sanctions At their most basic level, the international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program (they include
several other nations, but the US is the biggest player) are a tit-for-tat deal. If Iran agrees to place a series of verifiable limits on its
nuclear development, then the United States and the world will relax their painful economic and diplomatic sanctions on Tehran.
"The regime of economic sanctions against Iran is arguably the most complex the United States and the international community
have ever imposed on a rogue state," the Congressional Research Service's Dianne Rennack writes. To underscore the point,
Rennack's four-page report is accompanied by a list of every US sanction on Iran that goes on for 23 full pages. The US's sanctions
are a joint Congressional-executive production. Congress puts strict limits on Iran's ability to export oil and do business with
American companies, but it gives the president the power to waive sanctions if he thinks it's in the American national interest. "In
the collection of laws that are the statutory basis for the U.S. economic sanctions regime on Iran," Rennack writes, "the President
retains, in varying degrees, the authority to tighten and relax restrictions." The
key point here is that Congress gave
Obama that power — which means they can take it back. "You could see a bill in place that
makes it harder for the administration to suspend sanctions," Ken Sofer, the Associate Director
for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress (where I worked for
a little under two years, though not with Sofer directly), says. "You could also see a bill that says the president can't agree to a deal
unless it includes the following things or [a bill] forcing a congressional vote on any deal." Imposing
new sanctions on
Iran wouldn't just stifle Obama's ability to remove existing sanctions, it would undermine
Obama's authority to negotiate with Iran at all, sending the message to Tehran that Obama is
not worth dealing with because he can't control his own foreign policy. So if Obama wants to
make a deal with Iran, he needs Congress to play ball. But it's not clear that Mitch McConnell's Senate wants
to. Congress could easily use its authority to kill an Iran deal To understand why the new Senate is such a big deal for congressional
action on sanctions, we have to jump back a year. In November 2013, the Obama administration struck an interim deal with Iran
called the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). As part of the JPOA, the US agreed to limited, temporary sanctions relief in exchange for Iran
limiting nuclear program components like uranium production. Congressional Republicans, by and large, hate the JPOA deal. Arguing
that the deal didn't place sufficiently serious limits on Iran's nuclear growth, the House passed new sanctions on Iran in December.
(There is also a line of argument, though often less explicit, that the Iranian government cannot be trusted with any deal at all, and
that US policy should focus on coercing Iran into submission or unseating the Iranian government entirely.) Senate Republicans,
joined by more hawkish Democrats, had the votes to pass a similar bill. But in February, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid killed new
Iran sanctions, using the Majority Leader's power to block consideration of the sanctions legislation to prevent a vote. McConnell
blasted Reid's move. "There is no excuse for muzzling the Congress on an issue of this importance to our own national security," he
said. So now that McConnell holds the majority leader's gavel, it will remove that procedural roadblock that stood between Obama
and new Iran sanctions. To be clear, it's far from guaranteed that Obama will be able to reach a deal with Iran at all; negotiations
could fall apart long before they reach the point of congressional involvement. But if he does reach a deal, and Congress doesn't like
the terms, then they'll be able to kill it by passing new sanctions legislation, or preventing Obama from temporarily waiving the ones
on the books. And make no
mistake — imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to
waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through on his
promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its nuclear program. "If Congress adopts
sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead." Moreover, it could fracture
the international movement to sanction Iran. The United States is far from Iran's biggest
trading partner, so it depends on international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions
bite. If it looks like the US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international
sanctions regime could collapse. Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer
worthwhile. "Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones
that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the
international sanctions regime falls apart." This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term It's
true that Obama
could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. But a two-thirds
vote could override any veto — and, according to Sofer, an override is entirely within the realm of
possibility. "There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran,"
Sofer says. For a variety of reasons, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel,
whose government opposes the negotiations, Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal
with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle. The real fight, Sofer
says, will be among the Democrats — those who are willing to take the administration's side in
theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe
don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder:
you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto — you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of
Congress on Iran," Sofer says. But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume a lot of energy
and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues. "I'm not really
sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not really sure that the
Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know,
unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats." So if
the new Republican
Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it —
without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are
enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes
are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran. The administration believes a deal with Iran is
their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top
priorities since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.
