prespowerswordings-tcagenda

8/22/2019 PresPowersWordings-TCAgenda

1/19

Ballot options at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIaQRxr0zkTYmIX5L_pyuDxwJWO0b1kUnQZd9WCVo30/e

dit#

Area Organization

Summary Phrase

Area(s) as described in the Controversy Paper

Wording Suggestion from Controversy Paper

1. DetentionIndefinite Detention

designate and detain enemy combatants

2. Surveillance

Warrantless Wiretapping

use domestic wiretapping

3. Covert Action

DOD Covert Operationsconduct covert military operations

4. Overt Military Action

UAV/Drone Strikes

deploy military force without congressional approval (e.g., UAVs, Offensive Cyber Operations,

Support for United Nations or NATO operations, Preventive or Preemptive unilateral action).

Approval for UN/NATO Action

Unilateral Preventive Military Operations

5. Strategic Weapons

Offense Cyber Operations

Nuclear weapons

authorization to use nuclear weapons,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIaQRxr0zkTYmIX5L_pyuDxwJWO0b1kUnQZd9WCVo30/edit#https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIaQRxr0zkTYmIX5L_pyuDxwJWO0b1kUnQZd9WCVo30/edit#https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fIaQRxr0zkTYmIX5L_pyuDxwJWO0b1kUnQZd9WCVo30/edit#


2/19

6. Military oversight

regulation of military personal

operation of military courts

Discussion items:

Actors - Congress and Court as options

Increase vs. enforce - restriction

Wiretapping - CIC power vs. war powers?

Research Questions

To volunteer for any of these, just sign up at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ps4WWrdck0_NG-54Rfu23MV_rPRp-dk-hMYxhCXC0zI/e

dit?usp=sharing

RQ 1 - restriction as largely legislative/ judicial - clarify the act

Ryan

Statuatory and/or judicial restrictions

Congress only can inc stat.rest

Courts can enhance rest.rest, not increase

Sct or congress as just restrictions

1 Congress or sct

2 legis/ stat restrictions

3 Nonexecutive

4 Both and/or with actor and type of restrictions

1b limit

Rest more appropriate

Both terms generally similiar, but restrict more precise
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ps4WWrdck0_NG-54Rfu23MV_rPRp-dk-hMYxhCXC0zI/edit?usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1ps4WWrdck0_NG-54Rfu23MV_rPRp-dk-hMYxhCXC0zI/edit?usp=sharing


3/19

RQ 2 - UAV Spec

A) Role of nuclear weapons/ doctrine to UAV/drones, especially if utilize targeted killing attackslaunched from unmanned aircraft system modified to utilize targeted killing attacks.

B) Is the solvency/ aff power better without the specification?

"Utilize targeted killing"

C) Identify non-gender specific term

RQ 3 - Can the verbs in 19 be consolidated? (Heather)utilize, conduct, engage, conduct, authorize, continue

Utilize - to make use of

Generalize to one or more, but concern with use of authority as far as placement goes

RQ 4 - Question of war powers connection to and phrasing of domestic/civilian law enforcement, is

there a middle ground term?

A) Strengthening the posse comitatus act4

B) arming domestic law enforcement

RQ 5 - Investigate claim as best source of presidential power? And should authority be added?

RQ6 - President vs. Presidency - authority to represent the office of the President in Res 26-27.

RQ7 - SJ Res or 2001 in Res 26

RQ8 - Determine best reference of non-Presidential action by external action. (kevin, Paul

Concerns with external

Nonexecutive branch entitites


4/19

Change wpa - to match 27

RQ9 - Substantially vs. Effectively - In res 25 and 27. (kevin, Paul

Concerns, discussion of materially

RQ10 - thematic options that include like cyber more explictly -- Dinger, Koch

Aumf include / exclude cyber

Other powers, Libya

Advoc two wordings

A) 21 as written

B) Floor ceiling - something on list

Wording Suggestions - Organized by Paper

Restoring the Balance: Restricting Presidential War Powers -

Controversy Paper

1. USFG List/Limited -- Resolved: That the United States federal government should increase

and/or enact statutory [limitations/restrictions] on the [Commander-in-Chief/presidential war]

powers of the President of the United States to: designate and detain enemy combatants

conduct covert military operations use domestic wiretapping or deploy military forces without

congressional approval

2. USFG non-list/Broad wording - Resolved: That the United States federal government should

increase and/or enact statutory [limitations/restrictions] on the


5/19

[Commander-in-Chief/presidential war] powers of the President of the United States.

