XO CP1NC PREZ POWERRecent executive order proves Obama can use XOs to further economic engagementUSCOC 13 (United States Chamber of Commerce, May 01, 2012, U.S. Chamber Welcomes Executive Order on International Regulatory Cooperation, http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2012/may/us-chamber-welcomes-executive-order-international-regulatory-cooperation) TYBGSean Heather, vice president of the U.S. Chamber's Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, issued the following statement welcoming todays announcement by the Obama Administration of a new executive order on international regulatory cooperation: Todays executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way. Fulfilling primary regulatory objectives such as health and safety is more complicated than ever due to the interconnected nature of the global economy. The result is that international cooperation is clearly in the interest of regulators and is now assuming a central role in framing good domestic regulatory policy. This landmark executive order recognizes that good regulatory policy supports good trade policy. Dialogue between U.S. regulators and their foreign counterparts can avert unnecessary divergences in regulation that become 'behind the border' barriers to commerce and hinder the ability of U.S. companies to reach the 95% of the worlds consumers that live beyond our borders. Some U.S. regulators have been moving in this direction in recent years, but not systematically and not always in a well coordinated fashion that supports our international economic policy objectives. This executive order provides a much needed political emphasis and sharpens the administration's focus on international regulatory cooperation in APEC, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and in bilateral regulatory dialogues with key trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. Over the past four decades, almost every president has made important contributions to the body of administrative law that directs regulatory promulgation, but until today all of those contributions were domestic in nature. This executive order is the international riposte. We look forward to working with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on further guidance in support of todays executive order. The Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation seeks to align trade, regulatory, and competition policy in support of open and competitive markets. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the worlds largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.Unilateral action avoids the politics DA doesnt spend political capital. Howell, Associate Professor of Government @ Harvard University, 5 (William G., Associate Professor of Government @ Harvard University, Unilateral Powers: A Brief Overview, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, no. 3, September, p. 421) The actions that Bush and his modern predecessors have taken by fiat do not fit easily within a theoretical framework of executive power that emphasizes weakness and dependence, and offers as recourse only persuasion. For at least two reasons, the ability to act unilaterally is conceptually distinct from the array of powers presidents rely upon within a bargaining framework. First, when presidents act unilaterally, they move policy first and thereby place upon Congress and the courts the burden of revising a new political landscape. If they choose not to retaliate, either by passing a law or ruling against the president, then the presidents order stands. Only by taking (or credibly threatening to take) positive action can either adjoining institution limit the presidents unilateral powers. Second, when the president acts unilaterally, he acts alone. Now of course, he relies upon numerous advisers to formulate the policy, to devise ways of protecting it against congressional or judicial encroachment, and to oversee its implementation (more on this below). But in order to issue the actual policy, the president need not rally majorities, compromise with adversaries, or wait for some interest group to bring a case to court. The president, instead, can strike out on his own. Doing so, the modern president is in a unique position to lead, to break through the stasis that pervades the federal government, and to impose his will in new areas of governance. The ability to move first and act alone, then, distinguishes unilateral actions from other sources of influence. Indeed, the central precepts of Neustadts argument are turned upside down, for unilateral action is the virtual antithesis of persuasion. Here, presidents just act; their power does not hinge upon their capacity to convince [political actors] that what the White House wants of them is what they ought to do for their sake and for their authority (Neustadt 1990, 30). To make policy, presidents need not secure the formal consent of Congress. Instead, presidents simply set public policy and dare others to counter. And as long as Congress lacks the votes (usually two thirds of both chambers) to overturn him, the president can be confident that his policy will stand.Presidential action avoids Congress independent constitutional authority.Howell and Lewis, Harvard and Princeton University, 2[William G and David E, November 2002, Agencies by Presidential Design, Journal of Politics Volume 64: 4, pg 1099, AS]Proceeding with independent constitutional authority and authority delegated over time, presidents can make policy "with the stroke of a pen" and effectively avoid the many institutional obstacles (multiple committees and chambers, anonymous holds, filibusters) that plague the legislative process (Howell forthcoming; Mayer 2001; Moe and Howell 1999; Moe and Wilson 1994). Pres- idents often exploit the difficulties of legislative action by unilaterally setting policies that at least one-third of Congress supports, making it virtually impossible for Congress to deliver a counterproposal that can overcome a presidential veto

SolvencySolvencyGeneralObama can push through virtually any executive orderKumar 13 (Anita, McClatchy Newspapers, Obama turning to executive power to get what he wants, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/19/186309/obama-turning-to-executive-power.html#.UdxwMD6gXFw) TYBGPresident Barack Obama came into office four years ago skeptical of pushing the power of the White House to the limit, especially if it appeared to be circumventing Congress. Now, as he launches his second term, Obama has grown more comfortable wielding power to try to move his own agenda forward, particularly when a deeply fractured, often-hostile Congress gets in his way. Hes done it with a package of tools, some of which date to George Washington and some invented in the modern era of an increasingly powerful presidency. And hes done it with a frequency that belies his original campaign criticisms of predecessor George W. Bush, invites criticisms that hes bypassing the checks and balances of Congress and the courts, and whets the appetite of liberal activists who want him to do even more to advance their goals. While his decision to send drones to kill U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism has garnered a torrent of criticism, his use of executive orders and other powers at home is deeper and wider. He delayed the deportation of young illegal immigrants when Congress wouldnt agree. He ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence, which Congress halted nearly 15 years ago. He told the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, deciding that the 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. Hes vowed to act on his own if Congress didnt pass policies to prepare for climate change. Arguably more than any other president in modern history, hes using executive actions, primarily orders, to bypass or pressure a Congress where the opposition Republicans can block any proposal.The president has broad executive powers Prakash and Ramsey, University of San Diego School of Law, 2001 (Saikrishna B and Michael D, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, Accessed 7-8-13, RRR) We have amassed considerable evidence that in the eighteenth century, the executive power included authority over foreign affairs; that during the Articles era, Congress was understood to enjoy the executive power over foreign affairs; that the Department of Foreign Affairs was regarded as an executive department; and that the Framers and ratifiers recognized that the President would enjoy foreign affairs authorities beyond those specifically enumerated in Article II, Sections 2 and 3. On the other hand, we have explained that under the Constitution, Congress lacks a textual hook upon which it might lay claim to those residual powers over foreign affairs not otherwise granted to the President. Admittedly, Congress enjoys unquestioned foreign affairs authority over discrete foreign affairs matters (war, foreign commerce, marque and reprisal, and the law of nations). But these discrete powers are a far cry from the type of authority that might be thought to invest Congress with a sweeping residual power over foreign affairs. Indeed, during the drafting and ratification phases, no one suggested that Congress would enjoy anything close to plenary authority over foreign affairs as it had under the Articles. Nor did anyone suggest that Congress would enjoy all the foreign affairs authorities not allocated to the President. We believe these materials and arguments are sufficient to establish that the Presidents executive power grants the power to control foreign affairs except where the Constitution specifically allocates authority to Congress or requires that it be shared with the Senate.

The President can terminate treaties Prakash and Ramsey, University of San Diego School of Law, 2001 (Saikrishna B and Michael D, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, Accessed 7-8-13, RRR) As discussed, our theory of residual foreign affairs powers suggests that the President has the power to terminate treaties. This power was part of the traditional executive foreign affairs power and is not allocated elsewhere by the Constitution.396 The discussions of treaty termination during the Washington Administration confirm that the political leaders of the postratification era shared this view.

