Courts CPs

7/25/2019 Courts CPs

1/81

Courts Counterplans


2/81

IndexFISA/FISC CPSOP Supreme Court CP

Contributing:Jake GalantIan DillKCathy Min


3/81

FISA/FISC CP


4/81

NotesContributing:Ian Dill

he FISC i! an Arti"le III #i!tri"t "ourt !et up by the FISA a"t o$ %&' (hi"h make!ruling! regar#ing the FISA a"t a! (ell a! the FISA Amen#ment! a"t o$ )**'+ heFISC, i! the appeal! "ourt !et up to re-ie( the FISC.! #e"i!ion!+ oth are !e"ret0an# are able to (ithhol# #e"i!ion! an# opinion! $rom publi" re-ie(+

Sol-e! any a#-antage that i! ba!e# purely in en#ing !ur-eillan"e a! oppo!e# toa#-antage! ba!e# on mo#eling or per"eption o$ re$orm+e!t run again!t the $ree#om a"t a10 or any a1 that re!tri"t! 2SA !ur-eillan"e0 a!that.! all "hannele# through the FISC "ourt! a! it i!+ Spe"i3"ally0 it !ol-e! thepri-a"y an# bigotry a#-antage! (ell+

Goo# net bene3t! are pt40 a #e$eren"e #a 5i$ it.! a "ourt! a160 or potentially a terrorDA

57ou (oul# nee# to run a per"eption/#eterren"e link to the terror DA to make it netbene3"ial0 be"au!e you !till re!tri"t !ur-eillan"e to the !ame #egree a! the a1(oul#6


5/81

1NCThe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review shouldrule that Insert Plan !andate"#

CP solves $ FISCR Rulings set %inding precedent for futureFISC rulings AN& those decisions re'ain secret(oeglin ) Taranto 1*0 Ja"k oeglin 8 Juliu! aranto9 oth are J+D+ "an#i#ate! in the "la!! o$ )*; at

7ale A""or#ing to publi" re"or#!0 the FISC ha! !at en ban" only on"e0; but it i!

impo!!ible to kno( ho( many !itting! an# opinion! remain !e"ret+ The Court of Review 2 whichconsists of three district or circuit ,udges also designated %+ the Chief3ustice2 has issued onl+ two pu%lic decisions+& + Stare De"i!i! an# the FISA Court! Inter's of its core function2 the FISC is e4ectivel+ a federal district court#'The vast 'a,orit+ of its wor5 involves a single ,udges deter'inations ofthe legalit+ of govern'ent re6uests to authori7e surveillance or co'pelproduction#Although it i! har# to be "ertain (ithout more publi"ly a-ailable in$ormation0 FISC ,udgesli5el+ treat their opinions as non8precedential2 as is standard practice forfederal district courts+ he relati-ely $e( publi" FISC opinion! #o "ite earlier FISC opinion! an#prin"iple! o$ la(0)* but we have seen no clear evidence to suggest that the ,udgesfeel for'all+ %ound %+ those earlier opinions in an+ 'anner that would setthe' apart fro' other Article III district courts+ In contrast2 en %ancopinions and Court of Review opinions apparentl+ do have the force ofstare decisis# 9ith en %anc rulings 0 thi! point i! e-i#ent $rom the !tatute: the "ourt may !it enban" only to =!e"ure or maintain uni$ormity> or to #e"i#e a =ue!tion o$ e4"eptional importan"e+>) These%ases for en %anc ,urisdiction suggest that individual FISC ,udges 'ustgive stare decisis e4ect to an+ en %anc panel decision that is notoverturned %+ the Court of Reviewbe"au!e0 a%sent such a practice2 the en%anc panels would not ful:ll one of their two statutor+ purposes: to secureor 'aintain unifor'it+#Court of Review opinions can %e precedential2 %utthe+ are not necessaril+ precedential#The Court of Review is an appellate
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/comment/stare-decisis-and-secret-lawhttp://www.yalelawjournal.org/comment/stare-decisis-and-secret-law


6/81

court2 and li5e other Article III appellate courts2 it has the power to %ind%oth lower courts -in this case2 the FISC . and later Court of Reviewpanels +)) The Court of Review pro%a%l+ has the sa'e discretion as federalcourts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non8precedential;at lea!t0 no !tatutory pro-i!ion #e"lare! other(i!e+)B he t(o publi" Court o$ ,e-ie( opinion!are publi!he# in re#a"te# $orm in the Fe#eral ,eporter+)? As with the pu%lished case of theFISC sitting en %anc2 these pu%lished Court of Review cases are certainl+precedential #


7/81


8/81

legal action %+ FISCR sets legal precedentfor all NSA surveillance re6uests and ensures co'pliance fro'the FISC > that solves unwarranted %ul5 surveillance 8 all

surveillance cases go through FISC

Avoids the N( >


9/81

the+ have the 3urisdiction to set legalprecedent@a++ali 12a#ia Kayyali0 ill o$ ,ight! De$en!e Committee Nle"troni" Frontier Foun#ation+http!://(((+e1+org/#eeplink!/)*?/*'/(hatyounee#kno(about3!a"ourtan#ho(itnee#!"hange+ '//)*?Lhy the FISA Court 2ee#! to Change: Among the myria# rea!on! the FISC mu!t "hange0 three !tan# out+ Fir!t0 FISA ha! be"ome a#ra!ti"ally more "ompli"ate# la( than (hen it (a! originally pa!!e# in &'0 an# the role o$ the FISC ha! a""or#ingly gro(n $ar

beyon# the boun#! o$ (hat Congre!! en-i!ione#+ Se"on#0 be"au!e o$ tho!e "hange!0 the FISC has created a huge%od+ of secret polic+ and legal precedent+ Finally0 the "ourt.! relian"e on the go-ernment to pro-i#eall the ne"e!!ary in$ormation nee#e# to $airly make #e"i!ion! i! not !u"ient0 !omething that i! pain$ully ob-iou! a! one rea#! the

FISC #e"i!ion! them!el-e!+ It.! al!o !omething NFF ha! re"ently e4perien"e# in our 2SA "a!e!+The courts 'andatehas expanded exponentiall+ since 1BD2 especiall+ during the BEs+ More re"ently0Se"tion ) o$ the PA,IO A"t an# Se"tion &*) o$ the FISA Amen#ment! A"tboth o$ (hi"h (ere pa!!e# #e"a#e! a$ter the initialFISAgrante# $ar broa#er !pying authoritie! to the go-ernment than ha# e4i!te# be$ore0 an# the go-ernment ha! "laime# the right

to "on#u"t ma!! !ur-eillan"e un#er the!e pro-i!ion!+9hat Congress originall+ authori7ed whencreating the FISC0 (ith the Chur"h Committee hearing! $re!hly in min#0was an expedited s+ste'of approving individuali7ed warrants for foreign surveillance of speci:edindividualsmu"h like (hat regular magi!trate u#ge! #o (ith (arrant! no(0 (ith !a$eguar#! built in $or the national!e"urity "onte4t+ hat bear! repeating: Lhen FISA (a! pa!!e#0 it authoriHe# in#i-i#ualiHe# (arrant! $or !ur-eillan"e+Now2the court is approving 'ass surveillance + This is 5e+2 %ecause as 0currentand for'er ocials fa'iliar with the courts classi:ed decisionsG tol# the 2e(

7ork ime! in July o$ la!t year0 the court is no longer si'pl+ approving applications + It is0regularl+ assessing %road constitutional 6uestions and esta%lishingi'portant ,udicial precedents2 with al'ost no pu%lic scrutin+ 0 a1e"ting million! o$inno"ent people+ A! $ormer FISC u#ge Jame! ,obert!on !tate# to the Pri-a"y an# Ci-il an# note# =repeate# ina""urate !tatement! ma#e in the go-ernment.! !ubmi!!ion0> "on"lu#ing that the reuirement!ha# been =!o $reuently an# !y!temati"ally -iolate# that it "an $airly be !ai# that thi! "riti"al element o$ the o-erallregime ha!ne-er $un"tione# e1e"ti-ely+> Ju#ge! ha-e "on!i!tently "ha!ti!e# the 2SA $or =ina""urate> !tatement!0 mi!lea#ing or in"omplete3ling! an# $or ha-ing ="ir"um-ente# the !pirit> o$ la(! prote"ting Ameri"an!. pri-a"y+ NFF ha# it! o(n bru!h (ith thi! problem earlierthi! year0 (hen (e #i!"o-ere# that the go-ernment ha# not e-en in$orme# the FISC o$ it! #utie! to pre!er-e e-i#en"e+ In Mar"h0a$ter an emergen"y hearing0 a $e#eral "ourt in San Fran"i!"o or#ere# the go-ernment to pre!er-e re"or#! o$ Se"tion ) "all #etail!"olle"tion+ On that !ame #ay0 the FISC i!!ue# it! o(n !trongly (or#e# or#er in (hi"h it man#ate# the go-ernment to make a 3linge4plaining e4a"tly (hy it ha# $aile# to noti$y the FISC about rele-ant in$ormation regar#ing pre!er-ation or#er! in t(o relate# "a!e!0

Je(el an# Shubert+ hi! $ailure ha# a1e"te# the "ourt.! earlier ruling man#ating that "ertain in$ormation be #e!troye#+ It.! "lear thatthe FISC !imply "an.t rely on the go-ernment to get the $ull pi"ture+
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/what-you-need-know-about-fisa-court-and-how-it-needs-changehttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/what-you-need-know-about-fisa-court-and-how-it-needs-changehttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/what-you-need-know-about-fisa-court-and-how-it-needs-changehttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/what-you-need-know-about-fisa-court-and-how-it-needs-change


10/81

FISA has e'piricall+ ruled against the NSA on do'esticsurveillance&ougdale 1+ A##y Doug#ale+ Contributer to Fa!tCompany a lea#ingprogre!!i-e ne(! outlet+ =FISA CO, FO,CND 2SA O SOP I rulings are legall+ withinFISAs ,urisdictionPfander and (ir5 1* Jame! N+ P$an#er 8 Daniel D+ irk9 Jame! ha! a A0ni-er!ity o$ Mi!!ouri an# JD0 ni-er!ity o$ @irginia+ Currently O(en