3. Passive Voice/Limited - Resolved: That the [Commander-in-Chief/presidential war]powers of

the President of the United States should be substantially [restricted/limited] in one or more of

the following areas: designate and detain enemy combatants conduct covert military operationsuse domestic wiretapping or deploy military forces without congressional approval.

4. Passive Voice/Broad - Resolved: That the [Commander-in-Chief/presidential war]powers of

the President of the United States should be substantially [restricted/limited].

Agents Wording Paper

Passive Voice Wordings

5. R: That the war power of the Presidency should be substantially restricted/limited.

6. R: That the Commander in Chief war power of the Presidency should be substantially

restricted/limited.

7. R: That restrictions/limitations on Executive war power/s should be substantially increased.

8. R: That the {Commander in Chief} war power/s of the President of the United States should besubstantially restricted/limited.

Range of wordings (declare/conduct war, use of force):

9. The President's war powers should be substantially restricted.

10. The President's ability to declare and/or conduct war should be substantially restricted.

11. The Presidential war powers to declare and/or conduct war should be substantially restricted.

12. The U.S. President as Commander in Chief's ability to declare war and/or use war powers

during war time should be substantially restricted.


6/19

Courts Wording Directions

Major Resolutions and wording directions

13. R: That the United States Supreme Court should substantially increase {restrictions/limitations}

on {the Commander in Chief powers / Executive War power / the war power[s] of the

President of the United States}.

14. R: That the United States Supreme Court should substantially limit/restrict the war powers of the

President of the United States.

Fails 4-5

Yes - Kuswa, Mabrey, Min, Stables

No - Morris, Galloway, Walters, Mosley-Jensen

15. (Broad Courts) R: The US Supreme Court should observe/find/enforce additional limitations

on the authority of the President as Commander in Chief.

16. (Mid-sized Courts) R: The US Supreme Court should reinterpret one or more

(precedent-setting) war powers cases to substantially increase limitations on the Presidents

Commander in Chief war power.

17. (Narrow Courts). R: The United States Supreme Court should broaden one or more of the

following decisions to increase restrictions on the Commander in Chief war power of the

President of the United States: Youngstown v. Sawyer, Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Boumediene v. Bush

18. (Narrow Courts and more directional). R: The US Supreme Court should restrict the

extension of Presidential war power as Commander in Chief held in (one or more of) the

following decisions: Ex parte Quirin, Hirabayashi, Korematsu, Yamashita, Eisentrager, Egan.

Proposed Wording List Group

Grid for the List Topics


7/19

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiYzS_Yr7fxcdGE0MjVDMVlWWnlZZ0huenlTSGZ

ER3c&

usp=sharing

19. Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on the

[Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United States to: utilizetargeted killing attacks launched from unmanned aircraft systems conduct offensive cyber

operations engage in warrantless domestic electronic surveillance conduct covert operations

or authorize and/or continue indefinite detention.

Alternate wordings (*that present issues for potential discussion):

Min Addendum: deploy military forces domestically

Change lists to include the one or more approach and remove the extras verbs

20. Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on one or

more of the following [Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the

United States: targeted killing offensive cyber operations warrantless domestic electronic

surveillance covert operations or detention of enemy combatants.

20b Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on

one or more of the following [Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President

of the United States: targeted killing offensive cyber operations warrantless domestic electronic

surveillance or indefinite detention.

