Tradition, Advocacy, Innovation

Presidential Powers Topic Choices


Posted on June 4th, by Sarah Spring in Debate Pedagogy, Debate Topics. Comments Off on Presidential Powers Topic Choices

“Selecting an official question is not all beer and skittles. It means a lot of work and requires a lot of machinery.” – The Forensic, 1938

So it seems the topic committee has again wrapped up its unenviable work on the upcoming NDT/CEDA topic. If you also have some time to burn, you can watch the deliberation in these videos. 

As a brief side note, the number and diversity of the resolutions I think is a good sign that the committee has begun to recognize the impossibility of resolutional perfection (for more on this, see this article I wrote a few years ago about the topic process).

For those out there who are unfamiliar with the process, CEDA will in the coming weeks release a ballot with these options and the vote will be due around the 3rd Saturday in July, with the results being announced at the same time.

 

Below you’ll find the resolutions from a google doc that was shared by Paul Mabrey, which I’ve moderately organized into “Broad” and “List” resolutions.

I’m not sure which resolution I prefer or think will prevail, but I think the committee has again done a great job under some tough conditions!

Broad:

Resolved: The war powers authority of the President of the United States should be substantially restricted.

Resolved: The war powers authority asserted by the President of the United States under The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40) should be substantially restricted.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority asserted by the President of the United States under The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States, at least including the restriction of authority asserted by the President of the United States under The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

 

Lists:

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; warrantless domestic electronic surveillance; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; warrantless domestic electronic surveillance; offensive cyber operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; covert operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions, at least including oversight, on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of the following areas: targeted killing; indefinite detention; offensive cyber operations; covert operations; or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.





Comments are closed.



UH Policy Debate Blog

Honors Policy Debate team argue merits of fracking – The Daily Cougar
Jenny Reiss Fracking is neither sustainable nor will it bridge the way towards renewable energy

Any environmental risk is reason enough to calm enthusiasm for...

And we’re off!

The team has departed, with Nader, for GSU. #GoCoogs

Skip to toolbar