Nuke war
Stevens 13 (Philip Stevens, associate editor and chief political commentator for the Financial
Times, Nov 14 2013, “The four big truths that are shaping the Iran talks,”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/af170df6-4d1c-11e3-bf32-00144feabdc0.html)
The who-said-what game about last weekend’s talks in Geneva has become a distraction. The
six-power negotiations with Tehran to curb
Iran’s nuclear programme may yet succeed or fail. But wrangling between the US and France on the terms of an acceptable deal should
Tehran’s acquisition of a
bomb would be more than dangerous for the Middle East and for wider international security. It would most likely set off
a nuclear arms race that would see Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt signing up to the nuclear
club . The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be shattered. A future regional conflict could draw
Israel into launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold
war disciplines of deterrence .¶ The second ineluctable reality is that Iran has mastered the nuclear
cycle. How far it is from building a bomb remains a subject of debate. Different intelligence agencies give different answers. These depend in part on what the spooks
not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The organising facts shaping the negotiations have not changed.¶ The first of these is that
actually know and in part on what their political masters want others to hear. The progress of an Iranian warhead programme is one of the known unknowns that have often
wreaked havoc in this part of the world.¶ Israel points to an imminent threat. European agencies are more relaxed, suggesting Tehran is still two years or so away from a
weapon. Western diplomats broadly agree that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not taken a definitive decision to step over the line. What Iran has been seeking is what diplomats
call a breakout capability – the capacity to dash to a bomb before the international community could effectively mobilise against it.¶ The third fact – and this one is hard for
many to swallow – is that neither a negotiated settlement nor the air strikes long favoured by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, can offer the rest of the world a
watertight insurance policy.¶ It should be possible to construct a deal that acts as a plausible restraint – and extends the timeframe for any breakout – but no amount of
bombing Iran’s nuclear sites
could certainly delay the programme, perhaps for a couple of years. But, assuming that even the hawkish Mr Netanyahu is not proposing permanent
war against Iran, air strikes would not end it. ¶ You cannot bomb knowledge and technical expertise. To
try would be to empower those in Tehran who say the regime will be safe only when, like North Korea, it
has a weapon. So when Barack Obama says the US will never allow Iran to get the bomb he is indulging in, albeit understandable, wishful thinking.¶ The best
the international community can hope for is that, in return for a relaxation of sanctions, Iran
will make a judgment that it is better off sticking with a threshold capability. To put this another way, if
Tehran does step back from the nuclear brink it will be because of its own calculation of the
balance of advantage.¶ The fourth element in this dynamic is that Iran now has a leadership that, faced with the
severe and growing pain inflicted by sanctions, is prepared to talk . There is nothing to say that Hassan Rouhani, the president, is any less
restrictions or intrusive monitoring can offer a certain guarantee against Tehran’s future intentions.¶ By the same token,
hard-headed than previous Iranian leaders, but he does seem ready to weigh the options.
1NC—CP
Text: The Supreme Court should prohibit the use of all body imaging technology
at airports in the United States on the grounds of the 4th amendment
The Courts are specifically better than Congress for protecting privacy
rights
Sommer et al 13 (Udi Sommer, PhD, Victor Asal, PhD, Katie Zuber, PhD Candidate, Jonathan
Parent, PhD Candidate, 21 Feb 2013, “Institutional Paths to Policy Change: Judicial Versus
Nonjudicial Repeal of Sodomy Laws,” Law & Society Review, Volume 47, Number 2 (2013)) //RL
The goal of this study was to analyze the origins of policy change via different institutional paths,
comparing judicial and nonjudicial institutions. This question, which has been crucially important in
the study of public policy, judicial politics, and social movements, was examined here for the
first time systematically in a cross-national framework over a period of several decades and with
respect to a question still on the agenda in numerous coun- tries, namely the decriminalization
of same-sex intimacy. While the debate in the literature may still be unsettled, the theory developed here suggests that
policy change emanates from judicial as well as nonjudicial bodies. The key message of this study, however, is not limited to the
notion that courts create policy change. Rather, we explain theo- retically, and then substantiate empirically, that different sets of
variables systematically explain policy change via disparate institu- tional venues. Our
findings clearly indicate that
legal precedent in a Common Law system limits the introduction of policy change via the
political branches more than via courts of last resort, and particularly when such change proves