20c Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on one or

more of the following [Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United

States: targeted killing indefinite detention warrantless domestic electronic surveillance or introduce

United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Approved 7-2, Mabrey and Waldinger dissenting

Replaced by 20c2

20 c2 - Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase statutory

and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in

one or more of: targeted killing indefinite detention warrantless domestic electronic surveillance

or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiYzS_Yr7fxcdGE0MjVDMVlWWnlZZ0huenlTSGZER3c&usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiYzS_Yr7fxcdGE0MjVDMVlWWnlZZ0huenlTSGZER3c&usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiYzS_Yr7fxcdGE0MjVDMVlWWnlZZ0huenlTSGZER3c&usp=sharing


8/19

Approved 9-0 as replacement for 20c. Remaining review of areas

20d Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on


of the United States: targeted killing offensive cyber operations warrantless domestic electronic

surveillance, or introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

20e Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on one or


States: targeted killing indefinite detention offensive cyber operations or introducing United States

Armed Forces into hostilities.

Approved 8-1, Mabrey dissentsReplaced by 20e2

20e-2 Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase statutory and/or

judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States in one or more of:

targeted killing indefinite detention offensive cyber operations or introducing United States Armed

Forces into hostilities.

Approved 9-0 to replace 20e. Same caveat about area

20 e-3 Take 20e2 plus coverts (min)

Oversight - conditional


judicial restrictions, at least including oversight, on the war powers authority of the President of the United

States on one or more of:targeted killing indefinite detention offensive cyber operations covert

operations or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Approved 5-4 (Morris, Walters, Waldinger, Galloway dissenting)


judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States on one or more of:

targeted killing indefinite detention offensive cyber operations covert operations or introducing

United States Armed Forces into hostilities.


9/19

Approved 6-3 (Walters, Morris, Waldinger dissenting)

20fResolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on one or


States: targeted killing indefinite detention warrantless domestic electronic surveillance offensive cybeoperations or introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Approved 8-1, Walter dissents

Replaced by 20f2

20f - 2 Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase statutory and/or

judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States on one or more of:

targeted killing indefinite detention warrantless domestic electronic surveillance offensive cyber

operations or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Approved 9-0 to replace 20f. Same caveat about area

20g Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on


of the United States: targeted killing indefinite detention warrantless domestic electronic

surveillance offensive cyber operations conduct covert operations or introduce United States



[Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United States to: utilize

targeted killing conduct offensive cyber operations engage in warrantless domestic electronic

surveillance conduct covert operations authorize and/or continue indefinite detention or

introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities.

21b. Resolved: (The USFG / Congress / Courts) should (substantially / statutorily) limit the war

powers of the President, including the use of offensive cyber operations, targeted killings,

(detention of E.C / indefinite detention), (troops and/or civilians) in combat operations without

(Congressional consultation or approval), and/or warrantless surveillance.

Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on the

[Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United States to: utilize targeted

killing conduct offensive cyber operations conduct covert operations or introduce United States


10/19



[Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United States to: utilize

targeted killing conduct offensive cyber operations (engage in) domestic/civilian lawenforcement conduct covert operations or authorize and/or continue indefinite detention.

Thematic Topic Wordings

Revisit 93-94 topic

24 (old) Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase

statutory restrictions on the war powers of the President of the United States.

Approved by 9-0, subject to only modifications by the research questions (stat rest)

Eventually replaced by 24e.

24e. Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase statutory and/or

judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States.

Approved 8-1. Kuswa dissents.

24b. The United States Congress and/or Supreme Court should substantially increase restrictions on the

war powers authority of the President of the United States.

24c. The United States Congress and/or Supreme Court should substantially increase statutory and/or

judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States.

Rejected 1-8. (Waldinger was the lonely yes vote)

24d. The United States federal government should substantially increase restrictions on the warpowers authority of the President of the United States.

Rejected: 4-5 (Stables, Morris, Walters, Waldinger, Galloway)

24f. The United States federal government should substantially (modifier?) restrict the war powers


11/19

authority of the President of the United States.

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

substantially restricted.

Approved by 8-1, Waldinger dissents

Focus on Post 9/11 Presidential Power

26. Resolved: the United States federal government should (statutorily restrict) authority asserted by the

President of the United States from The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

Approved by 9-0, subject to only modifications by the research questions (stat rest, claim, President vs.