11/81

to reuire !ome a#-er!arial pre!entation+' Le #o not "laim e4perti!e in matter! o$ national !e"urity an# ha-elittle to a## to the poli"y #ebate o-er the (i!#om o$ intro#u"ing an a#-er!ary pro"e!! to impro-e #e"i!ion making

at the FISC+ Le !imply !ugge!t that the FISCs role in hearing warrant applications onan ex parte %asis see's to :t co'forta%l+ within the scope of federal,udicial powero-er matter! o$ non"ontentiou! uri!#i"tion+ The FISA process calls for thecourt to deter'ine that the govern'ent has co'plied with various

statutor+ ele'ents that regulate access to intelligence surveillance+ Theresulting decisions %+ the FISC serve as :nal decisions on the issues athandK the govern'ents co'pliance with the statute and entitle'ent toconduct the surveillance in 6uestion#Lhile the target! o$ !u"h !ur-eillan"e "an "onte!t -ariou!a!pe"t! o$ the pro"ee#ing! that yiel#e# the e-i#en"e intro#u"e# at their trial!0 courts hearing thosetrials treat the FISCs deter'ination as conclusive on the issue of thelegalit+ of the surveillance +;* ven if the courts were to reopen the FISAdecision and reevaluate the showings2such ,udicial revision would notraise dou%ts a%out the ,udicial :nalit+ of the initial decision+ o be !ure0 $e#eralo"ial! may not al(ay! #i!"harge their #utie! o$ "an#or to the FISC an# may e4"ee# the !"ope o$ the (arrant.!authority in "arrying out the !ur-eillan"e in ue!tion+ ,eme#ie! !houl# be a-ailable in !u"h "a!e! 5u!t a! they (ere

in the nineteenth "entury (hen o"er! e4"ee#e# the !"ope o$ their (arrant!6+ (ut the possi%ilit+ ofexecutive %ranch 'issteps2 while legiti'ate 'atters of litigation andpolic+ concern2 do not deprive the ,udicial process of its character as such+

FISA solvesCard+EDNmily A Car#y+ +A in


12/81

Constitutional RulingsSpeci:call+ true of constitutional issues(en5ler 1 7o"hai enkler+ la( pro$e!!or an# #ire"tor o$ the erkman Center $or Internet 8 So"iety atar-ar# ni-er!ity+ =In !e"ret0 Fi!a "ourt "ontra#i"te# S !upreme "ourt on "on!titutional right!> he Guar#ian+http://(((+theguar#ian+"om/"ommenti!$ree/)*B/!ep/))/!e"ret3!a"ourt"on!titutionalright!+ /))/B

On Tuesda+0 the Foreign Intelligen"e Sur-eillan"e Court 5FISC6 declassi:ed an opinion inwhich it explained wh+ the govern'entHs collection of records of allA'ericansH phone calls is constitutional0 and that if there is a pro%le' withthe progra'2 it is a 'atter of political ,udg'ent2 not constitutional law+ So0!houl# Ameri"an! u!t keep "alm an# "arry on phoningW 2ot really+ In!tea#0 (e !houl# (orry about a "ourt that0la"king a real a#-er!arial pro"e!! to in$orm it0 $aile# (hile taking it! be!t !hot at e4plaining it! po!ition to the publi"

to a##re!! the mo!t ba!i"0 (i#elykno(n "ounterargument to it! po!ition+ The opinion does not even'ention last +earHs unani'ous JS supre'e court decision on the fourtha'end'ent and ?PS trac5ing0 a #e"i!ion in (hi"h all three opinion! in"lu#e !trong language thatmay ren#er the 2SAT! phone re"or#! "olle"tion program un"on!titutional+ 2o "ourt that ha# been brie$e# by both!i#e! (oul# ha-e ignore# the gra-e "on!titutional i!!ue! rai!e# by the three opinion! o$ Ju!ti"e! S"alia0 Sotomayor0

an# Alito in nite# State! - Jone!+ An# no opinion that $ail! to "on!i#er the!e !houl# "alm anyone #o(n+ The

newl+8released FISC opinion2 the :rst to opine on the legalit+ of the phone'etadata collection progra' since the Snowden lea5s %rought theprogra' to national attention2 is %ased on two straightforward points#Fir!t0in &0 the !upreme "ourt hel# in Smith - Marylan# that u!ing pen registers that re"or# (hat number"alle# (hat other number0 (hen0 an# $or ho( long0 did not violate the fourth a'end'ent+Thecourtin Smith reasonedthatindividualshave no expectation of privac+ ininfor'ation the+ 5nowingl+ hand over to the phone co'pan++The FISCreasoned that even though the NSA 'etadata progra' collected 'oreinfor'ation than the progra' the supre'e court upheld * +ears ago2 thedetails did not 'a5e a constitutional di4erence+ Individuals have no fourtha'end'ent rights in their phone call 'etadata+ The second co'ponent of

the FISC argu'ent was that Lgrouping together a large nu'%er ofindividualsL2 no single one of who' has La fourth a'end'ent interestL2Lcannot result in a fourth a'end'ent interest springing into existence exnihiloL#Adding up 'an+ 7eros doesnHt create a positive value;bulk "olle"tion o$unprote"te# material! o-er a !u!taine# perio# o$ year! rai!e! no !pe"ial "on!titutional "on!i#eration!+ Stan#ing onit! o(n0 thi! logi" may !eem per!ua!i-e+ ut only until you think about ho( la!t yearT! Jone! #e"i!ion by the!upreme "ourt #e!tabiliHe! thi! logi"+

FISCR has ,urisdiction over tha'end'ent rulings&onohue 1+


13/81

rele-an"e o$ the reue!te# re"or#! to the FISCT! !ati!$a"tion0 a! Se"tion ) reuire!0 it i! #i"ult to un#er!tan#ho( the go-ernment "an be !ai# to ha-e a"te# in e4"e!! o$ !tatutory authority+ n)'B QE')BR N-en more !urpri!ing

than the role the granting o$ or#er! i! playing $or e!tabli!hing legal pre"e#ent i! the re-elation that FISC hasgreatl+ %roadened the Lspecial needsL exception to the FourthA'end'ent to e'%race wholesale data collection+ n)'? Although the Supreme Courtha! ne-er re"ogniHe# !u"h an e4"eption0 FISCHs uni6ue constitutional interpretation has

served to authori7e %road collection of infor'ation on J#S# citi7ens+Nota%l+2 %ecause of the secret nature of FISCHs proceedings and the exparte nature of the court2 there are no advocates who could appeal adecision %ased on this interpretation to the Supre'e Court# Con!euently0 anunre-ie(able0 "omple4 bo#y o$ la(0 e!tabli!hing #o"trine! unre"ogniHe# by the Supreme Court0 ha! emerge# a!

pre"e#ent $or $uture appli"ation to FISC+ In In re Dire"ti-e!0 FISCR loo5ed %ac5 at its decision inIn re Sealed Case to con:r' Lthe existence of a foreign intelligenceexception to the warrant re6uire'ent#Ln)' It a"kno(le#ge# that FISC, ha# a-oi#e# ane4pre!! hol#ing that a $oreign intelligen"e e4"eption e4i!t! by a!!uming arguen#o that (hether or not the (arrant

reuirement! (ere met0 the !tatute "oul# !ur-i-e on rea!onablene!! groun#!+ n)'; FISCR(ent on to#etermine that0 as a federal appellate court2 it would Lreview :ndings of fact for

clear error and legal conclusions -including deter'inations a%out theulti'ate constitutionalit+ of govern'ent searches or sei7ures. de novo +n)'& It then a!!erte#0 $or the 3r!t time0 a $oreign intelligen"e !ur-eillan"e e4"eption to the Fourth Amen#ment: heue!tion + + + i! (hether the rea!oning o$ the !pe"ial nee#! "a!e! applie! by analogy to u!ti$y a $oreign intelligen"ee4"eption to the (arrant reuirement $or !ur-eillan"e un#ertaken $or national !e"urity purpo!e! an# #ire"te# at a$oreign po(er or an agent o$ a $oreign po(er rea!onably belie-e# to be lo"ate# out!i#e the nite# State!+ Applyingprin"iple! #eri-e# $rom the !pe"ial nee#! "a!e!0 (e "on"lu#e QE')?R that thi! type o$ $oreign intelligen"e!ur-eillan"e po!!e!!e! "hara"teri!ti"! that uali$y it $or !u"h an e4"eption+ n)'' he "ourt analogiHe# the e4"eptionto the ' Supreme Court "on!i#eration o$ the (arrantle!! #rug te!ting o$ rail(ay (orker!0 on the groun#! thatthe go-ernmentT! nee# to re!pon# to an o-erri#ing publi" #anger "oul# u!ti$y a minimal intru!ion on pri-a"y+ n)'

he go-ernment !ub!euently "ite# In re Dire"ti-e! in it! Augu!t 0 )*B (hite paper0 #e$en#ing the telephony

meta#ata program0 in !upport o$ an e4"eption to the Fourth Amen#ment (arrant reuirement+ n)* FISCcontinues to go %e+ond its 'andate+ In Augu!t )*B0 $or in!tan"e0 FISC issued a t(entyninepage Amen#e# Memoran#um =pinionregardingtheF(IHsJuly '0 )*B applicationfor

the telephon+ 'etadataprogram+ n) Appen#ing the !e-enteenpage or#er to the opinion0 Ju#geClaire @+ Nagan "on!i#ere# Fourth Amen#ment uri!pru#en"e0 the !tatutory language o$ Se"tion )0 an# the "anon!

o$ !tatutory "on!tru"tion to u!ti$y granting the or#er+ n)) Similarly0 in a )**) per "uriam opinion0 FISCRsuggested the case raised Li'portant 6uestions of statutor+interpretation2 and constitutionalit+Land concluded Lthat FISA2a! amen#e# bythe Patriot A"t0 supports the govern'entHs position0 andthat the restrictionsi'posed%+ the FISA court are not re6uired %+ FISA or the Constitution#Ln)B Congre!! #i# not #e!ign the Foreign Intelligen"e Sur-eillan"e Court or the Court o$ ,e-ie( to #e-elop it! o(n

uri!pru#en"e+ Parti"ularly in light o$ the !e"re"y an# la"k o$ a#-er!arial pro"e!! inherent in the "ourt0 it i!