contentious. At the same time, the path-dependent nature of law in civil law countries makes it
easier for policy change to emanate from the legislature. Indeed, whereas legislative repeal
constitutes 97% of the cases where sodomy laws were revoked in Civil Law countries, 6 in every
10 repeals in Common Law countries were judicial. Such findings are significant not only to our
understanding of law, but to a range of Sommer, Asal, Zuber, & Parent 429 topics including legal
development, accountability, and the effects of religiosity on policy formation and change. In
addition, our findings lend support to the notion that political actors are more constrained by legal status
quo than their judicial counterparts, and accordingly, that the effects of path dependence on
decisionmaking in supreme courts are commensurably weaker . More broadly, this finding
addresses a major criticism leveled against path-dependence scholars concerning their inability
to explain policy change. We contend that the judicial hierarchical structure enables courts of last
resort to produce policy change. Indeed, as Kahn (2006) suggests, such courts may serve as important mechanisms of
change, a relief valve of sorts, in theories of path dependence. Furthermore, it is evident that political institutions,
such as accountability, entail closer proximity between the will of constitu- ents and decisionmaking authorities in the political branches. At the same time, we find courts are less affected than
legislatures by majoritarian elements including, for instance, political pressures exerted by
religious groups . Some forces at the domestic (e.g., democratic conditions) and global (e.g.,
globalization) levels affect repeal, notwithstanding its institutional venue. In a subsample of democracies,
the effect of democratic conditions is diminished, but the effects of the other predictors remain largely unaffected. There is also
an important normative element to this discussion concerning the legitimacy of unelected
judges altering the policy made by decision makers who are accountable to the electorate. Indeed,
this concern was expressed most famously by Bickel (1962) who wrote of the “counter-majoritarian difficulty” and more recently by
Powers and Rothman (2002) who see the judiciary as ill-equipped to resolve issues better left to legislatures. A number of responses
have been offered to this critique, ranging from empiri- cal studies demonstrating the reluctance of the court to stray too far from
public opinion (Barnum 1985; Mishler & Sheehan 1993), to suggestions that lawmakers themselves create conditions favorable to
judicial policy making (Gillman 2002; Rogers 2001). The theory
proposed in this study (and the empirical
support presented there- after) directly engages this scholarship. As far as the protection of sexual
minorities is concerned, the findings in this study clearly indicate that judicial institutions may well
be the ones to extend legal protections to minority populations. It is not always clear in such instances,
however, that judges are acting in a counter- majoritarian fashion. When the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision
in Brown, for example, only 17 states required segregation of public schools (Balkin 2008). Similarly, when the Court decided on the
constitutionality of sodomy prohi- bitions in Lawrence, only 13 states still criminalized same-sex sodomy. Under the right
circumstances, policy
change may 430 Institutional Paths to Policy Change originate from courts of last resort,
but such change does not necessarily run contrary to popular will or to elected institutions.17 As
far as predictors of social change are concerned, and in particular in the context of the rights
afforded sexual minorities, the analytical advantage of examining disparate institutional
paths is clear . For instance, despite failures to find effects for religiosity in past work (e.g., Frank &
McEneaney 1999), our theory and empiri- cal tests illustrate the critical importance of analytically
treating disparate institutional paths in order to accurately assess the effects of independent
variables such as religious constituencies. The political stars align differently in dissimilar jurisdictions. When
Common Law and strong religious constituencies are present in a polity, courts may be the venue of choice for those seeking social
change. Indeed, the Canadian and South African cases described earlier are but two examples illustrating these dynamics. Lastly, this
work also offers some empirical predictions to be further developed and tested in future work. Civil law systems tend to hold case
law to be subordinate to statutory law, which might also explain the greater reliance on nonjudicial institutions. Testing this
theoretical account would complement the findings in this study. In addition, religious constituencies beyond those studied here
may influence policy output (Campbell & Monson 2003; Wright, Erikson, & McIver 1987). A
thorough treatment of the
dynamics of a broader range of religious groups and consequent judicial and nonjudicial
policymaking (with respect to gay rights and otherwise) merits further study. With respect to
institutional paths to policy change, future work may wish to examine the introduction of other
policies (related to sexual minorities or otherwise) via disparate institutional paths. The set of
predictors offered in this article may account, for instance, for the introduction of antidiscrimination policies in different countries.