The president has the power to change the disposition of US foreign policy, even if it goes beyond or contradicts existing laws Prakash and Ramsey, University of San Diego School of Law, 2001 (Saikrishna B and Michael D, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, Accessed 7-8-13, RRR) This Section focuses on the formation of United States foreign policy during the Washington Administration. As discussed, by foreign policy we mean the ability to publicly pronounce the views and goals of the United Statesas Washington himself called it, the disposition of the United States412on international matters, even though that policy might contradict or go beyond existing laws.413 Our theory of residual executive power over foreign affairs would give this power to the President, since the determination of foreign policy is an aspect of the traditional executive power not allocated elsewhere by the Constitution. As this Section reveals,414 the events of the Washington Administrationparticularly in response to the war between England and France in 1793-1794confirm this understanding of executive power.415

The President is the sole channel of foreign intercourse(Saikrishna B and Michael D, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, Accessed 7-9-13, RRR)As many of the incidents recounted above indicate, Washington spoke for the United States when communicating with foreign countries. In this Section, we recount Washingtons control of foreign communications. We also reveal how Congress and other countries accepted the executives control of communications. Finally, we relate how Jefferson dealt with Genet when the latter denied that Washington spoke for the nation. In the early days of the new administration, Washington assumed control over foreign communications. We have already discussed Jays illuminating letter to the American agent in Morocco in which Jay instructed the agent that communications to the United States from foreign nations would now be directed toward the President rather than Congress.370 Jays construction of the Constitution was entirely consistent with the Chief Diplomats because Washington also believed that he could control communications with foreign regimes. In a December 1789 letter to Muhammed Ben Abdalla, the King of Morocco, the President asserted his authority as sole channel of official intercourse. 371 After apologizing for the delay in responding to the Kings 1788 letter, the President explained that since he was the supreme executive Authority, the Kings letter had been delivered to him.372 Likewise, after reviewing a 1789 letter from Louis XVI addressed to the President and Congress, Washington informed Congress that he would respond to the letter. In the subsequent letter to Louis XVI, Washington explained that because of the new Constitution, he had the honor of receiving and answering the Kings earlier letter.373 Washington understood that, as part of his supreme executive authority conveyed by Article II, Section 1, he was to correspond with foreign governments, and their letters were to be addressed to him as the nations sole representative. Congress never challenged the Presidents communications monopoly. Although members often held strong sentiments about overseas events, Congress never conveyed those sentiments directly to another country. Nor did Congress ever command the President to convey certain sentiments to foreign countries, as the Continental Congress had commanded its Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles.375 Instead, Congress adopted resolutions that must seem odd to modern observers of foreign affairs. Rather than passing a resolution that merely expressed the congressional view (or the view of the House or the Senate), each chamber beseeched the President to convey a message to the relevant foreign government. For instance, after learning that the French King had accepted a new constitution, the House and Senate requested that the President express the sincere interest of the chambers in his answer to Frances notification.376 On another occasion, the Senate and the House requested the President to respond favorably to a letter from the notorious Committee of Public Safety.377 Finally, upon learning that the French Republic had presented its colors, the House requested the President to convey its sentiments to France.378SolvencyDiplomatsThe president can engage by sending diplomatsPrakash teacher of Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School. and Ramsey, Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Deigo01(Saikrishna B. teaches Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School, Prakash was formerly Herzog Research Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. He was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and a recipient of the John M. Olin Fellowship in Law, Economics and Public Policy. and Michael D., Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, Professor Ramsey teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, foreign relations law and international business law. 10/16/01, The Yale Law Journal, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, P.237, Accessed: 7/8/13, LPS.)

Second, modern foreign affairs scholarship has failed to provide a satisfactory account of the source and allocation of presidential and congressional foreign affairs powers. Scholars heatedly and inconclusively debate whether the President or Congress should have the supreme role in foreign affairs, and have sharp and seemingly insoluble disagreements over the allocation of particular foreign affairs powers, such as the power to terminate treaties, the power to set foreign policy, and the power to enter into executive agreements. Each branch has its able academic advocates, but there seems little prospect of resolution, or even agreement upon what the relevant considerations should be. And even when foreign affairs scholars agree upon an appropriate allocation in a particular area, they cannot explain why the conventional allocation is the correct one. Most everyone agrees, for example, that the President speaks for the United States in the international sphere and can instruct and recall ambassadors, and most agree that Congress can legislate with respect to a wide range of foreign affairs and national security matters. Yet there is little attempt to explain how these allocations cohere with the Constitutions text or to construct from these allocations a comprehensive theory of foreign affairs powers.5The president controls ambassadors- transitively he controls engagement Prakash teacher of Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School. and Ramsey, Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Deigo01(Saikrishna B. teaches Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School, Prakash was formerly Herzog Research Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. He was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and a recipient of the John M. Olin Fellowship in Law, Economics and Public Policy. and Michael D., Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, Professor Ramsey teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, foreign relations law and international business law. 10/16/01, The Yale Law Journal, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, P.244, Accessed: 7/8/13, LPS.)

To take another issue, most everyone supposes that the President has the power to recall U.S. ambassadors. 50 This power has been exercised without question, even with respect to controversial ambassadors in times of political partisanship. 51 But what is the source of the Presidents power? The only remotely relevant provision in Article II, Sections 2 and 3 is the Presidents power, with the consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors 52 which surely cannot convey to the President alone the power to recall them. One might argue that ambassadors are analogous to executive officers, who are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate but can be removed by the President alone; on this theory, ambassadors also could be removed (recalled) by the President alone. But this assumes the President has plenary authority over ambassadors comparable to the Presidents authority over executive officers, and that is not at all obvious from the text. Because the President is constitutionally charged with enforcing the laws, the President has an evident constitutional source of power over executive officers who assist in the enforcement of he laws. Of course, one similarly could argue that because the President is ultimately in charge of foreign affairs (or at least in charge of communicating foreign policy) and ambassadors are involved in foreign affairs (or at least in voicing foreign policy), the President has power over them. But this argument assumes a point not yet demonstrated: that the President controls foreign affairs, or at least is empowered to communicate foreign policy. As indicated, in modern foreign affairs scholarship the latter point is assumed while the former is vigorously disputed. As a result, the Presidents supposed power to recall ambassadors remains without textual foundation. Congresss power over foreign affairs similarly suffers from assumptions unsubstantiated by text. The conventional view is that Congress has broad power to legislate with respect to foreign affairs and national security matters, although (perhaps) limited by the Presidents foreign affairs powers.

SolvencyForeign Affairs/InvestmentPresident has the ability to act in foreign investmentPrakash teacher of Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School. and Ramsey, Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Deigo01(Saikrishna B. teaches Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School, Prakash was formerly Herzog Research Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. He was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and a recipient of the John M. Olin Fellowship in Law, Economics and Public Policy. and Michael D., Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, Professor Ramsey teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, foreign relations law and international business law. 10/16/01, The Yale Law Journal, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, P.240, Accessed: 7/8/13, LPS.)

Thus, the arguments for the Presidents authority over foreign affairs rest largely on structural inference 21 and the principle that the President is the constitutional representative of the people and the Republic in foreign affairs is inferred from the Presidents enumerated powers and from the goals and functions of the federal government in the area of foreign affairs. 22 Those dubious of presidential primacy may wonder whether Powells structural inference is any better than Curtiss-Wright s invocation of external sovereignty. 23 The apparent dearth of textual presidential powers over foreign affairs leads a second group of scholars to the opposite conclusion: Congress, not the President, should primarily control foreign affairs. John Hart Ely observes, for example, that [t]he Constitution gives the president no general right to make foreign policy. Quite the contrary. . . . [V]irtually every substantive constitutional power touching on foreign affairs is vested in Congress. 24 Although advocates of congressional primacy inexplicably accord the President the power to communicate with foreign powers, 25 they contend that Articles I and II of the Constitution reveal the intent of the framers to give Congress the dominant hand in the establishment of basic policy regarding foreign relations 26 and that the Framers simply did not intend the President to be an independent and dominating force, let alone the domineering one, in the making of foreign policy.27Foreign Affairs are in the presidents jurisdictionPrakash teacher of Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School. and Ramsey, Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Deigo01(Saikrishna B. teaches Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School, Prakash was formerly Herzog Research Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. He was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and a recipient of the John M. Olin Fellowship in Law, Economics and Public Policy. and Michael D., Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, Professor Ramsey teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, foreign relations law and international business law. 10/16/01, The Yale Law Journal, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, P.253, Accessed: 7/8/13, LPS.)