"on"erning that FISCHs decisions have ta5en on a force of their own inlegiti'i7ing the collection of infor'ation on J#S# citi7ens+


14/81

Section


15/81

including in the wa5e of the Snowden a4airn* 5although Pre!i#ent Obamare"ently or#ere# that the meta#ata be !tore# (ith a thir# party rather than the 2SAit!el$ n6+ A! #e!"ribe# in more #etail in Part III0 Sno(#enT! re-elation! an# the2SAT! o(n #i!"lo!ure! in#i"ate that the!e bulk meta#ata are uerie# on a$reuent ba!i!0 re!ulting in the e4amination o$ the "ommuni"ation re"or#! o$

thou!an#! o$ people+ n)


16/81

= 1 allowed the' to continueout of deference to the xecutive (ranch 5and intelligence agencies2 li5ethe NSA 0 whose powers are granted through the Reagan8era xecutive=rder 1


17/81


18/81


19/81

AFF > FISA/FISC CP


20/81

no oversight'eans precedent is reversed or ignored %+ lower FISC court orthe NSAStanle+1Jay Stanley0 Senior Poli"y Analy!t0 AC2O@NMN, )0 )*B+ AC An#0 =2SA.! re"or# o$ "omplian"e (ith the!e rule! ha! been poor+> xtraordinar+powers re6uire extraordinar+ oversight+ (ut were graduall+ %eginning tosee the full scope of the FISA Courts inade6uac+ as an oversightinstitution+ he late!t #i!"lo!ure! $ollo( other e-i#en"e that thi! "ourt ha! ha# le!! than a !tellar re"or# inen$or"ing it! ruling!+ Pre-iou! #o"ument! re-eale#0 $or e4ample0 that the NSA repeatedl+ violatedcourt8i'posed li'its on its surveillance powers0 an# that the agenc+experienced nu'erous so8called 0co'pliance incidentsG such as sta4using the agenc+s tre'endous powers to sp+ on love interests+ An# a! my"olleague Jameel Ja1er point! out0 the re"or# !ugge!t! that the govern'ent has felt free to

'a5e %older2 less8supporta%le argu'ents %efore the secret FISA Courtthan its willing to 'a5e %efore real courts that are open to the pu%lic+ Ithas often %een pointed out that the FISA Court is not a nor'al court0 a bigrea!on being that all o$ its proceedings are ex parte5that i!0 there i! no a#-er!arial pro"ee#ing0the court onl+ hears fro' one side6 andthat it operates within an ocean ofsecrec+ and co'part'entali7ation+ My "olleague! Patri"k oomey an# rett Ma4 Kau$manye!ter#ay #etaile# the !orry !tory o$ ho( the!e "hara"teri!ti"! allo(e# the "ourt to !tret"h the la( to permit bulkmeta#ata "olle"tion+

Cant solve and turn > no accounta%ilit+ for decisions2 noreview process2 and no investigative authorit+ 8 destro+s court

transparenc+Sett+1*5Su#ha Setty9 Pro$e!!or o$


21/81

(o $orm! o$ relati-ely (eak u#i"ial re-ie( e4i!t o-er the 2SA Meta#ata Program+ he primary me"hani!m by(hi"h the 2SA ha! legitimate# it! !ur-eillan"e a"ti-itie! i! the Foreign Intelligen"e Sur-eillan"e Court 5FISC60 a"lo!e#0 nona#-er!arial !etting+ Arti"le III "ourt! ha-e ha# the opportunity to "on!i#er po!t/ !ur-eillan"eprogram! on numerou! o""a!ion!0 an# (ith $e( e4"eption!0 Arti"le III "ourt! ha-e re$u!e# to re-ie( matter! o$

national !e"urityrelate# !ur-eillan"e+ I+ Foreign Intelligen"e Sur-eillan"e Court he FISC#i1er! $rom Arti"le III"ourt! in numerou! (ay!: It! !tatutory !"ope i! limite# to matter! o$ $oreign intelligen"e gathering9 it!,udgesare appointed in the sole discretion of the Chief 3ustice of the JnitedStates Supre'e Court9 its proceedings are secret; its opinions are oftensecret or are pu%lished in heavil+ redacted for'9 and its process is notadversarial as onl+ govern'ent law+ers 'a5e argu'ents defending thelegalit+ of the surveillance %eing conte'plated+ &* !an+ of thesedi4erences %ring into dou%t the legiti'ac+ of the court0 its a%ilit+ to a4ordade6uate due process regarding civil li%erties concerns2 and its a%ilit+ touphold the rule of law in ter's of govern'ent accounta%ilit++Co'poundingthislegitima"y #e3"it is the FISCHs own loosening of the relevancestandard under Section


22/81

seriousness of the securit+ threatspo!e# to the nation+ ') In an enviro'nent inwhich there is a tre'endous fear of %eing held responsi%le for an+ futureterrorist attac5that might o""ur on +S+ !oil0 'B an# in (hi"h there i! a in$ormation #e3"it $or tho!e out!i#eo$ the intelligen"e "ommunity0 the FISC has consistentl+ deferred to the NSAHsassertions and has not %een a%le to act as an e4ective accounta%ilit+

'echanis'+

Thats 5e+ to the de'ocratic process > ensures furtherinfringe'ents on rights and replicates the error > per' is 5e+to transparenc+ and pu%lic engage'entR9 1 5uman ,ight! Lat"h9 Kenneth ,oth9 N4e"uti-e Dire"tor o$ ,L9 = and 'ost of theJS Congress > is 5ept in the dar5 a%out the scope of the progra's andtheir i'ple'entation + here are legitimate rea!on! to "la!!i$y "ertain type! o$in$ormation $or e4ample0 to prote"t the i#entitie! o$ -ulnerable in#i-i#ual! or to

prote"t the publi" $rom harm+ ut classi:cation can too easil+ %eco'e a tool toprevent e'%arrass'ent or exposure of wrongdoing2 or to concealinfor'ation a%out the functioning of pu%lic institutions+ Protectingnational securit+ does not have to co'e at the expense of pu%licaccounta%ilit++ For e4ample0 there was no legiti'ate reason wh+ the extentof the govern'ent collection of 'etadata should have %een 5ept fro' thegeneral pu%lic+ Le urge you to #i!"lo!e mu"h more about the !"ope o$ term! o$!ur-eillan"e o""urring un#er Se"tion &*) an# N4e"uti-e Or#er )BBB0 (hi"h "oul#ha-e enormou! impli"ation! $or the right! o$ $oreigner! abroa#+ S per!on! ha-e the!ame intere!t a! tho!e abroa# in kno(ing (hen their pri-a"y right! are prote"te#0an# that "an be re-eale# (ithout #i!"lo!ing in$ormation that (oul# threatennational !e"urity+ Le al!o en"ourage you to !upport legi!lati-e re$orm! !ugge!te#by the re-ie( group0 in"lu#ing tran!paren"y mea!ure! to reuire greater reportingto Congre!! an# the publi" about u!e o$ intelligen"e gathering po(er!0 an# topermit te"hnology "ompanie! to report on the number o$ or#er! they re"ei-e $oru!er #ata+ hey al!o re"ommen#e# a !trong pre!umption o$ tran!paren"y in#e"i!ion! about (hether to keep program! o$ the magnitu#e o$ the ) bulktelephony meta#ata program !e"ret+ These 'easures will not onl+ assistde'ocratic de%ate toda+2 %ut guard against a%use of power in the future#he re-ie( group al!o ma#e a number o$ other !pe"i3" re"ommen#ation! (ith
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/16/letter-president-obama-urging-surveillance-reformshttp://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/16/letter-president-obama-urging-surveillance-reformshttp://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/16/letter-president-obama-urging-surveillance-reformshttp://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/16/letter-president-obama-urging-surveillance-reforms


23/81

(hi"h (e agree0 an# (hi"h (e hope you a#opt an# en"ourage Congre!! to a"t on+he!e in"lu#e: E Nn#ing the (i#e!prea# u!e o$ 2ational Se"urity


24/81

ue!tion! about pri-a"y an# Internet $ree#om a"ro!! the (orl#+ 9e strongl+ urge+ou0 e-en a! S !ur-eillan"e "apabilitie! "ontinue to in"rea!e0 to ensure thattho!e capa%ilitiesare e4ectivel+ regulated0 within a fra'ewor5 of the ruleof law2 'axi'u' transparenc+2 and respect for de'ocrac+ and hu'anrights+ A#opting the re"ommen#ation! outline# abo-e (ill be a 3r!t !tep in that

#ire"tion+


25/81

!ai# Center $or Demo"ra"y an# e"hnologySenior Coun!el arley Geiger+ =9e withdrew support for JSA FR&=! when the %ill'orphed into a codi:cation of large8scale2 untargeted collection of dataa%out A'ericans with no connection to a cri'e or terroris'#G And C+nthia9ong 0 !enior Internet re!ear"her at u'an Rights 9atch2 said2=This so8called refor'

%ill wont restore the trust of Internet usersin the S an# around the world#Jntil Congress passes real refor'2 J#S# credi%ilit+ and leadership onInternet freedo' will continue to fade#G

Thats 5e+ to the glo%al econo'+@alathil Q1E


26/81

Shanthi Kalathil A#un"t Fa"ulty an# A#un"t i! (or#! (ere rein$or"e# by

FCC Chairman Juliu! Gena"ho(!ki: =It is essential that we preservethe open Internetan# !tan#3rmly behin# the right o$ all people to "onne"t (ith one another an# to e4"hange i#ea! $reely an# (ithout $ear+>Indeed2afree0 (i#ely a""e!!ible Internet stands at the heart ofboth global "ommuni"ation an# glo%alco''erce# Internet freedo' ena%les#ialogue an# #ire"t #iploma"y bet(een people an# "i-iliHation!0$a"ilitating the e4"hange o$ i#ea! an# "ulture (hile bol!teringtrade and econo'ic growth+ Con-er!ely0censorship and other %loc5ages stie %oth expression and innovation#Lhenarbitrary rule! pri-ilege !ome an# not other!0 the in-e!tment "limate !u1er!+ 2or "an a""e!! be e4pan#e# i$ en# u!er! ha-e no tru!t

in the net(ork+ o(e-er0 making reality li-e up to a!piration! $or Internet $ree#om "an pro-e #i"ult+ 2umerou!glo%alinitiatives!pearhea#e# by go-ernment!0 pri-ate !e"tor an# "i-il !o"ietyareatte'pting to enshrinethenor's0 prin"iple! an# !tan#ar#! that will ensure the Internet re'ains apubli" space forfree expression#At the sa'e ti'e2 other nor's are fast arising$particularl+ those de:ned %+ authoritarian countriesthat (i!h to !plinter the Internet intoin#epen#ently "ontrolle# 3e$#om!+ ven as Internet access has expanded around theworld2'an+ govern'entsare atte'pting to "ontrol0 regulate and censor theInternetin all it! $orm!: blog!0 mobile "ommuni"ation0 !o"ial me#ia0 et"+Such govern'ents havedevoted vast resources to shaping the Internets develop'ent within theirown %orders2 and the+ are now see5ing to shape the Internet outside their%orders a! (ell+ In#ee#0 Internet e4pert! are (orrie# that national go-ernment! o$ all !tripe! (ill in"rea!ingly !eek to e4ten#their regulatory authority o-er the global Internet0cul'inating in a %al5ani7ed Internet withli'ited interopera%ilit+# en"e0 the next few +ears present a distinct windowof opportunit+ to elevatethe principles o$ the $ree e4"hange o$ i#ea!0 kno(le#ge an# "ommer"e on theInternet+ Lhile J#S# leadership within this window is vital0 a global e1ort i! ne"e!!ary toensurethat these nor's %eco'ea standard part o$ the Internet.! !upporting ar"hite"ture#