While some accounts in the literature claim that, in Europe for instance, the mere decriminalization of same-sex sex inexorably led
to the introduction of antidiscrimina- tion measures (e.g., Waaldijk 2000), the theory proposed here offers an alternative analysis.
Considering institutional paths of policy change and their respective predictors including type of legal system, special constituencies,
democratic conditions, and glo- balization, our theory offers a rich framework for scholars studying those processes.
Moving
beyond sexual minorities, the findings here may serve future examinations of policy change
relevant to additional minority groups and policy domains
That avoids the link to politics
Whittington 5 Keith, Professor of Politics @ Princeton, Interpose Your Friendly Hand,
American Political Science Review, Nov 99-4
American political parties are often fractious coalitions, and party unity may come at the price of substantial policy compromise. For the
leaders of factions within the governing party, judicial review may offer the means for continuing the intracoalitional disagreement and potentially for undoing the compromises
The backstop of friendly judicial review may smooth the
legislative relations of the members of fractious political coalitions while providing some
measure of additional security for the central commitments of party leaders and presidents. Judicial
that had to be made in the political and legislative arenas.
invalidation of even recent federal law will not necessarily be unwelcome by political leaders.
1NC—Terror
Terrorists have the capability to carry out a hijacking.
Grice 15 (Grice, Andrea, 5/12/2015, "Al-Qaeda could bring down a flight between London and New York 'tomorrow',"
Independent, accessed: 7/31/2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alqaeda-could-bring-down-a-us-flighttomorrow-former-cia-man-michael-morell-warns-outlining-threat-of-attack-on-us-soil-10243486.html)//ALepow
Al-Qaeda could bring down a US flight 'tomorrow' former CIA man Michael Morell warns,
outlining threat of attack on US soil. The former deputy chief of the CIA has said “would not be
surprised” if Al-Qaeda succeeded in carrying out a terrorist attack on a flight between the UK
and the United States “tomorrow,” he warned in a new book. Morell, who was instrumental in
the US’s response to the 9/11 attacks, has outlined his beliefs that the terrorist group has the
capabilities to carry out such an attack that would leave hundreds of people dead, or one that
would see radicals carry out attacks on the ground in the US. “To put it bluntly, I would not be
surprised if al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) tomorrow brought down a US airliner
travelling from London to New York or from New York to Los Angeles or anywhere else in the
United States,” he wrote in his new book, The Great War of Our Time, The Telegraph reports.
Before he left the CIA after a 33-year career, Morell became the spy agency’s acting director for
the second time after David Petraeus handed in his resignation following the discovery of his
affair with his biographer. His time at the agency had seen him with President Bush when the
news of the attacks on the World Trade Centers was broken, and with President Obama when
the news was relayed that Osama bin Laden had been killed, USA Today reports. Morell said he
is deeply concerned that US “is going to get hit in the homeland again” and believes there is a
significant chance that an Isis-inspired attack could happen at any point. Speaking to Politico,
Morell repeated his warning that al-Qaeda in Yemen could “bring down an airliner,” adding: “If
we don’t keep pressure on the terrorists, they are going to rebound until they’re able to conduct
another 9/11-style attack.” One of the reasons he wrote the book, Morell said, “is that I wanted
American people to know that”. Morell told the magazine the two attacks he worried about the
most is an “AQAP attack that is significant in that it kills hundreds of people,” with the most
likely scenario being a specialised explosive that would bring down an airliner in the US; and a
directed attack on US soil by Isis, al Nusra, al Qaeda in Pakistan, AQAP, or al Qaeda in Yemen
that would see a terrorist group “get 10 or 15 guys and send them into malls on a Saturday with
single weapons and have them kill 10 or 20 or 25 people.
.