Executive Power over Foreign Affairs 253 sentence of Article II, the executive Power shall be vested in the President. 88 Executive power, as commonly understood in the eighteenth century, included foreign affairs powers. As we elaborate below, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, the great political philosophers most familiar to the Framers, said that foreign affairs powers were part of the executive power. 89 Under the English system, as these writers described it, the Crowns powers over foreign affairs arose from its executive power. This was also the terminology of American writers and political leaders immediately before, during, and after the Constitutions ratification. Hence, in 1787, when the Constitution provided that the President would have the executive Power, that would have been understood to mean not only that the President would have the power to execute the laws (the primary and essential meaning of executive power 90 ), but also that the President would have foreign affairs powers. As a result, the starting point is that foreign affairs powers are presidential, not from some shadowy implication of national sovereignty, per Curtiss-Wright , but from the ordinary eighteenth-century meaning of executive power. 91 Second , the Presidents executive foreign affairs power is residual, encompassing only those executive foreign affairs powers not allocated elsewhere by the Constitutions text. The Constitutions allocation of specific foreign affairs powers or roles to Congress or the Senate are properly read as assignments away from the President. Absent these specific allocations, by Article II, Section 1, all traditionally executive foreign affairs powers would be presidential. Perhaps, one could say from the text alone, some of the specific allocations might only grant Congress a shared power and not deny it to the President. The War Power Clause, for example, says only that Congress can declare war, not (in so many words)

SolvencyInternational AgreementsInternational Agreements are the presidents jurisdictionPrakash teacher of Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School. and Ramsey, Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Deigo01(Saikrishna B. teaches Constitutional Law, Foreign Relations Law and Presidential Powers at the Law School, Prakash was formerly Herzog Research Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. He was senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and a recipient of the John M. Olin Fellowship in Law, Economics and Public Policy. and Michael D., Professor of Law Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, Professor Ramsey teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, foreign relations law and international business law. 10/16/01, The Yale Law Journal, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, P.254, Accessed: 7/8/13, LPS.)

The Yale Law Journal [Vol. 111: 231 that the President cannot. But, as we describe below, it is clear from context that everyone at the time understood the War Power Clause (and others like it) as giving the power to Congress and denying it to the President. The Constitutions drafters believed that the English system afforded too much foreign affairs power to the monarch through the undivided possession of the executive power, and that some aspects of the traditional executive power over foreign affairs had legislative overtones (including the war and treaty-making powers). 92 Accordingly, they divided the traditional executive power over foreign affairs by creating specific (but very substantial) exceptions to the general grant of executive power to the President. In the document they created, many key foreign affairs powers were either sharedsuch as the power to appoint ambassadors or make treatiesor allocated elsewheresuch as the power to declare war and issue letters of marque. As a result, once the drafting was complete, the President had a greatly diminished foreign affairs power as compared to the English monarchy. 93 But the President retained a residual powerthat is, the President, as the possessor of the executive Power, had those executive foreign affairs powers not allocated elsewhere by the text. In short, far from suffering from huge gaps, the Constitution has a simple default rule that we call the residual principle : Foreign affairs powers not assigned elsewhere belong to the President, by virtue of the Presidents executive power; while foreign affairs powers specifically allocated elsewhere are not presidential powers, in spite of the Presidents executive power. Third , The foregoing allocation suggests the appropriate resolution of the debate over executive agreements. 126 Since international agreements other than treaties are contemplated by the Constitution but are not allocated to a particular branch, they are part of the Presidents residual foreign affairs power. This power, however, is limited in three respects. First, the Presidents power to make international agreements cannot extend to agreements that are properly classified as treaties, since that power was given jointly to the President and Senate by the plain words of the Constitution. 127 Second, the President has no right to funds to implement executive agreements; that is a matter for Congress to decide through the normal legislative process. Third, contrary to some court decisions of the last century, the Presidents executive agreements cannot have the force of law, else the President would have a power greater than the English monarchs executive power. In other words, Congress must enact legislation to make executive agreements the law of the land SolvencyEmbargoObama can lift the embargo-travel ban provesHeuvel, is the editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation, 6/13(Katrina Vanden, is the editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation6/2/13, The Washington Post, The US Should End the Cuban Embargo, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/opinions/40316090_1_embargo-limited-private-enterprise-odebrecht, Accessed: 7/5/13, LPS.)This month, 100 state-run produce markets and 26 other establishments are scheduled to become private cooperatives. The government says many more establishments will follow, beginning in 2014, as an alternative to small and medium-size state businesses in retail and food services, transportation, light manufacturing and construction, among other sectors. Despite the embargo, Jos Mart International Airport displays the new vitality. Hundreds of Cuban Americans fly into see relatives, bringing everything from flat-screen TVs to consumer basics. Since President Obama lifted restrictions on family visits in 2009, remittances and material support from Cuban Americans play a growing role in the microeconomy of the island. Whereas in the 1990s, Havana was willing to permit only limited private enterprise as an emergency measure, government officials now speculate openly about aiming toward 50 percent of Cubas GDP in private hands within five years. Of course, an expanding small business sector wont resolve some central issues facing the island: access to large-scale credit and investment and the need to boost exports and address anemic productivity, not to mention the demands of an aging population. In Havana, there is more talk about Brazils investment in renovating Mariel Harbor than about Edward Snowden. Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht had to resist threats by Floridas state government to cut off any state contracts if it invested in Cuba. This enormous deep-water port is designed to handle trade with the United States and beyond in a post-embargo world, if the embargo is ever ended. Cubas official media remains sclerotic, though there are spirited debates in a few online outlets. But the government appears to understand that the explosion of social media will transform communications and politics, and however tentatively, realizes it has little choice but to change if it is to engage a younger generation.XO solves sanctionsCovington & Burling LLP 12 (international law firm, provides corporate, litigation and regulatory expertise, The United States Imposes Significant New Sanctions Against Iran, E-Alert Covington, 8-14-2012, http://www.cov.com/files/Publication/f2cf5f60-7003-45b0-b59c-515fa4c680d7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/0f957930-564b-4a27-94c0-556b41305f6f/The_United_States_Imposes_New_Sanctions_Against_Iran.pdf)

President Obamas signature of the ITRA followed closely on the heels of his issuance, on July 31, 2012, of Executive Order 13622 (the Executive Order) authorizing additional sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions were effective immediately. The Executive Order is broader than the ITRA in that it expands sanctions against foreign financial institutions that knowingly engage in or facilitate any significant financial transaction with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) or Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) and against any person, including any financial institution, that knowingly engages in significant transactions for the purchase of petroleum or petrochemical products from Iran. These sanctions apply only if the President determines that global petroleum supplies are sufficient, and only to countries that have not received an NDAA exception. The Executive Order also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to block the property of (and prohibit donations of food, clothing, and medicine to) persons found to have provided material technological or financial support for, or goods or services to, NIOC, NICO, or the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), or to have assisted Iran in purchasing U.S. bank notes or precious metals.

SolvencyTerror StateObama can denounce Cuba as a terror stateHeuvel, is the editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation, 6/13(Katrina Vanden, is the editor, publisher, and part-owner of the magazine The Nation6/2/13, The Washington Post, The US Should End the Cuban Embargo, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-02/opinions/40316090_1_embargo-limited-private-enterprise-odebrecht, Accessed: 7/5/13, LPS.)