27/81

&ecline leads to war!erlini Q11QCe!are Merlini0 nonre!i#ent !enior $ello( at the Center on the nite# State! an# Nurope an# "hairman o$ the oar#o$ ru!tee! o$ the Italian In!titute $or International A1air! 5IAI6 in ,ome+ e !er-e# a! IAI pre!i#ent $rom & to)**+ ntil )**0 he al!o o""upie# the po!ition o$ e4e"uti-e -i"e "hairman o$ the Coun"il $or the nite# State! an#Italy0 (hi"h he "o$oun#e# in 'B+ i! area! o$ e4perti!e in"lu#e tran!atlanti" relation!0 Nuropean integration an#

nu"lear nonproli$eration0 (ith parti"ular $o"u! on nu"lear !"ien"e an# te"hnology+ A Po!tSe"ular Lorl#W DOI:*+*'*/**B;BB'+)*+&* Arti"le ,eue!t!: Or#er ,eprint! : ,eue!t Permi!!ion! Publi!he# in: ournalSur-i-al0 @olume B0 I!!ue ) April )* 0 page! & B* Publi"ation Freuen"y: ; i!!ue! per year Do(nloa# PDFDo(nloa# PDF 5[B& K6 @ie( ,elate# Arti"le! o "ite thi! Arti"le: Merlini0 Ce!are TA Po!tSe"ular Lorl#WT0Sur-i-al0 B:)0 & B*R

(o neatly oppo!e# scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range o$possi%ilities0 albeit at the ri!k o$ o-er!impli3"ation+ he 3r!t !"enario entail! the premature "rumbling o$ the po!tLe!tphalian !y!tem+ =ne or 'ore of the acute tensions apparent toda+ evolves intoan openan# tra#itional conict %etween states2 perhapse-en involving the use ofnuclear weapons# The crisis 'ight %e triggered %+ a collapse of the glo%alecono'ic an# 3nan"ial s+ste'0 the vulnera%ilit+ of which we have u!texperienced0 an# the pro!pe"t o$ a !e"on# Great Depre!!ion0 with conse6uences for peace an#

#emo"ra"y si'ilar to those of the :rst + Lhate-er the trigger0 the unli'ited exercise ofnational!o-ereignty0 e4"lu!i-e self8interest and re,ection of outside interference would li5el+%e a'pli:ed0 emptying0 perhap! entirely0 the hal$$ull gla!! o$ multilaterali!m0 in"lu#ing the 2 an# the Nuropean nion+Many o$ the more likely "on\i"t!0 !u"h a! bet(een I!rael an# Iran or In#ia an# Paki!tan0 ha-e potential religiou! #imen!ion!+ Short o$(ar0 ten!ion! !u"h a! tho!e relate# to immigration might be"ome unbearable+ Familiar i!!ue! o$ "ree# an# i#entity "oul# bee4a"erbate#+ One (ay or another0 the !e"ular rational approa"h (oul# be !i#e!teppe# by a return to theo"rati" ab!olute!0"ompeting or "on-erging (ith !e"ular ab!olute! !u"h a! unbri#le# nationali!m+


28/81

1AR Transparenc+ TurnFISA courts under'ine de'ocrac+Ti''15re-or imm9 "o$oun#er an# the e4e"uti-e #ire"tor o$ the Free#om o$the Pre!! Foun#ation+ e i! a ournali!t0 a"ti-i!t0 an# la(yer9 JD in la( $rom 2e( 7ork

hi! !"an#al !houl#pre"ipitate many re$orm!0 but one thing i! "ertain: FISA rulings need to %e 'adepu%lic so the A'erican people understand how courts are interpretingtheir constitutional rights# The ver+ idea of de'ocratic law depends on it#

Further lac5 of transparenc+ under'ines pu%lic con:dence infederal surveillance > st+'ies legal refor' and ensures further

violations(utler 15Alan utler9 Appellate A#-o"ate Coun!el0 Nle"troni" Pri-a"yIn$ormation Center9 J+D+0 C


29/81

intelligence authorities+) The courts legal anal+sis and conclusions0 a!oppo!e# to the operational #etail! o$ !ur-eillan"e a"ti-itie!0 are part of the lawthat cannot properl+ develop without pu%lic oversight+ Pro'ulgation ofthe law is a central re6uire'ent of de'ocrac+;the failureto promulgateresultsin a 0failure" to 'a5e law +> B (oth the FISC and the Attorne+

?eneral %ear the responsi%ilit+ to pro'ote pu%lic understanding of theFISA process and what it enco'passes#This is especiall+ true where thecourt atte'pts to stri5e so'e %alance %etween national securit+ and civilli%erties concerns+1B Secret law under'ines our s+ste' of chec5s and%alances %+ disa%ling the de'ocratic oversight %+ which the pu%licgoverns its govern'ent+


30/81

1AR Solvenc+ &e:citAdversarial s+ste' is 5e+ to consistent rulings > even if the+:at FISCR co'pliance2 trials still ensure NSA nonco'pliance >speci:call+ true of E< and tha'end'ent rulings

(utler 15Alan utler9 Appellate A#-o"ate Coun!el0 Nle"troni" Pri-a"yIn$ormation Center9 J+D+0 C)*& (ut these decisions are necessaril+ co'plex anddicult to 'a5e in the a%stract context of a Section E< application%ecause Fourth A'end'ent anal+sis is necessaril+ fact8%ased +)*' In theA'erican ,udicial s+ste'2 facts are developed through an adversarialprocess+)* The govern'ent has an interest in arguing in favor of thesurveillance applications that it su%'its to the FISC9 a &epart'ento$3usticelaw+ersrole is not to present the ,udges with reasons wh+ theapplication 'ight %e denied or 'odi:ed+ There is currentl+ no advocate onthe other side of these co'plex and novel issues ,udged %+ the FISC+ An#(hile re"ipient! o$ FISAauthoriHe# !ur-eillan"e or#er! an# #ire"ti-e! "an 3le"hallenge! un#er "ertain "ir"um!tan"e!0)* the+ cannot review the classi:ed

opinions or govern'ent %riefs and do not have the necessar+ opportunit+or incentive to develop fact8%ased constitutional argu'ents+ he #i"ulty inha-ing an a#-er!arial pro"e!! at the FISC i! that the material! pre!ente# by thego-ernment are highly "la!!i3e#+ o(e-er0 "la!!i3e# pro"ee#ing! ha-e be"omemore pre-alent o-er the pa!t ten year! in the nite# State!) a! (ell a! in thenite# King#om+)) he u!e o$ !pe"ially appointe#0 !e"urity"leare# attorney! to"hallenge go-ernment legal argument! in national !e"urity "a!e! ha! been in pla"e$or more than a #e"a#e in the nite# King#om+)B he u!e o$ !u"h a =Spe"ial


31/81

A#-o"ate> (oul# be appropriate in the FISA "onte4t (here FISC u#ge! are a!ke# tomake no-el an# !igni3"ant legal #etermination! regar#ing important "on!titutionalright!+ (o $ormer FISC u#ge!0)? an# other prominent legal !"holar!0) ha-epropo!e# a##ing !u"h an a#-er!arial po!ition to en!ure that legal #e-elopment! atthe FISC #o not !u1er $rom unbalan"e# a#-o"a"y+);


32/81

S=P Court CP


33/81

NotesSOP Supreme Court CP

+ he Counterplan i! to ha-e to Supreme Court rule on the !eparation o$po(er! #o"trine+

)+ he net bene3t! are the internal SOP DA0 an# the ?

th

amen#ment DAB+ 7ou "oul# rea# thi! a1 again!t armati-e! that ha-e the Supreme Court ruleon an amen#ment that i! not the !eparation o$ po(er! #o"trine ie+ !t0 ?th0et"+


34/81

1NC !aterial


35/81

1NC Solvenc+Insert Plan" replace the grounds with U 0%ased on theseparation of powers doctrineG1stand tha'end'ent challenges to surveillance fail > the

counterplan is 5e+ to legiti'atel+ stopping surveillanceSlo%ogin 1*5Chri!topher Milton n#er(oo# Pro$e!!or o$


36/81

surveillance2 l+s political process theor+ provides a %asis for challengingpanvasive actions that are the result of a seriousl+ awed politicalprocess#1E !ore speci:call+2 panvasive surveillance 'ight %e challengea%le onone of three groundsK -1. the surveillance is not authori7ed %+ theappropriate legislative %od+ ; -


37/81

1NC S=P Net (ene:tThe counterplan is 5e+ to S=P and chec5ing executive powers >solves de'ocrac+ and function of the govern'entSlo%ogin 1*

5Chri!topher Milton n#er(oo# Pro$e!!or o$


38/81

&e'ocrac+ chec5s inevita%le extinction#&ia'ond QB*50 De"ember0 http://(((+(il!on"enter+org/!ub!ite!/""p#"/pub!/#i/$r+htm6

hi! har#ly e4hau!t! the li!t! o$ threat! to our !e"urity an# (ellbeing in the "oming year! an# #e"a#e!+ In the $ormer 7ugo!la-ianationali!t aggre!!ion tear! at the !tability o$ Nurope an# "oul# ea!ily !prea#+ he \o( o$ illegal #rug! inten!i3e! throughin"rea!ingly po(er$ul international "rime !yn#i"ate! that ha-e ma#e "ommon "au!e (ith authoritarian regime! an# ha-e utterly

"orrupte# the in!titution! o$ tenuou!0 #emo"rati" one!+Nuclear 2 che'ical2 and %io logical weaponscontinue to proliferate # The ver+ source of life on arth2 the glo%alecos+ste'2 appears increasingl+ endangered+ Mo!t o$ these ne( an# un"on-entionalthreats to !e"urity are associated with or aggravated %+ the (eakne!! or a%sence ofde'ocrac+0 (ith it! pro-i!ion! $or legality0 a""ountability0 popular !o-ereignty0 an# openne!!+


39/81


40/81


41/81

we can never get sta%le negative

ground > voting issue for fairness


42/81


43/81


44/81


45/81

? Onenee# not be a Con!titutional la( pro$e!!or or politi"al !"ien"e !"holar to realiHe that if onl+ one side ofan argu'ent is heard2 the chance for a fair exa'ination of %oth sidesdi'inishes+ he go-ernment routinely !eek! trillion! o$ re"or#! about Ameri"an "itiHen!0 in"lu#ing0 but notlimite# to phone "all an# email re"or#!+* =ne wonders how the FISA court considers%oth sides if onl+ one side is %eing argued#he $ear0 o$ "our!e0 i! that the t(o out"ome!0 togrant or #eny the go-ernment.! reue!t0 are not a""or#e# eual (eight0 i$ any (eight at all+ n#er !u"h a !"enario0one might !u!pe"t a #i!proportionate number o$ grante# reue!t! by the go-ernment+ n$ortunately0 that appear!