Recent events prove TSA advanced imaging technology body scanners are
effective at detecting concealed weapons
Government Security News 14 (“TSA scanners find loaded pistol in ankle strap”,
http://gsnmagazine.com/article/25220/tsa_scanners_find_loaded_pistol_ankle_strap)
A loaded .380 pistol found strapped to the ankle of an elderly man passing through security at Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport (DTW), according to TSA, shows that body scanners do find
dangerous things, and prevent them from getting on-board commercial aircraft. TSA said its
agents found the weapon on Dec. 12 after an advanced imaging technology scanner equipped with
automated target recognition (ATR) software detected a hidden item on a passenger's ankle. The agents determined that the item
was a loaded gun -- a .380 caliber Ruger Prescott handgun -- hidden in an ankle holster, said TSA. The agency notified local law
enforcement who arrested the man. The incident was not only notable because of the use of ATR, said TSA, but because the weapon
wasn’t in a carry-on bag, but concealed on a person. The agency regularly finds weapons from guns to butcher knives, in carry-ons,
usually forgotten and left the luggage. A loaded, concealed handgun hidden in an ankle holster could be more hazardous than one
forgotten in a carry-on. “This
catch demonstrates not only the ability of advanced imaging technology to
identify concealed and dangerous items, but is also a credit to the officers who quickly reacted and kept a dangerous
item from being brought through the checkpoint and onto an airplane,” said TSA on Dec. 12 On its web blog on Dec. 13, TSA said
the discovery of the item proves that its AIT scanners can, and do, find dangerous items on
people and prevent them from being carried on-board aircraft. The AIT scanners and checkpoint screenings
have been vehemently criticized by some as being unnecessary and ineffective. TSA said the discovery of the gun by
ATR-equipped AIT machines show that the technology is effective and necessary. “It’s just more
proof that this technology can and will find dangerous items,” said the agency’s blog post on Dec. 13. The blog
also addressed criticism that the gun could have been found with ordinary walk-through metal detector scanners and that the AIT
technology is overkill and too expensive. “While that’s a true statement,” said the post, “the walk through metal detectors cannot
detect non metallic items like explosives, which are the greatest threat to aviation today. Body scanners are far more versatile and
can find both metallic and non metallic concealed dangerous items. Hundreds of dangerous, prohibited, and illegal items have been
found with the scanners since January 2010,” it said.
Getting rid of the structural barriers to find concealed weapons ensures
devastating terror attacks—9/11 proves
History 11 (*last mentioned date in article is 2011, “9/11 ATTACKS”,
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks)
As millions watched the events unfolding in New York, American Airlines Flight 77 circled over downtown Washington, D.C., and
slammed into the west side of the Pentagon military headquarters at 9:45 a.m. Jet
fuel from the Boeing 757 caused a
devastating inferno that led to the structural collapse of a portion of the giant concrete building.
All told, 125 military personnel and civilians were killed in the Pentagon, along with all 64 people
aboard the airliner. Less than 15 minutes after the terrorists struck the nerve center of the U.S.
military, the horror in New York took a catastrophic turn for the worse when the south tower of the World Trade Center
collapsed in a massive cloud of dust and smoke. The structural steel of the skyscraper, built to withstand winds in excess of 200 miles
per hour and a large conventional fire, could not withstand the tremendous heat generated by the burning jet fuel. At 10:30 a.m.,
the other Trade Center tower collapsed. Close
to 3,000 people died in the World Trade Center and its
vicinity, including a staggering 343 firefighters and paramedics, 23 New York City police officers
and 37 Port Authority police officers who were struggling to complete an evacuation of the
buildings and save the office workers trapped on higher floors. Only six people in the World
Trade Center towers at the time of their collapse survived. Almost 10,000 others were treated
for injuries, many severe. Meanwhile, a fourth California-bound plane–United Flight 93–was hijacked about
40 minutes after leaving Newark International Airport in New Jersey. Because the plane had been delayed in taking off,
passengers on board learned of events in New York and Washington via cell phone and Airfone calls to the ground. Knowing that the
aircraft was not returning to an airport as the hijackers claimed, a group of passengers and flight attendants planned an insurrection.
One of the passengers, Thomas Burnett Jr., told his wife over the phone that “I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who
are going to do something about it. I love you, honey.” Another passenger–Todd Beamer–was heard saying “Are you guys ready?