It is long past time for the United States to end the embargo and influence Cuba, rather than threaten it. Ironically, as a result of a new Cuban migration law lifting more than 50 years of restrictions on the ability of its citizens to travel freely abroad, taking effect this year, Cubans are now freer to travel to the United States than Americans are to Cuba. The president cant end the travel ban without Congressional approval, but as Peter Kornbluhexplained in a recent piece in The Nation, he can take several steps that would transform our policy. Obama should start by removing Cuba from the State Departments list of nations that support terrorism, terminating the economic and commercial sanctions that come with that designation. The Treasury could stop fining international banks for doing business with Cuba, a practice that impedes the countrys slow opening to private enterprise. At the same time, the president could expand licensing for travel to Cuba, making it easier for entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors and others to travel and explore commercial possibilities. The Cold War Cuban Democracy and Contingency Planning Program, designed for regime change, should be reconfigured to a people-to-people exchange program that would actually have some influence.

SolvencyEnergyXOs coordinate energy development Alaska pipeline provesAP, 2013(Associated Press, 7-12-13, NOLA, Alaska energy development group created by President Barack Obama, http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2011/07/alaska_energy_development_grou.html, accessed 7-9-13, EB)

President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed an executive order creating an interagency working group to coordinate energy development in Alaska, a move hailed by lawmakers who want to see drilling in Arctic outer continental shelf waters. Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes will chair the group. Hayes said on the White House blog that the group will include senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the federal coordinator for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. "We'll simplify decision-making processes by making sure that we're doing our part to collaborate as we evaluate permits and conduct rigorous environmental reviews," Hayes said. "This means talking about schedules and progress; sharing application project information, scientific and environmental data, and cultural and traditional knowledge; and making sure that our decisions are based on the best information available."XO solves international coop on clean energyVeith 6/27 (gene) Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College Green lawmaking by executive order http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2013/06/green-lawmaking-by-executive-order/

President Obama, being unable to get his environmental and anti-global warming agenda through Congress, has announced that he will impose it by executive order. After all, the bureaucracies and regulatory agencies of the Executive branch have become the nations de facto lawmakers anyway. So why do we need Congress when the president can rule by fiat? From UPI: The plan will include brand new federal regulations to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants, a move that faced stringent opposition from energy producers and Republican leaders. It also opens the door for more renewable sources, including wind, solar and hydropower energy, to be placed on public lands. And an $8 billion federal loan aims to encourage further research and innovation into clean sources of energy. Obamas action will raise efficiency standards for federal buildings to lower carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons, about half the annual pollution from the energy sector, by 2030, and further improve fuel economy of new cars. The plan also attempts to take preemptive action to prepare for more frequent severe weather in hurricane-prone regions and for farmers facing droughts and wildfires. Finally, the action includes a renewed push to encourage international cooperation on raising clean energy standards, particularly with China and India. While scientists for years have agreed that human factors have contributed to shifts in global weather patterns, efforts to put policy changes in place have been stonewalled by political deadlock. The presidents plan will side-step Congress and issue an executive order to reduce carbon emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change.Obama can sign executive orders to prevent climate changeMatthews, sustainability consultant for Green Conduct, 4/2(Richard, Green Conduct, 4/2/13, President Obamas Green Executive Orders, http://www.greenconduct.com/news/2013/04/02/president-obamas-green-executive-orders/, 7/9/13, ND)

President Obama has vowed that in the absence of congressional action, he will use his executive privileges to combat climate change. Some who are seeking a pretext to discredit the President have suggested that he is ruling by executive orders (EOs). However, President Obama has signed fewer EOs in his first four years in office than most of his predecessors. Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States to manage the operations of the Federal Government. In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama indicated that while he wants to work with Congress, he is prepared to use other means at his disposal: The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress wont act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

SolvencyGuantanamoExecutive actions solves Clark, staff writer for MSNBC, 5-1[Meredith, 2013, MSNBC, What Obama can do right now to close Guantanamo, http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/01/what-obama-can-do-right-now-to-close-guantanamo/, accessed 7-9-13, GSK]

President Obama has repeatedly complained, as he did again this week, that Congress has made it all but impossible for him to carry out his four-year-old pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But the commander in chief is far from helpless when it comes to the fate of the 166 men still being held there. While bipartisan congressional opposition has been staunch, the president has also taken numerous steps over the last several years that have made it more difficult to send many detainees home. Now, as some 100 prisoners there are carrying out hunger strikes in protest, it is worth examining what Obama chose to do and what he can still do on his own. Obama has twice issued what became empty veto threats over legislation that affected his ability to move some detainees out of Guantanamo. The first was in 2012 when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act which included provisions blocking the transfer of detainees to either U.S. prisons or foreign countries. He renewed that threat over similar objections to the 2013 act, saying in a statement that such restrictions have limited the executives ability to manage military operations in an ongoing armed conflict, harmed the countrys diplomatic relations with allies and counter-terrorism partners, and provided no benefit whatsoever to our national security. But he again signed the new bill. Though Obama issued an executive order to close Guantanamo on his second day in office, he has not named any official to oversee that effort full-time. A State Department position responsible for arranging detainee transfers has been empty since January. There are currently 30 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay that have been cleared for transfer for whom the process could begin. Among them are three Uighur detainees who need a country willing to let them resettle there, and 27 other, non-Yemeni detainees that await repatriation. Despite some restrictions, the National Defense Authorization Act gives authority, and has since 2012, to the president to resume prisoner transfers without congressional approval through a National Security Waiver. Under this provision, the secretary of defense can approve a transfer if he, in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of national intelligence, determines that adequate steps are being taken to substantially mitigate the potential risk that a former prisoner might engage in future acts of terrorism once home. Yet Obamas national security team hasnt granted a single waiver.

Executive action solvesmultiple options Cornwell and Sutton, both Reuters staff writers, 5-2[Susan and Jane, 2013, Yahoo! News, What options does Obama have to close Guantanamo?, http://news.yahoo.com/options-does-obama-close-guantanamo-051759170.html, accessed 7-9-13, GSK]