to be the "a!e0 here+ A! o$ the (riting o$ thi! Arti"le0 nearl+ ever+ NSA surveillance re6uestever su%'itted to the FISA court2(ith regar# to !pying on Ameri"an!0 was granted+*1In


46/81

)*?0 http://(ork!+bepre!!+"om/"gi/-ie("ontent+"giWarti"leX**;8"onte4tXryanV(illiam! 0 JZG6

Resulting ar' Is the xecutives newfound expansive a%ilit+ to sp+ onA'ericans2 and see'ing ina%ilit+ to challenge it2 har'fulXSuch sp+ing 'a+ %enecessar+ to protect the nation fro' credi%le terrorist threats# !oreover2 on an individual level2 wh+ is

there is an+ pro%le' with the xecutive trac5ing all of peoples activities and infor'ationX Ifpeople have nothing to hide2 then what is the har'XFirst2 one potentialhar' isif -and when. the xecutive wants to further expand its powers2 and2in secret2 unilaterall+ ta5e awa+ other rights or privileges#(+ granting thexecutive unchec5ed power for its NSA surveillance progra'2 a dangerousprecedent is set where the xecutive 'a+ have incentive to ta5eadditional power in other areas2 while falsel+ clai'ing it is for nationalsecurit+# It 'a+ reall+ %e for political or personal gain2 or to push anotheragenda to i'properl+ shape A'erican polic+2 %ut if its under the guise ofnational securit+2 a precedent is %eing set where the xecutive is %e+ond

reproach#

Thus2 not having a watchdog over the NSA and the xecutivecan lead to a host of a%uses we have +et to even reali7e2 the worst ofwhich 'a+ %e +et to co'e#Se"on#0 a!pe"t! o$ the 2SA !ur-eillan"e program may beun"on!titutional+ Fa"ially0 the "on"ept o$ tra"king phone "all!0 email "ommuni"ation! and Internet trac to seeif so'eone is %ehaving suspiciousl+ see's a little unnerving# It is not 0we have a target2 lets start'onitoring the'#G Instead2 its 0lets 'onitor virtuall+ ever+one2 to see if there are an+ targets#G Toso'e2 li5e the plainti4s in Clapper2 this di4erence is trou%ling enough to challenge in court2 %ut theircase was dis'issed for lac5 of standing# Con,ointl+2 the NSA surveillance progra' 'a+ haveunconstitutional co'ponents2 %ut the+ will continue to re'ain unnoticed if no one is ever a%le to

challenge the xecutive# Finall+2 lac5ing a chec5 on xecutive power dilutesA'ericas version of de'ocrac+ # The xecutive is often supposed to2 if notexpected to2 operate as the unilateral :gure in international relations#1 Thatis not in dispute2 %ut even as the appropriate central8:gure in

international relations2 the xecutive was never intended to operate in anunconstitutional 'anner without reproach# The separation of powers2 sovital to a de'ocratic repu%lic2 is severel+ under'ined when one %ranch ispossesses see'ingl+ li'itless powers # If A'erica continues to allow the xecutive2 theperson in charge of the 'ilitar+ and controlling the sp+ing agencies2 to %e e4ectivel+ unchec5ed %+

the other %ranches2 this 'uch 'ore closel+ rese'%les an authoritarian regi'ethan an+ for' of de'ocrac+ # Is the current A'erican President a dictatorXSurel+2 this is not the case2 %ut the NSA surveillance progra' represents astep towards the type o$ 0elective despotis'G that Tho'as 3e4erson and the FoundingFathers fought hard to guard against when the+ for'ed the Jnited States of A'erica#< Theafore'entioned dangers highlight the pro%le's with the xecutives newfound and unchec5ed secret

and growing power to sp+ on A'ericans# The NSA surveillance progra'2 however2 is not the onl+ wa+the xecutive has usurped power without %eing stopped %+ Congress or the 3udiciar+ in the 9ar onTerror#

xecutive is power %ad > congress has ceded too 'uch@at+al 1 8Professor of aw2 ?eorgetown Jniversit+ aw Center52eal Kumar0 i! an Ameri"an la(yer an# "haire# pro$e!!or o$ la(+ e !er-e# a!A"ting Soli"itor General o$ the nite# State! $rom May )**Q)R until June )*0
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ryan_williamshttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ryan_williamshttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ryan_williamshttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ryan_williams


47/81

Internal Separation o$ Po(er!: Che"king o#ay.! Mo!t Dangerou! ran"h FromLithin0 he 7ale


48/81

act2 such as the AJ!F2 to give the President %road powers2 Congress oftencannot reverse the interpretation2 even if the+ never intended to give thePresident those powers in the :rst place#!e'%ers of Congress 'ust not onl+sur'ount a super'a,orit+ re6uire'ent2 the+ 'ust do so in each ouse# Senator !cCain 'ightpersuade ever+ one of the other ninet+8nine Senators to vote for his %ill2 %ut that is of no 'o'ent

without a super'a,orit+ in the ouse of Representatives as well#1D At thesa'e ti'e2 the

executive %ranch has gained power fro' deference doctrines that inducecourts to leave 'uch conduct untouched>particularl+ in foreign a4airs#1BThe co'%ination of deference and the presidential veto is particularl+ insidious$it 'eans that aPresident can interpret a vague statute to give hi' additional powers2 receive deference in thatinterpretation fro' courts2 and then loc5 that decision into place via his veto power# This ratchetand8

loc5 sche'e 'a5es it al'ost i'possi%le to rein in executive power# This expansion ofpresidential power is exacer%ated %+ the part+ s+ste'# 9hen the political%ranches are controlled %+ the sa'e part+2 considerations of lo+alt+2 discipline2 and self8interestgenerall+ preclude inter8%ranch chec5ing# That general reluctance is exacer%ated %+ the paucit+ ofweapons with which to chec5 the President2 with the onl+ ones in existence called 0nuclearG ones# Inearlier ti'es2 it was not dicult to use legislative vetoes as surgical chec5s# (ut post8Chadha2Congress onl+ has weapons that cause extensive collateral da'age# The fear of that da'age2 ofcourse2 %eco'es +et another reason wh+ Congress is plagued with inertia# And the :li%uster2 the last%ig chec5 in periods of single8part+ govern'ent2 is useless against the host of pro%le's where

Presidents ta5e expansive views of their powers under existing laws -such as the AJ!F.# Instead ofpreserving %ica'eralis'2 the rule in Chadha has therefore led to its su%version and 0no8ca'eralis'#GAll legislative action is therefore dangerous# An+ %ill2 li5e Senator !cCains torture %ill2 can %ederailed through co'pro'ise# ven if its text ulti'atel+ has teeth2 a President will interpret itniggardl+2 and that interpretation will li5el+ receive deference fro' a court2 and it will then %e loc5edinto place due to the veto# A rational legislator2 fearing this cascading c+cle2 is li5el+ to do nothing atall# A Congress that conducts little oversight provides a veneer of legiti'ac+ to an adventuristPresident# The President can appeal to the historic sense of chec5s and %alances2 even if those chec5sare entirel+ co'pro'ised %+ 'odern political d+na'ics# 9ith this s+ste' in place2 it is no surprisethat calls for legislative revitali7ation in the wa5e of the Septe'%er 11th attac5s have failed# Nosuccessful action8forcing 'echanis's have %een developed; instead we are still in 3ohn art l+sworld of giving a 0halfti'e pep8tal5 i'ploring that %od+ to pull up its soc5s and reclai' its rightfulauthorit+#G


49/81

@agan reected on the increasing control asserted %+ Presidents since Ronald Reagan overad'inistrative agencies and declared 6uite correctl+ that Lw"e live toda+ in an era of presidentialad'inistration#L 1B She e'phasi7ed that Lpresidential control of ad'inistration2 in critical respects2expanded dra'aticall+ during the Clinton +ears2 'a5ing the regulator+ activit+ of the executive%ranch agencies 'ore and 'ore an extension of the PresidentHs own polic+ and political agenda#L 1Best one conclude that this is the result of ran5 gra%s at power %+ a'%itious Presidents2 @aganconvincingl+ explained how this increasing assertiveness of Presidents is li5el+ the result ofLstructural aspects of the 'odern presidenc+2L 1B* created %+ several d+na'ics %e+ond PresidentsHcontrol# For exa'ple2 the A'erican pu%licHs expectations of what Presidents can do have increased inrecent decades2 %ut the PresidentHs a%ilit+ to convince Congress to go along has onl+ decreased due to

increasing partisanship# 1BM ?iven CongressH decreasing a%ilit+ to e4ectivel+legislate %ecause of partisan gridloc52 the President is left to 'eetnational expectations using tools the use of which re6uires nocongressional pre8approval# Naturall+2 then2 Presidents get to wor52 tac5lingnational pro%le's as the+ see :t2 even if that 'eans ta5ing anincreasingl+ assertive stance regarding ad'inistrative agencies thatCongress originall+ envisioned would %e %e+ond the PresidentHs directcontrol# As others have explained2 1B in the cri'inal law context especiall+2 this is a viciousc+cle# Congress understands it can escape political accounta%ilit+ and

appear Ltough on cri'eL %+ enacting %road cri'inal laws# Presidents2 inturn2 exercise increasing prosecutorial discretion in choosing whatconduct the statute cri'inali7es2 and which o4enders to prosecute# Thisfurther increases the pu%licHs expectations of the President2 whichincreases the PresidentHs willingness to push the %oundaries of hisprosecutorial discretion# 9hich encourages Congress to enact 'ore lawse'powering the executive##2 and so on#The Lstructural aspectsL of the 'odernpresidenc+ that 3ustice @agan discusses 'anifest in controversies over2 for exa'ple2 President

(ushHs xecutive =rder 12*21BD which %anned federal funding forcertain t+pes of e'%r+onic ste' cell research2 %ased on (ushHs %elief that therestriction was necessar+ for L'aintaining the highest ethical standards and respecting hu'an life

and hu'an dignit+#L1 BB President =%a'a reversed this xecutive =rder with one of

his own#


50/81

:rst declaring the' is generall+ dee'ed so illegiti'ate8to the point of %eing al'ost adora%l+ 6uaint8such that even those generall+ against J#S# involve'ent a%road generall+ %+pass the argu'entaltogether2 notwithstanding historical evidence that the &eclare 9ar Clause was2 a%sent the need torepel a sudden attac52 intended to ensure Congress and not the executive co''it the nation to war# S=P 5e+ to stop despotis'9ill 15George0 Obama @iolate! Separation o$ Po(er!0 )B Jun )*?0http!://(((+ne(!ma4+"om/GeorgeLill/ObamaSeparationPo(er!Congre!!/)*?/*;/)B/i#/&';??/ 0 JZG6