Let’s roll” over an open line. Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant, called her husband and explained that she had slipped into a galley
and was filling pitchers with boiling water. Her last words to him were “Everyone’s running to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.” The
passengers fought the four hijackers and are suspected to have attacked the cockpit with a fire extinguisher. The plane then flipped
over and sped toward the ground at upwards of 500 miles per hour, crashing in a rural field in western Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m.
All 45 people aboard were killed. Its intended target is not known, but theories include the White House, the U.S.
Capitol, the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland or one of several nuclear power plants along the eastern seaboard. At 7
p.m., President George W. Bush, who had spent the day being shuttled around the country because of security concerns, returned to
the White House. At 9 p.m., he delivered a televised address from the Oval Office, declaring, “Terrorist attacks can shake the
foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot
dent the steel of American resolve.” In a reference to the eventual U.S. military response he declared, “We will make no distinction
between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” Operation Enduring Freedom, the American-led
international effort to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and destroy Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network based there, began
on October 7. Within two months, U.S. forces had effectively removed the Taliban from operational power, but the war continued,
as U.S. and coalition forces attempted to defeat a Taliban insurgency campaign based in neighboring Pakistan. Osama bin Laden, the
mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, remained at large until May 2, 2011, when he was finally tracked down and killed
by U.S. forces at a hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In June 2011, President Barack Obama announced the beginning of large-scale
troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, with a final withdrawal of U.S. forces tentatively scheduled for 2014.
1NC—Inherency
The Backscatter naked body imaging tech was already removed and replaced
with AIT tech which produces a generic outline of a body
Kuruvilla 13 (Carol, “TSA has completely removed revealing X-ray scanners from America's
airports: rep”, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-removed-full-bodyscanners-rep-article-1.1360143)
American travelers can wave goodbye to the X-rated X-ray scanners that once produced graphic
images of passengers' bodies at airport security checkpoints. The Transportation Security
Administration has finished replacing the controversial "backscatter" scanners with less intrusive
machines, a spokesperson confirmed to the News. American airports are now using Advanced
Imaging Technology (AIT), a system that presents TSA security officers with a generic outline of a
body. The outline is identical for everyone and potential threats will pop up on the screen as
small yellow boxes. It's still pretty late - the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 originally set
the deadline for June 2012, NBC reports. It was later extended. The TSA first started using
backscatters in 2008. The technology, produced by the security system company Rapsican,
detects hazardous objects by creating a detailed image based on each individual's body shape.
The scanners were so powerful that officers could see through clothing and observe all of the
curves on each individual's body, effectively creating a nude image. The backscatters also
release a small amount of ionizing radiation. At higher levels, this type of radiation has been
linked to cancer, according to ProPublica. The X-ray machines were removed at the expense of
Rapsican. The TSA confirmed that it stopped doing business with the company. "We terminated
the contract with Rapsican months ago," the spokesperson said in a statement. The new AIT
machines are millimeter-wave scanners, which are the kind of radio waves that cell phones
usually emit. And unlike backscatter images, which have to be reviewed by TSA officers, AIT
scanners use a computer program to automatically detect dangerous materials.
1NC—Case
Extinction 1st – pre-requisite to formation of value
Wapner ‘3
Paul, Associate professor and director of the Global Environmental Policy Program at American
University, DISSENT, Winter,
http://www.dissentmgazine.org/menutest/artiles/wi03/wapner.htm
The third response to eco-criticism would require critics to acknowledge the ways in which they themselves silence nature and then
to respect the sheer otherness of the nonhuman world. Postmodernism
prides itself on criticizing the urge
toward mastery that characterizes modernity. But isn't mastery exactly what postmodernism is
exerting as it captures the nonhuman world within its own conceptual domain? Doesn't postmodern
cultural criticism deepen the modernist urge toward mastery by eliminating the ontological weight of the nonhuman world? What
else could it mean to assert that there is no such thing as nature? I have already suggested the
postmodernist response: yes, recognizing the social construction of "nature" does deny the self-expression of the nonhuman world,
hut how would we know what such self-expression means? Indeed, nature doesn't speak; rather, some person always speaks on
nature's behalf, and whatever that person says is, as we all know, a social construction. All attempts to listen to nature are social
constructions-except one. Even
the most radical postmodernist must acknowledge the distinction
between physical existence and non-existence. As I have said, postmodernists accept that there is a physical
substratum to the phenomenal world even if they argue about the different meanings wc ascribe to it. This acknowledgment of
physical existence is crucial. We
can't ascribe meaning to that which doesn't appear What doesn't exist
can manifest no character. Put differently, yes, the postmodernist should rightly worry about interpreting nature's
expressions. And all of us should be wary of those who claim to speak on nature's behalf (including environmentalists who do that).