(Reuters) - With his renewed vow to close the detention camp for foreign terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, President Barack Obama has effectively assigned himself a list of possible ways to take the prison's population down from 166 to zero. Some would be more easily achieved than others. In pledging to look again at an unfulfilled promise dating back to his first election campaign and early days in office in 2009, Obama made plain on Tuesday that it was untenable to keep the 11-year-old camp open. A hunger strike at the camp at the U.S. Naval Base on Cuba began in February, has been joined by 100 of the inmates and has led to force-feedings to keep the weakest prisoners alive, sparking fresh outrage from rights groups over a prison opened under Republican President George W. Bush in 2002. There were about 245 prisoners at Guantanamo when Obama, a Democrat, took office in 2009 and that has dropped to 166. But releases have slowed to a trickle under restrictions imposed by Congress, including a ban on any of them being brought to the United States. No prisoners have left Guantanamo this year. Among current inmates, nine have been charged with crimes or convicted, 24 are considered eligible for possible prosecution, 47 are considered too dangerous for release but are not facing prosecution, and 86 have been cleared for transfer or release. Obama has several options, although it could take a combination of several to clear the camp. PUT SOMEBODY IN CHARGE In January, the State Department reassigned the special envoy who had been in charge of trying to persuade countries to take Guantanamo inmates approved for release, Daniel Fried, and did not replace him. That was widely seen as a signal that Obama was giving up on closing the prison any time soon. Fried arranged for the transfer out of scores of prisoners, but the departures slowed to a crawl after Congress imposed restrictions on them. White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Wednesday the administration was considering naming a senior diplomat to renew the focus on repatriation or transferring detainees. Christopher Anders, the senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said such a "point person" was sorely needed as a first step to manage the administration's effort - but that the person should be from the White House. "For the last three years at the White House, it's been like no one home" on Guantanamo, he said. USE EXCEPTIONS IN LAW TO LET PRISONERS GO Obama has blamed Congress for interfering with his plan to close Guantanamo. Starting in 2011, Congress began restricting transfers out, saying the Defense Department first had to certify a number of things, including that the destination country was not a state sponsor of terrorism and would take action to make sure the individual would not threaten the United States. Starting last year, Congress let some restrictions be waived if it was in the "national security interests" of the United States. Obama has not used the waiver or certification provisions. "For the past two years, our committee has worked with our Senate counterparts to ensure that the certifications necessary to transfer detainees overseas are reasonable. The administration has never certified a single transfer," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon, a Republican, said this week. The White House could have pushed harder for officials at the Pentagon to process certifications, said the ACLU's Anders. Wells Dixon, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York organization that has represented a number of Guantanamo prisoners, said Obama could order the Pentagon to begin certifying transfers out. But he also noted potential risks for the president. "There's no political upside" if Obama certifies that a prisoner can leave and then that prisoner later attacks U.S. interests, Dixon said. SEND PRISONERS BACK TO YEMEN Congress has prohibited the transfer of detainees to countries with troubled security situations. But the United States could decide that new Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour has taken adequate measures against al Qaeda and made the country stable enough to resume repatriations to Yemen. Repatriations were halted in 2010 after a man trained by militants in Yemen tried to blow up a U.S.-bound plane in 2009. Of the 86 prisoners cleared for transfer or release, 56 are Yemenis. The Yemeni government says it wants them home and is building a facility to hold them for rehabilitation. That option also has a potential danger - if a repatriated Yemeni eventually attacked the United States or its interests. USE THE PERIODIC REVIEW BOARD PROCESS Two years ago, Obama signed an executive order establishing extra review procedures for Guantanamo detainees to determine if continued detention were warranted, but the Periodic Review Boards have not been used. This option looks fairly simple, since it involves carrying out the president's own executive order. But there may have been no rush to establish more reviews boards since prisoners cleared by earlier review boards are still being held. USE COURT RULINGS TO GET PEOPLE OUT Dixon suggested the administration could use court rulings to help get prisoners released. Two members of China's Muslim Uighur minority were resettled in El Salvador in April 2012, four years after a U.S. District Court in Washington ruled there were no grounds to hold them. When prisoners challenge their detention in federal court, the government could decide not to contest the case, paving the way for a court order effecting the prisoner's release, said Dixon. He said that could happen in any of the more than 100 detainee "habeus corpus" cases filed in federal court. Obama could instruct the Justice Department to stop contesting those cases.

Obama can close Guantanamo by the end of the year Center for Constitutional Rights, non-profit legal and education organization, 4-30[2013, A Roadmap for Closing Guantnamo Bay in 2013, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Roadmap_to_Closing_Guantanamo_in_2013.pdf, accessed 7-9-13, GSK]

We urge the President to take several concrete steps without delay to close Guantnamo in 2013. These steps include phased repatriations, resettlements and fair criminal prosecutions. II. Current State of Affairs As President Obama stated during his April 30, 2013 press conference from the White House, closing Guantnamo Bay is imperative: I continue to believe that we've got to close Guantnamo I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantnamo is not necessary to keep America safe. It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed. President Obama began his presidency by issuing an executive order on his second day in office that mandated closure of the prison within one year. He also established the Guantnamo Review Task Force to review and determine the status of each detainee, clearing most of them for transfer, and appointed Ambassador Daniel Fried as special envoy to negotiate those transfers. During his first two years in office, about 75 detainees were successfully transferred from Guantnamo, including about 40 repatriations and 35 thirdcountry resettlements. Regrettably, President Obama then surrendered the initiative on closure efforts to his political opponents who have made it difficult but not impossible for him to transfer additional men and close the prison. In January 2010, the President acceded to political pressure and imposed a blanket ban on transfers to Yemen. In January 2011, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2011, which included onerous certification requirements restricting the ability to transfer men from Guantnamo. The provisions were extended in the 2012 NDAA, and again in the 2013 NDAA, although those bills added a waiver provision to prevent the certification provisions from serving as an effective barrier to transfers. But neither the certification nor the waiver provisions have been invoked to transfer any detainees from Guantnamo regardless of their status. The ban on transfers to Yemen also remains in force.Since the NDAA restrictions went into effect in January 2011, only four men have been transferred out of Guantnamo, and none were sent to Yemen. This is the fewest number of transfers in any comparable period of time since the prison opened in 2002. In the same period of time, three detainees died, including Adnan Latif, a Yemeni man who had been approved for transfer four times. Nine men have died in total since 2002, including four since President Obama took office. No one has been convicted at trial before a military commission except by guilty plea since November 2008; and the two detainees who were previously convicted in contested trials have had their convictions vacated by the federal appeals court. Currently, 166 detainees remain at Guantnamo. Those men are grouped into three categories: 86 have been cleared for transfer unanimously by all relevant military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies comprising the Guantnamo Review Task Force, which determined they pose no threat to the United States or its allies. 56 of those men are from Yemen. 46 men are purportedly held under law of war detention, indefinitely and without charge, based on a determination that they pose a continuing threat but that prosecution is not feasible. 34 have been charged by military commission or are designated for prosecution. The countries with the most citizens still detained are Yemen (89), Afghanistan (17), Saudi Arabia (11), Algeria (7), Pakistan (6), Tunisia (5), Libya (4) and Syria (4). About a dozen men require safe resettlement based on past persecution and/or credible threats of future persecution in their home countries, notably including the three remaining Uighurs from China and certain detainees from Algeria. But most men simply want to go home. Many countries have demanded the return of their citizens, and have established programs to facilitate their reintegration into society, including for instance Tunisia and Kuwait. Since the hunger strike that began in early February 2013, and since President Obamas recent, renewed commitment to closing the prison, other countries have expressed new or renewed interest in helping the Obama Administration close the prison, including countries in the Middle East, Europe and Latin America. Finding somewhere to send the men is not a significant obstacle to closing Guantnamo. Lastly, several members of Congress have indicated their support for efforts to close Guantnamo Bay, including Senators Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, and Representatives Adam Smith, Jim McGovern, and Jim Moran. It is therefore essential that President Obama capitalize on momentum toward closing the prison, and follow through on his commitment to do so. It also bears emphasis that he needs no new legislative authority or additional administrative process to close the prison. There are a series of actions that he can and must undertake immediately in order to transfer men from Guantnamo. And in doing so, he must also order the military to improve conditions of confinement at the prison so that they are consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. These actions are the only way that the government can end the ongoing hunger strike and staunch the frustration and hopelessness that has driven the detainees to starve themselves as a last resort for their freedom. III. Specific Steps to Close the Prison First, President Obama must immediately instruct the Secretary of Defense to consider a slate of detainees for transfer pursuant to the certification and waiver process created by Congress under the NDAA. Transfers can occur pursuant to agreements with home countries or third countries, like those successfully negotiated in 2009 and 2010 which resulted in the repatriation and resettlement of more than 70 men. As Senator Carl Levin recently pointed out in a letter to President Obama, the national security waiver provides a clear route for transfers to occur. Second, in conjunction with the resumption of transfers of cleared men, the President must lift his self-imposed ban on repatriations to Yemen. As 89 of the remaining 166 detainees are from Yemen, including 56 who are approved for transfer, Guantnamo is devolving into a prison for Yemenis. Many of these men want to go home, but languish at Guantanamo because of a moratorium on repatriations to Yemen imposed by President Obama himself. The UNs top human rights experts recently condemned the moratorium as a clear violation of the fundamental principle of non-discrimination based national origin. President Obama can unilaterally lift his self-imposed ban. He should do so immediately and ensure that case-bycase determinations about the transfers of individual Yemenis proceed swiftly. These men should not continue to be punished collectively on the basis of their national origin. There are several obvious candidates for immediate certification or waiver consideration, including cleared detainees like Algerian Djamel Ameziane, who has viable resettlement opportunities, and Yemeni Mohammed Al Hamiri, whose family lives in Saudi Arabia. Blocks of cleared detainees might also be repatriated to countries like Tunisia, which have developed reintegration programs. Third, in cases where NDAA certifications or waivers are not possible, as in the case of transfers to Sudan, or where they may not be feasible for other reasons, the President should direct the Department of Justice to negotiate the settlement of detainee habeas cases. These settlements may include court-approved stipulations that particular detainees should be transferred to particular countries, or uncontested court orders of release, which would be exempt from the NDAA transfer restrictions. Fourth, while the President alone bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring he does not fail a second time to meet his promise to shutter Guantnamo, he must appoint a senior government official to spearhead that effort. That official must have stature and be vested with authority directly from the White House to carry out the Presidents mandate to close the prison, including by resolving interagency disputes regarding the transfer of detainees. There has been no such individual in the White House for years. Moreover, the State Department office tasked with negotiating with other countries for resettlement and repatriation of detainees, which closed in 2012 despite successfully transferring dozens of men, must be reopened to facilitate the White House officials efforts to shutter the prison. Fifth, the President should transfer the detainees currently designated for indefinite detention if he does not intend to prosecute them for criminal offenses. There are currently 46 individuals whom the Administration has stated it does not intend to charge, but are considered too dangerous to release, and consequently are languishing in Guantnamo. But under the laws of war, civilians captured during the course of an armed conflict can only be interned for so long as they pose an imperative security threat, and they must be afforded fair and meaningful periodic reviews to determine whether they remain a threat. Otherwise, they must be charged or released. The Administrations middle ground which since 2009 has been to do nothing while holding these men indefinitely has no support in international law. The Administration must fairly try or release the individuals it does not plan to charge. As President Obama himself stated on April 30, it is unsustainable to continue holding people in perpetuity who have already been detained without charge for over eleven years, particularly as the United States begins winding down in Afghanistan and talks of defeating Al Qaeda. Short of rapidly processing their transfers, these men must be afforded at a minimum fair and meaningful hearings before Periodic Review Boards, which the President ordered to be conducted more than a year ago but have not even begun. In 2011, the President issued an Executive Order providing for the administrative review within one year of men whom the Administration has deemed too dangerous for release or slated for prosecution. Two years later, such reviews have yet to begin. If the President does intend to convene review boards, they should begin immediately. And if they are to have any semblance of credibility, counsel for the detainees and the detainees themselves must be afforded reasonable notice and opportunity to participate in the review boards, must be allowed to appear before the review boards in person, and must have access to all the government information being used to assess the individuals detention status. Moreover, information obtained through torture must be excluded; and the boards must have the power to effect immediate release from Guantnamo. Sixth, the President should abandon all military commission prosecution. He should transfer to the United States any detainee who has committed a crime, and should afford those individuals fair trials in federal court. In order to achieve this, he must veto any legislation that attempts to renew the ban on transfers to the United States contained in the NDAA.The President has the power to close GuantanamoPosner, professor @ University of Chicago Law School, 5/3/13[Eric, 5/3/13, Slate, President Obama Can Shut Guantanamo Whenever He Wants, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantanamo_whenever_he_wants_to.html, Accessed: 7/9/13, PR]The relevant law is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the presidents power to wage war against al-Qaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil. The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept themthe problem is that most countries wont, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from, cant guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law.ere is another section of the NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress affirms the authority of the U.S. armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups pending disposition under the law of war. Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that disposition under the law of war includes Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the AUMF. Thus, when hostilities end, the detainees may be released. The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaidasimply by declaring their end. This is not a controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from Congressthis happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the president has this authority. Nor is there any reason why President Obama couldnt declare the war with al-Qaida at an end. The groups original core is essentially gone. A Department of Defense official recently hinted that the end of the conflict with al-Qaida is approaching, while the troop drawdown in Afghanistan will be completed next year. Associates and fellow travelers continue to exist, but the president is free to end hostilities even so; this, too, has happened many times before, like in Korea and Vietnam.