Lhat philo!opher ar-ey Man!3el# "all! taming the prin"e making e4e"uti-e po(er "ompatible (ith#emo"ra"yT! abhorren"e o$ arbitrary po(er ha! been a perennial problem o$ mo#ern politi"!+ It i! no( moreurgent in Ameri"a than at any time !in"e the Foun#er!0 ha-ing rebelle# again!t George IIIT! un$ettere# e4er"i!e o$royal prerogati-e0 !tipulate# that pre!i#ent! !hall take "are that the la(! be $aith$ully e4e"ute#+ Seriou! a! arethe poli"y #i!agreement! roiling La!hington0 none i! a! important a! the !tru"tural #i!tortion threatening"on!titutional euilibrium+ In!titutional #erangement #ri-en by un"he"ke# pre!i#ential aggran#iHement #i# notbegin (ith ara"k Obama0 but hi! o1en!e! again!t the !eparation o$ po(er! ha-e been egregiou! in uantity0 an#

ualitati-ely #i1erent+ Regarding i''igration2 healthcare2 welfare2 education2drug polic+2 and 'ore2 =%a'a has suspended2 waived2 and rewritten laws0in"lu#ing the A1or#able Care A"t+ It reuire# the employer man#ate to begin thi! year+ ut Obama (rote a ne( la(0gi-ing to "ertain!iHe# "ompanie! a #elay until )*;0 an# !tipulating that other employer! mu!t "erti$y they (ill not#rop employee! to a-oi# the man#ate+ Doing !o (oul# trigger "riminal perury "harge!9 !o0 he "reate# a ne( "rime0

that o$ a#opting a bu!ine!! pra"ti"e he oppo!e!+ Presidents 'ust exercise so'e discretionininterpreting la(!0 mu!t ha-e !ome latitu#e in allo"ating 3nite re!our"e! to the en$or"ement o$ la(!0 an# mu!t ha-e

!ome $ree#om to a"t in the ab!en"e o$ la(+ =%a'a2 however2 has perpetrated 'ore thanE suspensions of laws# 9ere presidents the sole ,udges of the li'its oftheir latitude2 the+ would e4ectivel+ have plenar+ power to vitiate theseparation of powers2 the FoundersH %ulwar5 against despotis'#
https://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Obama-Separation-Powers-Congress/2014/06/23/id/578644/https://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Obama-Separation-Powers-Congress/2014/06/23/id/578644/https://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Obama-Separation-Powers-Congress/2014/06/23/id/578644/https://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Obama-Separation-Powers-Congress/2014/06/23/id/578644/


51/81


52/81


53/81


54/81

signi:cantl+ change the picture# The anal+sis for the ?uardian %+ the non8pro:t Cli'ate Anal+ticsco'es as cli'ate negotiators fro' nearl+


55/81


56/81

than three +ears ago2 invest'ents have %een 'ade and 'ost plants are alread+ well on their wa+ toco'pliance#G (ut congressional Repu%licans and other critics of PAs agenda appeared e'%oldened

%+ !onda+s ruling as a re%u5e for the ad'inistrations %roader agenda# 0Toda+s decision:r'l+ re,ects the =%a'a ad'inistrations circu'vention of the de'ocraticprocess and restores a dose of accounta%ilit+ to the increasingl+unaccounta%le executive %ranch2G ouse !a,orit+ eader @evin !cCarth+ -R8Calif#. said in

a state'ent# e added that the decision 0vindicates the ouses legislative actions to rein in%ureaucratic overreach and institute so'e co''on sense in rule8'a5ing#G The ruling2 whichgreens had hoped would %olster the legal case for =%a'as upco'ing cli'ate change rules2 sapsso'e of the presidents 'o'entu'after last wee5s crucial rulings supporting=%a'acare and ga+ 'arriage#


57/81

0 Lall Street Journal0B/)&/)0 http://online+(!+"om/arti"le/S***?)?*)&*)B*?;B;?*?&&)B)'')'?)&?+html6

Lhat i! happening to global temperature! in realityW he an!(er i!:almo!t nothing $ormore than * year! + Monthly -alue! o$ the global temperature anomaly o$ the lo(er atmo!phere0co'piled at the Jniversit+ of Ala%a'a fro' NASA satellite data2"an be $oun# atthe (eb!ite http://(((+#rroy!pen"er+"om/late!tglobaltemperature!/+ he late!t 5February )*)6 monthlyglobal temperature anomaly $or the lo(er atmo!phere (a! minu! *+) #egree!Cel!iu!0 !lightly le!! than the a-erage !in"e the !atellite re"or# o$ temperature!began in &

- . 9ar'ing wont cause extinction888'itigation andadaptation solve!endelsohn QB5,obert O+ Men#el!ohn 0 the N#(in Leyerhaeu!er Da-i! Pro$e!!or0 7ale S"hool o$ Fore!try an#Nn-ironmental Stu#ie!0 7ale ni-er!ity0 June )**0 =Climate Change an# N"onomi" Gro(th0> online:http://(((+gro(th"ommi!!ion+org/!torage/"g#e-/#o"ument!/g"(p*;*(eb+p#$6

These state'ents are largely alar'ist and 'isleading + Although "limate "hange i! a

!eriou! problem that #e!er-e! attention0 societ+s i''ediate %ehavior has an e4tremely

lo( probability of leading to "ata!trophi" "on!euen"e! + he science and

econo'ics o$ "limate "hange is 6uite clear that e'issions over the next few

decades will lead to onl+ mil# "on!euen"e!+ he !e-ere impa"t!pre#i"te# by alarmi!t!

re6uire a centur+ -or two in the "a!e o$ Stern )**;6 o$ no mitigation+ Many o$ the

predicted i'pacts assu'e there will %e no or little adaptation + he net e"onomi"

impa"t! $rom "limate "hange o-er the ne4t * year! (ill be !mall regar#le!!+ Mo!t o$ the 'ore severe

i'pacts will ta5e 'ore than a centur+ or even a 'illenniu' to unfold and

'an+ of these = potential G i'pacts will never occur %ecause people will

adapt# It is not at all apparent that i''ediate and dra'atic policies

need to %e developed to thwart long] range cli'ate ris5s + Lhat i! nee#e# are long^run balan"e# re!pon!e!+
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.htmlhttp://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdfhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.htmlhttp://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf


58/81


59/81

AFF > S=P CP


60/81


61/81

their evSlo%ogin 1*5Chri!topher Milton n#er(oo# Pro$e!!or o$ li5ethe PARappaport 15MIKN Pro$e!!or ,appaport i! Darling Foun#ation Pro$e!!or o$


62/81

decisions2 this would %oth reduce the nu'%er of regulations that wereenacted and would ensure that 'e'%ers of Congress would have to %eresponsi%le for their decisions+ y "ontra!t0 under the current s+ste' ofdelegation2 the ad'inistrative agencies can use the ecienc+ of thead'inistrative process to pass large nu'%ers of regulation! an# member! o$Congre!! "an a-oi# a""ountability $or the!e regulation!0 al(ay! "laiming that they #i# not inten# any parti"ular

regulation (hi"h might turn out to be unpopular or "ontro-er!ial+

The PA will create cli'ate regulations now that are 5e+ tosignaling support for Parisarder 1*5Amy0 Obama A#mini!tration ,ea#ie! ig Pu!h on Climate Change0 June 0 )*0http://(((+(!+"om/arti"le!/obamaa#mini!trationrea#ie!bigpu!hon"limate"hange?BB'&B);0 JZG6

he =%a'aa#mini!tration is planning a series of actions this su''er to rein ingreenhouse8gas e'issions fro' wide swaths of the econo'+2 includingtruc5s2 airplanes and power plants2 5ic5ing into high gear an a'%itious

cli'ate agendathat the pre!i#ent !ee! a! key to hi! lega"y+ he nviron'ental ProtectionAgenc+ is expected to announce as soon as 9ednesda+ plans to regulatecar%on e'issions fro' airlines2an# !oon a$ter that0 #ra$t rule! to cut car%on e'issionsfro' %ig truc5s2a""or#ing to people $amiliar (ith the propo!al!+ In the "oming (eek!0 the PA is alsoexpected to unveil rules ai'ed at reducing e'issions of 'ethanea potentgreenhou!e ga!$rom oil an# naturalga! operation!+ An# in Augu!t0 the agen"y (ill "omplete a !uite o$ threeregulation! lo(ering "arbon $rom the nation.! po(er plant!the "enterpie"e o$ Pre!i#ent ara"k Obama.! "limate"hange agen#a+ he propo!al! repre!ent the bigge!t "limate pu!h by the a#mini!tration !in"e )**0 (hen theou!e pa!!e# a national "apan#tra#e !y!tem propo!e# by the Lhite ou!e aime# at re#u"ing "arbon emi!!ion!+Anti"ipating the rule!0 !ome o$ (hi"h ha-e been telegraphe# in a#-an"e0 opponent! o$ Mr+ Obama.! regulatorye1ort! are mo-ing to blo"k them+ Senate Maority Mr+ M"Connell !ai# in a !tatement+ =he!e Obama a#mini!tration regulation! !hare !e-eralthing! in "ommon (ith the up"oming #ire"ti-e!: they !eem moti-ate# more by i#eology than !"ien"e0 an# they.relikely to negati-ely a1e"t the e"onomy an# hurt both the "o!t an# reliability o$ energy $or har#(orking Ameri"an$amilie! an# !mallbu!ine!! o(ner!+> Supporter! o$ Mr+ Obama.! e1ort! !ay the regulatory pu!h ha! the ba"king o$both !"ien"e an# the $or"e o$ la(+ hey "ite a )**& Supreme Court #e"i!ion that "ompelle# the NPA to regulategreenhou!ega! emi!!ion! i$ the agen"y $oun# they en#anger the publi".! health an# (el$are0 (hi"h the NPA #i# in)** (ith a !"ienti3" 3n#ing !hortly a$ter Mr+ Obama be"ame pre!i#ent+ hey al!o argue that the mo-e! be"amene"e!!ary a$ter the Senate in )** ree"te# the a#mini!tration propo!al to "ap the amount o$ "arbon emitte# in the+S+ Mr+ Obama in )*B i!!ue# an e4e"uti-e or#er #ire"ting the NPA to i!!ue the regulation!0 (hi"h it #i# a yearlater0 in June )*?+ =It.! a #emon!tration o$ hi! "ommitment+ e trie# one path0 it (a!n.t !u""e!!$ul0 !o he tookanother path that (a! a-ailable0> !ai# Carol ro(ner0 Mr+ Obama.! top "limate a#-i!er $or the 3r!t t(o year! o$ hi!a#mini!tration an# NPA a#mini!trator $or Pre!i#ent ill Clinton+ =e.! $ollo(ing the la( Congre!! pa!!e# in *0>a##e# M!+ ro(ner0 re$erring to the * Clean Air A"t Amen#ment!+ he a"tion! e4pe"te# a! !oon a! thi! (eekin"lu#e a !"ienti3" 3n#ing "on"lu#ing that "arbon emi!!ion! $rom air"ra$t "ontribute to "limate "hange0 a mo-e thatlegally prompt! the reuirement to regulate ba!e# on the )**& ruling by the Supreme Court0 an# ne( "arbonemi!!ion !tan#ar#! $or big tru"k! an# trailer!0 !u"h a! a typi"al '(heeler !emitru"k+ (o $a"tor! are #ri-ing the

timing o$ the pu!h thi! !ummer+ The ad'inistration wants to co'plete it ahead of&ece'%ers Jnited Nations su''it on cli'ate change2 where worldleaders will 'eet in Paris to decide whether to agree on a glo%al accord tocut car%on e'issions# The PAs regulator+ agenda represents nearl+ever+thing !r# =%a'a is set to o4er world leaders on what the J#S# is
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-readies-big-push-on-climate-change-1433873269http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-readies-big-push-on-climate-change-1433873269http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-readies-big-push-on-climate-change-1433873269http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-readies-big-push-on-climate-change-1433873269