But we
need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression is existence. This in
turn suggests that preserving the nonhuman world-in all its diverse embodiments-must be seen by ecocritics as a fundamental good. Eco-critics must be supporters, in some fashion, of environmental
preservation.
If your gender identity or appearance does not match your ID it does not matter
for TSA
National Center for Transgender Equality 2015 (http://transequality.org/know-yourrights/airport-security; Know Your Rights |Airport Security;7/21/15;lmm)
All passengers 18 years of age or older are required to provide proof of identity at check-in and at the security checkpoint.
TSA
rules require that you provide your name, gender, and date of birth when making an airline
reservation. The name, gender, and date of birth must match the government-issued photo ID you will provide when passing
through security. The Secure Flight program checks this information against government watch lists, and gender
information is used to eliminate false matches with the same or similar names – not to evaluate a
person’s gender. If you have different names or genders listed on different ID, you can choose
which to provide, so long as you bring photo ID that matches your reservation. TSA Travel
Document Checkers will check as you enter security to ensure that information on your ID
matches your boarding pass. It does not matter whether your current gender presentation
matches the gender marker on your ID or your presentation in your ID photo, and TSA officers should
not comment on this. Sometimes travelers have their tickets booked for them by other people. When this happens, you should
make sure that the person booking your tickets uses the information on the government-issued ID you plan to use at the airport. The
gender marker on your boarding pass must match the government-issued photo ID you show the TSA Travel Document Checker.
TSA changes are an improvement for transgendered travelers—ability to
PreCheck and go through metal detectors instead of body scanners
Ford 13 (Zack Ford, editor of ThinkProgress LGBT at the Center for American Progress Action
Fund, “Victory For Transgender Privacy: TSA Abandons ‘Nude’ Body Scanners”, 1/18/2015, Think
Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/18/1471481/victory-for-transgender-privacytsa-abandons-nude-body-scanners/, DJE)
In what is an important victory for the transgender community, the U.S. Transportation Security
Administration has announced it will remove all body scanners that show nearly nude images
from airports. The TSA had already removed 76 of the machines and will now remove the
remaining 174, though they may still be used in other government offices where privacy is not a
concern like it is in airports. Congress had set a deadline for OSI Systems to develop software for
the scanners to produce generic passenger images instead of the the nearly nude images, but
the company was unable to meet the timeline. Scanners produced by other companies that
have managed to adjust the software will continue to be used. The invasion of privacy caused by
the machine was particularly invasive for transgender people, who were considered suspicious if
their genitalia did not match their presentation. Even the software change utilized by the
remaining body scanners, which are manufactured by L-3, use “blue” and “pink” indicators for
gender that can still cause confusion (and thus concern) for trans passengers. As a result, they
can be disproportionately selected for invasive pat downs. The TSA is planning to expand its
PreCheck program, in which passengers share more personal data before arriving at the airport
but can then go through metal detectors instead of body scanners.