Obama could close Guantanamo without the other branched approvalNocera, New York time journalist, 5/24/13[Joe, 4/24/13, The New York Times, Obamas Gitmo Problem, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/opinion/nocera-obamas-gitmo-problem.html, Accessed: 7/9/13, PR]Or, for that matter, why the military command at Guantnamo has no compunction about instituting punishing new burdens on the detainees even as their commander in chief decries what goes on there? (For the record, a military spokesman denies that the heightened searches include genital and anal touching.) Indeed, the current commander of the prison, Rear Adm. John W. Smith Jr., was just named to a cushy new post at the National Defense University. Thumbing ones nose at Obama, as virtually everyone in Washington has learned by now, has no consequences. It is my belief, shared by many lawyers who have followed the legal battles over Guantnamo, that the president could have shut down the prison if he had really been determined to do so. One reason innocent detainees cant get out is that the courts have essentially ruled that a president has an absolute right to imprison anyone he wants during a time of war with no second-guessing from either of the other two branches of government. By the same legal logic, a president can also free any prisoner in a time of war. Had the president taken that stance, there would undoubtedly have been a court fight. But so what? Arent some things worth fighting for? Whenever he talks about Guantnamo, the president gives the impression that thats what he believes. The shame his shame is that, for all his soaring rhetoric, he has yet to show that he is willing to act on that belief.

Obama is willing to use an executive orderKumar, staff writer of the Washington Post, 3/19/13[Anita, 3/19/13, McClatchy, Obama turning to executive power to get what he wants, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/19/186309/obama-turning-to-executive-power.html#.UdyCIvlthnI, Accessed: 7/9/13, PR]

While his decision to send drones to kill U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism has garnered a torrent of criticism, his use of executive orders and other powers at home is deeper and wider. He delayed the deportation of young illegal immigrants when Congress wouldnt agree. He ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence, which Congress halted nearly 15 years ago. He told the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, deciding that the 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. Hes vowed to act on his own if Congress didnt pass policies to prepare for climate change. Arguably more than any other president in modern history, hes using executive actions, primarily orders, to bypass or pressure a Congress where the opposition Republicans can block any proposal. Its gridlocked and dysfunctional. The place is a mess, said Rena Steinzor, a law professor at the University of Maryland. I think (executive action) is an inevitable tool given whats happened. Now that Obama has showed a willingness to use those tactics, advocacy groups, supporters and even members of Congress are lobbying him to do so more and more. SolvencyTravel BansThe Executive has the power to issue passports Prakash and Ramsey, University of San Diego School of Law, 2001 (Saikrishna B and Michael D, The Executive Power over Foreign Affairs, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/111-2/PrakashFINAL.pdf, Accessed 7-9-13, RRR)Events of the late eighteenth century also confirm an understanding that Congress had a derivative power to legislate in support of presidential powers over foreign affairs. Consider, for example, the issuance of passports. No federal statute conveyed to the President a general authority to issue passports during Washingtons administration (or indeed at any time prior to 1856).528 Although passport power does not seem to be granted by anything in Article II, Sections 2 and 3, the Washington Administration issued passports without anyone raising any question as to its constitutional authority to do so.529 This further confirms our theory of residual executive power over foreign affairs, as the passport power would easily be encompassed by the residual power, and we think it likely that this is how the Washington Administration and its contemporaries understood it. Although Congress did not give general passport authority to the President, it did legislate in support of the Presidents independent passport power. Specifically, in 1790 Congress passed a statute that, among other things, provided penalties for forgery of a U.S. passport.530 This sequence of events fits perfectly with our understanding of the respective roles of Congress and the President in foreign affairs. Although issuance of passports was an executive function, the President alone could not decree criminal penalties for forgery of a passport, since the President lacked lawmaking authority.531 Congress, however, could do that, even though it lacked an enumerated power to issue passports in the first instance, since it had the power to pass laws in support of other powers granted by the Constitution.532 As a result, the 1790 Passport Act suffered no constitutional infirmity.533