63/81

doing to address cli'ate change# Se"on#ly0 on"e the PA rules on e'issions %+power plants %eco'e :nal2 states will have a +ear to su%'it plans whilelawsuits challenging the rule are expected to %e heard %+ the courts# Thead'inistration wants to 'a5e sure that its ocials can oversee as 'uch ofthese two develop'ents as possi%le instead of rel+ing on the next

president2 especiall+ if it is one of the ?=P 9hite ouse candidates whohave expressed opposition to the PAs cli'ate agenda altogether# =9hen+oure regulating as 'uch of the econo'+ as he !r# =%a'a" is atte'ptingto regulate %+ executive order2 thats clearl+ an overreach0> saidim Phillips0pre!i#ent o$ Ameri"an! $or Pro!perity0 a politi"al a#-o"a"y group ba"ke# by the (ealthy Ko"h brother!+

(+ preventing the PA fro' doing regulations the CP allowsthe Senate to %loc5EGOP (ill al!o "ru!h 2NPA

Plaut7 1*5Ja!on0 o( Mit"h M"Connell I! Atta"king ObamaT! NPA0 ;;0http://(((+nationalournal+"om/energy/mit"hm""onnellepa"limate"hangeappropriation!)**;;0 JZG6

June ;0 )* Senate !a,orit+ eaderMit"h !cConnell said he ,oined theappropriations su%co''ittee in charge of the nviron'ental ProtectionAgenc+ this +ear to L:ght %ac5 against this ad'inistrationT! anti"oal ob!regulation!+


64/81

nviron'ental Polic+ Act reviews for 'a,or infrastructure pro,ects#Sub"ommittee Chairman


65/81

in parliament ha! ma#e a maor !pee"h on "limate "hange !in"e the la!t ele"tion more than $our year! ago+Mean(hile0 kip ha! !urge# in popularity0 mainly among ol#er -oter!0 (hile embra"ing outright #enial o$ "limate"hange a! part o$ it! laughable energy poli"y that ple#ge! a re-i-al o$ "oal0 the #irtie!t o$ the $o!!il $uel!+ It i! little(on#er then that there "oul# be a re"or# lo( turnout o$ young -oter! in the general ele"tion ne4t May0 e-enthough (hi"he-er party (in! (ill help to #e"i#e (hether there !houl# be a !trong international agreement on"limate "hange+ Our be!t hope i! $or young -oter! to e4pre!! their #e!pair about our #i!mal politi"!0 not byboy"otting the general ele"tion a! !ome ha-e a#-o"ate#0 but in!tea# by !peaking out lou#ly an# 3er"ely0 an#$or"ing potential MP! to "on$ront longterm i!!ue! !u"h a! "limate "hange in the runup to the ne4t general ele"tion+In #oing !o0 they (oul# en!ure that their be!t intere!t!0 an# the be!t intere!t! o$ $uture generation!0 are notbetraye# by tho!e politi"al lea#er! (ho (ill #e"i#e in Pari! ne4t year (hether the (orl# (ill a-oi# #angerou! "limate"hange+

The i'pact is %illions of deathsCu''ins Q1E5,onnie0 International Dire"tor Organi" Con!umer! A!!o"iation an# Lill Allen0 A#-i!or Organi" Con!umer!A!!o"iation0 =Climate Cata!trophe: Sur-i-ing the )!t Century>0 )?0http://(((+"ommon#ream!+org/-ie(/)**/*)/?;6

he hour i! late+


66/81

AT &e'ocrac+ I'pact > S6uo SolvesS6uo solves de'ocrac+ > 'arriage ruling(attle Cree5 n6uirer ditorial (oard M8


67/81

1AR


68/81

1AR Nondelegation J_Cli'ate control protections co'ing now > dra'aticall+ reduceswar'ingRestuccia M8


69/81


70/81

1AR Nondelegation AT SC=TJS RulingSC=TJS ruling actuall+ helped =%a'a2 and it shows that onl+%ad court precedents can stop =%a'a&ra,e' M8


71/81

1AR Nondelegation in5CP revives a doctrine that 5ills o%a'as polic+Shapiro 1*5Stuart i! A!!o"iate Pro$e!!or an# Dire"tor0 Publi" Poli"y Program at ,utger!

ni-er!ity0 Pre!i#ent Obama u!ing NPA to bypa!! Congre!! i! not illegal0 une 0)*0http://(((+!"ien"e"o#e4+"om/pre!i#entVobamaVu!ingVepaVtoVbypa!!V"ongre!!Vi!VnotVillegal;0 JZG6

Pre!i#ent =%a'a using PA to %+pass Congress is not illegal It.! a big $e( (eek! at theNn-ironmental Prote"tion Agen"y 5NPA6+ he NPA i!!ue# a regulation "lari$ying it! authority to regulate bo#ie! o$(ater throughout the "ountry+ hi! (eek it i!!ue# an =en#angerment 3n#ing0> a pre"ur!or to a regulation go-erning"arbon emi!!ion $rom air"ra$t!+ here i! al!o a plan to rai!e $uel e"ien"y !tan#ar#! on tru"k!+ An# (ithin the ne4t(eek or t(o0 the Supreme Court (ill i!!ue a ruling regar#ing (hether the NPA unrea!onably re$u!e# to "on!i#er

"o!t! (hen i!!uing it! re"ent !tan#ar# on mer"ury emi!!ion! $rom po(er plant!+ (ut while it is a %igfew wee5s2 it is not an unusual few wee5s for the =%a'a Ad'inistrationPA# he mer"ury0 air"ra$t emi!!ion an# "lean (ater regulation! are all e4ample! o$ maor poli"y initiati-e! takenby the e4e"uti-e bran"h o$ the go-ernment #uring thi! a#mini!tration+ Pre!i#ent =%a'a saidin )*? that inthe (ake o$ Congre!!ional gri#lo"k0 he would use his 0pen and phoneG to 'a5e polic+(ithout Congre!!+ In no poli"y area 5!a-e perhap! immigration6 ha! that been more e-i#ent than in en-ironmental

poli"y+ Common playbook Not surprisingl+2 President =%a'as opponents havereacted strongl+ to the polic+8'a5ing through regulation# The clean waterrule was descri%ed as an 0egregious power gra%#0,epubli"an !enator! unhappy (ithNPA attempt! to regulate greenhou!e ga!e! ha-e !poken o$ the nee# to =rein in> the e4e"uti-e bran"h+

owever2 two of the pre'ises %ehind these attac5s are at %est6uestiona%le# The :rst is that the =%a'a Ad'inistration e'phasis onregulation is unprecedented2 and the other is that issuing regulations isan unchec5ed exercise of executive power# The use of executive power %+

a presidentto get hi! (i!he!0 particularl+ in a second ter'2 is extre'el+co''on# N-ery t(oterm pre!i#ent !in"e Franklin Delano ,oo!e-elt ha! been "on$ronte# by a Congre!! (ith atlea!t one hou!e "ontrolle# by the oppo!ition party in hi! !e"on# term+ hi! !e-erely "on!train! the ability o$ the

pre!i#ent to a1e"t #ome!ti" poli"y through legi!lation+ A! !u"h0 so'eti'e around their secondinauguration2 presidents t+picall+ switch fro' a 0legislative presidenc+G(here they a#-o"ate $or ne( la(! in Congre!!0 to an 0ad'inistrative presidenc+G wherethe+ use their executive power! to ena"t their poli"y pre$eren"e!+ In"rea!ingly0 that ha! meantu!ing regulation a! a poli"y tool+ Statute! pa!!e# in the ;*! an# &*! ga-e the pre!i#ent "on!i#erable ability to

!et poli"y through regulation+ The Supre'e Court has repeatedl+ upheld theconstitutionalit+ of this delegation of power to the president fro'Congress# en"e0 all pre!i#ent! $rom Carter through Obama ha-e i!!ue# hun#re#! o$ !igni3"ant regulation!0an# pre!i#ent! all pi"k up the pa"e o$ regulating a! their time in o"e gro(! !hort+
http://www.sciencecodex.com/president_obama_using_epa_to_bypass_congress_is_not_illegal-159116http://www.sciencecodex.com/president_obama_using_epa_to_bypass_congress_is_not_illegal-159116http://www.sciencecodex.com/president_obama_using_epa_to_bypass_congress_is_not_illegal-159116http://www.sciencecodex.com/president_obama_using_epa_to_bypass_congress_is_not_illegal-159116


72/81

1AR Nondelegation Paris IParis can solve > even if initial co''it'ents are insucient >the new fra'ewor5 allows for successFreed'an 1*

5An#re(0 Lhy the Pari! Climate Summit might a"tually (ork0 J2 *)0 )*0http://ma!hable+"om/)*/*;/*)/pari!"limate!ummitglobal(armingagreement/ 0JZG6

he Pari! Climate Summit i! approa"hing more ui"kly than it might !eem+ hough it a"tually take! pla"e in earlyDe"ember0 there are $e(er than )* negotiating #ay! le$t on the #iplomati" "alen#ar be$ore the international"ommunity gather! in the Fren"h "apital+ heir goal i! to "on!tru"t !omething that ha! elu#e# the (orl# $or more

than t(o #e"a#e!: a meaning$ul0 e1e"ti-e an# en$or"eable global "limate "hange agreement+ (ased onrecent cli'ate science :ndings2 the su''it can %e viewed as the lastchance for the glo%al co''unit+ to 'eet the 'andate "ountrie! agree# to ba"k in) avoiding Ldangerous hu'an interference with the cli'ate s+ste'#Negotiators have de:ned that danger threshold as glo%al war'ing greater

than < degrees Celsius0 or B+; #egree! Fahrenheit+ Nmi!!ion! o$ planet(arming greenhou!e ga!e!(oul# ha-e to plummet in the ne4t #e"a#e to a-oi# o-er!hooting that )#egree target0 a""or#ing to many !tu#ie!+In"rea!ingly0 it !eem! that lea#er! re"ogniHe thi!0 a! many are publi"ly talking about in"lu#ing a longterm goal o$Hero or negati-e emi!!ion! 5(hen more emi!!ion! are taken out o$ the atmo!phere than a##e# to it6 in the Pari!