Their solvency evidence doesn’t advocate for getting rid of body scanning and
says the TSA already implemented different body scanning tech--their own ev
proves the aff doesn’t do anything
National Center for Transgender Equality 15 (NCTE, the prime advocates for transequality, June 29th, 2015, “A Blueprint for Equality: The Right to Travel (2015),”
http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NCTE_Blueprint_2015_Travel.pdf
//MV)
In recent years, many Americans have been disturbed by the decision of the
Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to implement airport screening procedures that
are far more intrusive than anything previously seen in the United States. These
techniques—which often include intrusive body searches of passengers—present
especially serious concerns for transgender people, who can be outed against their will
only to face bias and harassment. These screening procedures can be especially
traumatic for transgender children. In the National Transgender Discrimination Survey—
which includes data collected before these more intrusive techniques were
introduced—nearly one in five transgender travelers reported having been harassed or
disrespected by airport security screeners or other airport workers.1 In 2011, the TSA
began phasing in new screening technology that replaces electronic viewing of images
of passengers’ unclothed bodies with automated detection of potentially hazardous
objects. This technology mitigates some privacy concerns but has not changed the
frequent use of intrusive pat-downs. NCTE continues to hear troubling stories from
transgender travelers about their treatment by TSA, as well as by officials at U.S. border
crossings. While NCTE has long worked with TSA to promote better staff training,
respond to individual complaints, and educate the trans traveling public, the agency’s
lack of transparency and persistent use of invasive and unproven security procedures
are a continuing cause for concern. Policy Advances • The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) updated all scanners to show only a generic body outline rather
than images of passengers’ actual bodies. (2013) Needed Policy Changes • The
Transportation Security Administration should adopt more effective and less intrusive
airport screening protocols that reduce the frequency of pat-downs and do not
require additional screening of transgender travelers based solely on their personal
characteristics, prosthetics, or clothing. • The Transportation Security Administration
should include transgender competence in its basic training curriculum for airport
security screeners and other Transportation Security Officers. • U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) should include transgender competence in its basic training
curriculum for CBP agents. See Immigration Reform for more on border enforcement
and other immigration policies
The aff does nothing against surveillance at border checkpoints. This is an alt
cause – their evidence
Redden 13
Stephanie M., Carleton University, Canada and London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, 6-1-2013, "The End Of The
Line Feminist Understandings Of Resistance To Full-Body Scanning Technology," International Feminist Journal Of Politics Issn:
1461-6742 Date: 06/2013 Volume: 15 Issue: 2 Page: 234-253 //MV
Magnet and Rodgers (2011: 1; see also Johnson 2006: 6) also make clear that it is essential to consider how this technology not only differently affects
women, but also how other ‘marginalized subjects’ are affected. They note that: ... transgender
individuals, people with
disabilities, and those with particular religious affiliations are rendered newly or differently
legible. As such, their application to airport security generates new implications for who are
allowed to move through, and who are afforded justice within, contemporary cultural and
transnational spaces. (Magnet and Rodgers 2011: 7) This differentiated legibility of bodies is nowhere more
visible than in the interactions between gender and identity at border security points. As Currah and
Mulqueen (2011: 559) have recently highlighted, the classification of individuals by the State according to gender
metrics produces less certainty for queer, transgender and other bodies whose realities do not
map onto the State’s dichotomous understandings of gender, as ‘securitizing gender does not
necessarily secure identity, and may indeed destabilize it’. The intense gender-based
interrogations and pat downs that these individuals often undergo as their bodies are seen as
threatening suggest the deeply problematic and essentializing nature of full-body scanner
technologies and other security practices, whereby a clear gender marker is understood to be a sign of positive identification.
Shepherd and Sjoberg (2012: 15) importantly argue that ‘both the introduction of WBI scanners in airports and the
ways in which this technology has been linked to trans- bodies are forms of discursive violence’.
They explain that with the use of these scanners: the visibility of trans- bodies has become both
pronounced and contested, arguing that this is in itself a form of discursive violence and,
further, that such strategies are productive of cisprivilege, which functions to position transbodies as different, deviant and dangerous and simultaneously as vulnerable and in need of
protection. (Shepherd and Sjoberg 2012: 13)
Alt cause—body scanners outside of airports
EPIC 2013
(Electronic Privacy Information Center, August 2013, “Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body
Scanners,” https://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/)
TSA Conducts Warrantless Searches Outside of Airports: The Transportation Security
Administration has expanded its Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program to
perform warrantless searches at various locations, including festivals, sporting events, and
bus stations. The VIPR program uses "risk-based" profiling and "behavior detection" to
search and detain individuals. Members of Congress have opposed these searches, and the
GAO has questioned the validity of TSA's behavior detection and dispelled behavior detection
effectiveness. Last year, EPIC prevailed in a lawsuit against the TSA that revealed the agency's
plan to deploy body scanners outside of the airport at bus stations, train stations, and
elsewhere.