Prez Powers ImpactWarmingExecutive Power is key to pragmatic climate actionPresidential Climate Action Project, 8[2008, Climate Action Brief: The Use of Presidential Power, http://www.climateactionproject.com/docs/briefs/Climate_Brief_Presidential_Power.pdf, Accessed 7/7/13, CB]

The President will have many traditional tools at his or her disposal, including executive orders, directives, proclamations, signing statements, national security directives, executive communications with Congress, the ability to call Congress into special session, the veto, the execution of treaties and the creation of executive agreements, a type of international agreement that falls short of a formal treaty and does not require Senate ratification. And, of course, the President has the bully pulpit. In regard to climate change, the next administrations authority includes the power to: Regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act; Institute a carbon cap-and-trade regime as EPA did for SO2 and NOx in 1995; Propose and champion national goals for energy efficiency, renewable energy use, greenhouse gas reductions and other critical objectives; Enter into executive agreements to collaborate with other nations on research and policies that will reduce energy vulnerability and greenhouse gas emissions; Restore the federal governments capacity for climate action by appointing highly qualified experts in climate science and policy to key government leadership positions; Rescind Executive Order 13422, in which President Bush established political oversight of federal science; Restore specific greenhouse gas reduction goals for federal agencies, which were eliminated in another executive order issued by President Bush. But like FDR, the next President may need new powers to deal with climate change and the other urgent issues. As the Center for Energy and Environmental Security notes, One of the key actions to be taken by a future president to address climate change policy would be to work with Congress for the appropriate and necessary delegations of authority that will give him or her the power to act with flexibility, without delay and with certainty within the framework of the Constitution. As in FDRs era, the 44th President will be most able to lead boldly on climate change when there is a clear mandate from the voters that the time has come for strong national action. As University of Chicago Professor William Howell has noted, Not once in the modern era have the courts overturned a president who enjoys broad-based support from Congress, interest groups and the public. Creating that mandate for strong but legitimate use of presidential power is one of the key responsibilities facing the presidential candidates in this election season and one of the key challenges for the many organizations working to build grassroots support for climate action.

Presidential Power is key to navigate opposition to his climate change plan- thats key to solve warming LA Times, 7/9/13[Jody Freeman, Staff writer, July 9th 2013, Obama must walk a climate tightrope, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-freeman-obama-climate-change-20130709,0,2025646.story, Accessed 7/9/13, CB]

President Obama had barely announced his new climate strategy late last month when the criticism began. The plan, which will regulate carbon pollution from the nation's power plants for the first time, is an important step in addressing global warming. Republican reaction in Congress was predictably scathing. And while most green groups praised the proposal, some environmentalists were frustrated, calling it "too little, too late" or "not nearly enough."Are they right?The plan could have been bolder, but only if the administration took bigger political and legal risks. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency might have set a national air quality standard for carbon dioxide, as it has done for conventional pollutants such as smog and soot, and required the states to issue implementation plans for how they would comply. The EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to do this, and it would have amounted to an economy-wide program for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, potentially yielding much bigger cuts than the president's plan.But the EPA has consistently rejected this approach, on grounds that it could take more than a decade to implement, would enrage many states and would risk a backlash in Congress. Critics say that this approach is appropriate for ground-level pollution that states can more easily control but not for greenhouse gas concentrations, which are the result of global emissions that the states alone cannot change.The agency could also make a difference without setting a national standard for CO2 by using a little-know provision of the Clean Air Act that addresses international air pollution. If the EPA finds, either on its own or at the request of the State Department, that U.S. emissions contribute to pollution that may "endanger" other nations, it must direct states to revise their pollution plans to prevent the endangerment.Roger Martella, the EPA's general counsel in the George W. Bush administration, has called this strategy "the most effective, flexible, economically reasonable and legally supportable means by which to regulate greenhouse gas emissions." And an NYU think tank has petitioned the EPA to use it.So far the administration seems to consider this untried provision too risky, perhaps worrying that it would provoke Congress to block individual EPA regulations or, worse yet, amend the Clean Air Act to deny the agency authority over greenhouse gases.Thus, the administration's new climate plan is carefully calibrated to manage these risks while making incremental progress. Going after power plants and pushing efficiency standards may not be bold, but it is pragmatic.The other risk influencing the administration's actions lies with the courts. The president must work with the laws on the books when it comes to using executive power to implement a policy if Congress fails to act. Statutes like the Clean Air Act were not designed with climate change in mind, which means the agencies must creatively adapt them to deal with global warming.Even the president's more modest plan to set standards for power plants is legally risky, especially with regard to existing plants. The law calls for states to set these standards, subject to EPA approval.HegThe Counterplan is key to solve heg- Coalitions, Values, and interventionsAtlanta Journal and Constitution 2K [Bob Deans, Cox Washington Bureau, January 23rd 2000, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY: White House power growing, lexis, Accessed 7/7/13, CB]

Yet the U.S. presidency, long regarded as the most powerful institution in the world, arguably has assumed more authority and reach than at any time in its history.While no one can doubt the growing impact of the Internet, Silicon Valley and Wall Street on the daily lives of all Americans, only the president can rally truly global resources around American ideals to further the quest for equality and to combat the timeless ills of poverty and war.

It is that unique ability to build and harness a worldwide consensus that is widening the circle of presidential power.

''The presidency will remain as important as it is or will become more important,'' predicted presidential scholar Michael Nelson, professor of political science at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn.

The voice of all AmericansThe taproot of presidential power is the Constitution, which designates the chief executive, the only official elected in a national vote, as the sole representative of all the American people.That conferred authority reflects the state of the nation, and it would be hard to argue that any country in history has possessed the military, economic and political pre-eminence that this country now holds.And yet, the nation's greatest strength as a global power lies in its ability to build an international consensus around values and interests important to most Americans.On Clinton's watch, that ability has been almost constantly on display as he has patched together multinational responses to war in the Balkans, despotism in Haiti, economic crises in Mexico, Russia, Indonesia and South Korea, and natural disasters in Turkey and Venezuela.The institutions for putting together coalition-type action --- the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization among them --- are hardly tools of American policy. But the United States commands a dominant, in some cases decisive, position in each of those institutions. And it is the president, far more than Congress, who determines how the United States wants those institutions to be structured and to perform.''Congress is a clunky institution of 535 people that can't negotiate as a unit with global corporations or entities,'' said Alan Ehrenhalt, editor of Governing magazine. ''It's the president who is capable of making deals with global institutions.''It is the president, indeed, who appoints envoys to those institutions, negotiates the treaties that bind them and delivers the public and private counsel that helps guide them, leaving the indelible imprint of American priorities on every major initiative they undertake.''That means, for example, that we can advance our interests in resolving ethnic conflicts, in helping address the problems of AIDS in Africa, of contributing to the world's economic development, of promoting human rights, '' said Emory University's Robert Pastor, editor of a new book, ''A Century's Journey,'' that elaborates on the theme.Presidential powers key to solving numerous global problems and preserving hegemonyDeans 2k(Bob Deans, The American Presidency: White House Power Growing, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 1/23/00)