Agreement+ Po!iti-e !ign! Recentl+2 there have %een a nu'%er of indications thatParis is unli5el+ to %e a repeat of the de%acle that occurred in Copenhagenin )**+ hatT! (hen (orl# lea#er!0 in"lu#ing a thenne( Pre!i#ent ara"k Obama0 ette# into Denmark e4pe"tingto !ign a "omplete# treaty te4t rea#y $or !ignature only to be #i!appointe# an# embarra!!e# by the (eaka""or# they ha!tily a#opte# (hen negotiation! all but "ollap!e#+ here (ere many rea!on! $or CopenhagenT!$ailure+ ut perhap! the be!t e4planation i! thi!: the (orl# (a! not yet rea#y to un#ertake the !eriou! a"tion! that!ol-ing thi! i!!ue reuire!+ Oil an# "oal "ompanie! (ere !till 3ghting the !"ien"e+ China an# the +S+ (ere !till atloggerhea#! o-er ChinaT! re!pon!ibility to "ut it! rapi#lygro(ing emi!!ion!+


73/81

top8down 'andate fro' the J#N# that will %e legall+ %inding on so'ecountries %ut not others# In!tea#0 itT! the re-er!e: a %otto'8up approach in whicheach countr+ deter'ines what it is willing to do to address its share of theglo%al war'ing pro%le'+ he!e in#i-i#ual goal! (ill then be !tit"he# together into !ome kin# o$pat"h(ork uilt that ha! legal $or"e to it+ hi! a#ho" !tru"ture may !eem (onky0 an# only o$ intere!t to #iploma"yner#!0 but itT! a"tually a $un#amental part o$ (hy many longtime ob!er-er! o$ "limate talk! are more optimi!ti"

about Pari! than any o$ it! pre#e"e!!or!+ Such a fra'ewor5 allows the agree'ent to %e%uilt upon in later +ears# ach countr+Hs target can %e ratcheted upgraduall+2 in ter's of a'%ition# I think the Pari! agreement i! likely to be !tru"ture# to bring"ountrie! ba"k regularly to the table to !trengthen their "ommitment to "omplete the ob0 !ay! Jenni$er Morgan0global #ire"tor o$ the "limate program at the Lorl# ,e!our"e! In!titute in La!hington0 an en-ironmental think tank+n#er the ol# !y!tem0 there (ere goo# rea!on! $or "ountrie! to re!i!t ambitiou! emi!!ion! re#u"tion target! be"au!e they (ere legally bin#ing an# "ame $rom a "ompli"ate#0 largely arbitrary "al"ulation by the +2+

bureau"ra"y+ Now2 though2 each countr+ has an incentive to act 'ore swiftl+ inorder to %e recogni7ed for earl+ action2 and to help put pressure on othernations to do the sa'e# he i#ea i! to ha-e both that longterm target an# then a pro"e!! (here"ountrie! (oul# "ome ba"k to the table !ay e-ery 3-e year!0 an# in the a"tual Pari! agreement (oul# be a"ommitment that they (oul# in"rea!e their ambition0 or not roll ba"k their ambition0 e-ery 3-e year!0 Morgan !ai#on a "all (ith reporter!+ here "oul# e-en be a!!e!!ment! o$ the "ountryT! propo!e# "ommitment! $or the $uture

(hen they "ome out+ All of those things are wa+s to tr+ and create a positive'o'entu' or signals that would get the countries closer and closer tosta+ing %elow < degrees Celsius"L#


74/81

1AR Nondelegation AT C=< AgC=< increases hurt crops > decrease sunlight2 'a5e food lessnutritiousRadford 1*

5im0 Climate 2e(! 2et(ork0 ,i!e in CO) Coul# ,e!tri"t Gro(ing Day! $or Crop!0 Jun)*0 )*0http://(((+truth#ig+"om/report/item/ri!eVinV"o)V"oul#Vre!tri"tVgro(ingV#ay!V$orV"rop!V)**;)*0 JZG6

!ay! Iain Cal#(ell0 o$ the a(aiiIn!titute o$ Marine iology+ he !ame (arming at the lo(e!t latitu#e! "oul# be #e-a!tating: in !ome tropi"al

region!0 "on#ition! "oul# be"ome too hot an# #ry $or any gro(th+ O-erall0 the planet could see an11` reduction in the nu'%er of da+s suited to growth2an# !ome pla"e! in the tropi"!"oul# lo!e )** gro(ing #ay! a year+ Although !ome region! in China0 ,u!!ia an# Cana#a (ill !ee an impro-ement0

around


75/81

a""or#ing to a ne( !tu#y in Global Change iology+ ZhaoHhong Feng0 o$ the Department o$ iologi"al an#Nn-ironmental S"ien"e! at the ni-er!ity o$ Gothenburg0 S(e#en0 an# "olleague! loo5ed at the resultsof eight experi'ents in four continents on crops0 gra!!lan#! an# $ore!t!0 and foundthat as car%on dioxide levels go up2 the nitrogen content of the crop islowered# In the case of wheat and rice2 this would also 'ean lower protein

levels#2egati-e e1e"t

0Further'ore2 we can see that this negative e4ect existsregardless of whether or not the plants growth increases0 an# e-en i$ $ertili!er i!a##e#0> !ay! Johan ##ling0 a plant phy!iologi!t at Gothenburg0 an# a "oauthor o$ the report+ =hi! i! une4pe"te#an# ne(+> In the !ame (eek0 a team o$ !"ienti!t! at the ni-er!ity o$ Ala!ka Fairbank! pro#u"e# e-i#en"e that"limate "hange ha! alrea#y begun to alter the $ore!t! o$ the $ar north+ hey report in the ournal Fore!t N"ology an#Management that in the interior o$ Ala!ka0 alrea#y at the optimum temperature range $or (hite !pru"e0 tree gro(th!lo(e# a! !ummer temperature! ro!e+

Newest studies prove > the deniers use too short of studiesthat dont ta5e into account all the varia%lesA%ra's 1*5


76/81

1AR AT Adaptation

- . Cant adapt to war'ing > rates li5el+ to %e too fast toensure resilience#

PA QQnite# State! Nn-ironmental Prote"tion Agen"y+ =Climate Changehealth an# en-ironmental e1e"t!: e"o!y!tem!an# bio#i-er!ity+> http://(((+epa+go-/"limate"hange/e1e"t!/e"o!y!tem!an#bio#i-er!ity+html )/)*R

Ob!er-ation! o$ e"o!y!tem impa"t! are #i"ult to u!e in $uture proe"tion! be"au!e o$ the "omple4itie! in-ol-e# in

human/nature intera"tion! 5e+g+0 lan# u!e "hange6+ 2e-erthele!!0 the ob!er-e# "hange! are"ompelling e4ample! o$ ho( ri!ing temperature! "an a1e"t the natural (orl#an# rai!eue!tion! o$ ho( -ulnerable population! (ill a#apt to #ire"t an# in#ire"t e1e"t! a!!o"iate# (ith "limate "hange+

he IPCC 5IPCC0 )**&6 ha! note#0 During the "our!e o$ thi! "entury the re!ilien"e o$ many e"o!y!tem!5their ability to a#apt naturally6 i! likely to be e4"ee#e# by an unpre"e#ente#"ombination o$ "hange in "limate an# in other global "hange #ri-er! 5e!pe"ially lan# u!e"hange an# o-ere4ploitation60 i$greenhou!e ga! emi!!ion! an# other "hange! "ontinue at or

abo-e "urrent rate!+ y )** e"o!y!tem! (ill be e4po!e# to atmo!pheri" CO) le-el!!ub!tantially higher than in the pa!t ;*0*** year!0 an# global temperature! at lea!t among the highe!t a!tho!e e4perien"e# in the pa!t &?*0*** year!+hi! (ill alter the !tru"ture0 re#u"e bio#i-er!ityan# perturb $un"tioning o$ mo!t e"o!y!tem! 0 an# "ompromi!e the !er-i"e! they"urrently pro-i#e+


77/81

1AR AT 9ar'ing Not Real- . ?lo%al 9ar'ing is happening > 'ost recent and %estevidence concludes that it is hu'an induced!uller Q10 http://(((+nytime!+"om/)*)/*&/B*/opinion/the"on-er!iono$a"limate"hange!kepti"+htmlWpage(ante#XallR

CA


78/81

ou!e "alle# the gold standard of o%,ective scienti:c assess'ent 2L issued a,oint state'ent with 1E other2ational Acade'ieso$ S"ien"e sa+ing Lthe scienti:cunderstandingo$ "limate "hange isno( !u"iently clear to ,ustif+ nations ta5ingpro'pt action+ It i! -ital that all nation! i#enti$y "o!te1e"ti-e !tep! that they "an take no(0 to "ontribute to !ub!tantialan# longterm re#u"tion in net global greenhou!e ga! emi!!ion!+ 5Joint Statement o$ S"ien"e A"a#emie!: Global ,e!pon!e to

Climate Change QPDFR0 )**6The onl+ de%atein the !"ien"e "ommunity about global (arming is a%out

how 'uch and how fast war'ing will continue as a result of heat8trappinge'issions# Scientists have given a clear warning a%out glo%al war'ing2and we have 'ore than enough facts $ a%out causes and :xes $ toi'ple'ent solutions right now#


79/81

Additional Co'parative CourtsCards


80/81

AT Congress @e+Congress is an ine4ective actor > when it co'es tosurveillance2 Congress lac5s 5nowledge and oversight#Sett+ 1* Su#ha Setty0 Pro$e!!or o$


81/81

Courts ?ood $ Surveillance Speci:c(rea5ing deference solves > the ,udiciar+ is the %est and onl+actor to force institutional and structural change#Sett+ 1* Su#ha Setty0 Pro$e!!or o$

Documents

Courts CPs