Yet the U.S. presidency, long regarded as the most powerful institution in the world, arguably has assumed more authority and reach than at any time in its history. While no one can doubt the growing impact of the Internet, Silicon Valley and Wall Street on the daily lives of all Americans, only the president can rally truly global resources around American ideals to further the quest for equality and to combat the timeless ills of poverty and war. It is that unique ability to build and harness a worldwide consensus that is widening the circle of presidential power. ''The presidency will remain as important as it is or will become more important,'' predicted presidential scholar Michael Nelson, professor of political science at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn. The voice of all Americans. The taproot of presidential power is the Constitution, which designates the chief executive, the only official elected in a national vote, as the sole representative of all the American people. That conferred authority reflects the state of the nation, and it would be hard to argue that any country in history has possessed the military, economic and political pre-eminence that this country now holds. And yet, the nation's greatest strength as a global power lies in its ability to build an international consensus around values and interests important to most Americans. On Clinton's watch, that ability has been almost constantly on display as he has patched together multinational responses to war in the Balkans, despotism in Haiti, economic crises in Mexico, Russia, Indonesia and South Korea, and natural disasters in Turkey and Venezuela. The institutions for putting together coalition-type action --- the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization among them --- are hardly tools of American policy. But the United States commands a dominant, in some cases decisive, position in each of those institutions. And it is the president, far more than Congress, who determines how the United States wants those institutions to be structured and to perform. ''Congress is a clunky institution of 535 people that can't negotiate as a unit with global corporations or entities,'' said Alan Ehrenhalt, editor of It is the president, indeed, who appoints envoys to those institutions, negotiates the treaties that bind them and delivers the public and private counsel that helps guide them, leaving the indelible imprint of American priorities on every major initiative they undertake. ''That means, for example, that we can advance our interests in resolving ethnic conflicts, in helping address the problems of AIDS in Africa, of contributing to the world's economic development, of promoting human rights, '' Governing magazine. ''It's the president who is capable of making deals with global institutions.''

Terrorism Presidential Power Solves TerrorismNewsweek, 9[Stuart Taylor Jr., Staff Writer, January 9th 2009, Obamas Cheney Dilemma, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/09/obama-s-cheney-dilemma.html, Accessed 7/7/13, CB]

In times of war and crisis, as presidents such as Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt discovered, the nation needs a strong chief executive. The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what it did than in the way it did itflaunting executive power, ignoring Congress, showing scorn for anyone who waved the banner of civil liberties. Arguably, there has been an overreaction to the alleged arrogance and heedlessness of Bush and Cheneyespecially Cheney, who almost seemed to take a grim satisfaction in his Darth Vader-esque image. The courts, at first slow to respond to arrogations of executive power after September 11, have pushed back. Many federal officials have grown risk-averse, fearing that they will be prosecuted or dragged before a congressional committee for fighting too hard against terrorism. (A growing number of CIA officials buy insurance policies to cover legal fees.)

Obama, who has been receiving intelligence briefings for weeks, already knows what a scary world it is out there. It is unlikely he will wildly overcorrect for the Bush administration's abuses. A very senior incoming official, who refused to be quoted discussing internal policy debates, indicated that the new administration will try to find a middle road that will protect civil liberties without leaving the nation defenseless. But Obama's team has some strong critics of the old order, including his choice for director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has spoken out strongly against coercive interrogation methods.

In Obama's spirit of nonpartisanship, the new crowd would do well to listen to Jack Goldsmith, formerly a Bush Justice Department official, now a Harvard Law School professor. At Justice, Goldsmith was the head of an obscure but critically important unit called the Office of Legal Counsel. OLC acts as a kind of lawyer for the executive branch, offering opinionsclose to bindingon what the executive branch can and cannot do. It was an OLC lawyer, John Yoo, who in 2001 and 2002 drafted many of the memos that first gave the Cheneyites permission to do pretty much whatever they wanted in the way of interrogating and detaining suspected terrorists (and eavesdropping on Americans to catch terrorists). Goldsmith, who became head of OLC in 2003, quietly began to revoke some of these permissions as illegal or unconstitutional. The revolt of Goldsmith and some other principled Justice lawyers was a heroic story, kept secret at the time. Now Goldsmith worries about the pendulum swinging too far, as it often does in American democracy. "The presidency has already been diminished in ways that would be hard to reverse" and may be losing its capability to fight terrorism, he says. He argues that Americans should now be "less worried about an out-of-control presidency than an enfeebled one."Prez power key to stop nuclear terrorismTaylor and Thomas, writers for Newsweek Magazine, 2009 (Taylor Jr and Evan Thomas, Writers for Newsweek Magazine, Obamas Cheney Dilemma 1-10-09, http://www.newsweek.com/id/178855, ND)

In times of war and crisis, as presidents such as Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt discovered, the nation needs a strong chief executive. The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what it did than in the way it did itflaunting executive power, ignoring Congress, showing scorn for anyone who waved the banner of civil liberties. Arguably, there has been an overreaction to the alleged arrogance and heedlessness of Bush and Cheneyespecially Cheney, who almost seemed to take a grim satisfaction in his Darth Vader-esque image. The courts, at first slow to respond to arrogations of executive power after September 11, have pushed back. Many federal officials have grown risk-averse, fearing that they will be prosecuted or dragged before a congressional committee for fighting too hard against terrorism. (A growing number of CIA officials buy insurance policies to cover legal fees.) Obama, who has been receiving intelligence briefings for weeks, already knows what a scary world it is out there. It is unlikely he will wildly overcorrect for the Bush administration's abuses. A very senior incoming official, who refused to be quoted discussing internal policy debates, indicated that the new administration will try to find a middle road that will protect civil liberties without leaving the nation defenseless. But Obama's team has some strong critics of the old order, including his choice for director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, who has spoken out strongly against coercive interrogation methods. In Obama's spirit of nonpartisanship, the new crowd would do well to listen to Jack Goldsmith, formerly a Bush Justice Department official, now a Harvard Law School professor. At Justice, Goldsmith was the head of an obscure but critically important unit called the Office of Legal Counsel. OLC acts as a kind of lawyer for the executive branch, offering opinionsclose to bindingon what the executive branch can and cannot do. It was an OLC lawyer, John Yoo, who in 2001 and 2002 drafted many of the memos that first gave the Cheneyites permission to do pretty much whatever they wanted in the way of interrogating and detaining suspected terrorists (and eavesdropping on Americans to catch terrorists). Goldsmith, who became head of OLC in 2003, quietly began to revoke some of these permissions as illegal or unconstitutional. The revolt of Goldsmith and some other principled Justice lawyers was a heroic story, kept secret at the time. Now Goldsmith worries about the pendulum swinging too far, as it often does in American democracy. "The presidency has already been diminished in ways that would be hard to reverse" and may be losing its capability to fight terrorism, he says. He argues that Americans should now be "less worried about an out-of-control presidency than an enfeebled one."

Econ/ME ConflictA strong president is key to solve Middle East conflict as well as help the global economySouth China Morning Post, Hong Kong Newspaper, 2000(12/11/2000, Position of Weakness, LexisNexis, 7/7/13, ND)

A weak president with an unclear mandate is bad news for the rest of the world. For better or worse, the person who rules the United States influences events far beyond the shores of his own country. Both the global economy and international politics will feel the effect of political instability in the US. The first impact will be on American financial markets, which will have a ripple effect on markets and growth across the world. A weakened US presidency will also be felt in global hotspots across the world. The Middle East, the conflict between India and Pakistan, peace on the Korean peninsula, and even the way relations between China and Taiwan play out, will be influenced by the authority the next US president brings to his job. There are those who would welcome a weakening of US global influence. Many Palestinians, for example, feel they would benefit from a less interventionist American policy in the Middle East. Even within the Western alliance, there are those who would probably see opportunities in a weakened US presidency. France, for example, might feel that a less assertive US might force the European Union to be more outward looking. But the dangers of having a weak, insecure US presidency outweigh any benefits that it might bring. US global economic and military power cannot be wished away. A president with a shaky mandate will still command great power and influence, only he will be constrained by his domestic weakness and less certain about how to use his authority. This brings with it the risks of miscalculation and the use of US power in a way that heightens conflict. There are very few conflicts in the world today which can be solved without US influence. The rest of the world needs the United States to use its power deftly and decisively.

WarsStrong presidential