Presidency, 2001)

Approved by 9-0

26 Corrected and replaced by 26e

26e. Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase statutory

and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority asserted by the President of the United

States under The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

Approved: 9-0 as the replacement for 26

Approved 8-0 (Waldinger not yet present) to change from to under

26b. Resolved: The United States federal government should (statutorily restrict) the war powers

authority of the President of the United States, at least including power(s) asserted by the

President of the United States under The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

26c. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase statutory

and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States, at

least including (restrictions on) authority asserted by the President of the United States underThe Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

26d. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase statutory

and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States, at

least including restrictions on authority asserted pursuant to The Authorization to Use Military

Force (P.L. 107-40).


12/19

26f. Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase statutory

and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United States

asserted by the President of the United States underThe Authorization to Use Military Force

(P.L. 107-40).

26g. Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase

statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the war powers authority of the President of the United

States, at least including the restriction of authority asserted by the President of the United

States underThe Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

Approved 8-1. Kuswa dissents.

26h. Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase

statutory and/or judicial restriction ofthe war powers authority of the President of the UnitedStates, at least including the restriction of authority asserted underThe Authorization to Use

Military Force (P.L. 107-40).

26p. (passive) Resolved: the war powers authority asserted by the President of the United States

under The Authorization to Use Military Force (P.L. 107-40) should be substantially restricted.

Approved 8-1, Waldinger dissents

(Approved 8-0 (Waldinger not yet present) to change from to under)

Memo on the Topic - S.Heidt

24. The USFG should increase or enact statutory limitations on the presidents ability to use military

force abroad.

25. The USFG should increase or enact statutory limitations on presidential war power.

26. The USFG should increase or enact statutory limitations on presidential war power stemming

from Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America.

27. The USFG should substantially increase restrictions on presidential war power.

28. The USFG should significantly rebalance the distribution of war powers between the executive

and legislative branches.


13/19

29. The USFG should significantly curtail presidential usurpations of Congressional war power.

30. The USFG should significantly curtail presidential usurpations of Congressional war power

and/or significantly reduce congressionally authorized war power.

Other Agenda Items

Please sign up here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnEsUUtoYayvmNgNn4eOtt6GM_CxVHJsAjrzEdV6k0w/e

dit?usp=sharing

1) AUMF

a) Floor /Celing 26c or 26d - as an additional topic for ballot

B) From vs. Under

Resolution 26g approved.

2) Floor/Ceiling for coverts

the only other place I think a floor/ceiling could be proposed is on the list topics -- you could make

the minimum "at least including establishing new oversight" in one or more of the following areas

-- I say oversight because a lot of the evidence is about that and at least 1-2 of the topic authorsthinks "oversight" is one of the fundamental solvency mechs. Might be worth a 5 minute

conversation to see if there are objections to how that would work with particular lists options....

Esp to oversights role with detention and cyber-operations

Discussion of 20E2

Add a Coverts resolution (vote approved as 20 e3)

Restrictions vs. restriction

Does "restriction(s)" plural mean the aff have to do more than one?

Could we just use "restriction" (which would make it a verb instead of a noun).

Grammar for Lists -

As a perfecting amendment, I think the last clause isn't grammatical. Maybe "to introduce" or

something (Joe can clarify).

That

Vote to eliminate that after the Resolved: for each topic on the slate (as weve done in 5 of the

last 7 topics).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnEsUUtoYayvmNgNn4eOtt6GM_CxVHJsAjrzEdV6k0w/edit?usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1YnEsUUtoYayvmNgNn4eOtt6GM_CxVHJsAjrzEdV6k0w/edit?usp=sharing


14/19

8-0-1 (Waldinger not yet present) to remove That from all of the topics, as the first post-colon

word

One of the following

Include the following?

AreaInclude area?

Approved to remove the following and area from all topics, 8-1 (Morris dissented)

Other decisions:

- Capitalize the first the in all topics

Approved 8-1 (Kuswa dissents)

Reverse earlier decision on vs. in the following areas.

Presidential action vs. presidential authority

consider: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on the

President of the United States' use of targeted killing indefinite detention warrantless domestic

electronic surveillance offensive cyber operations or introduce United States Armed Forces into

hostilities.

the aff could also say that they limit power not authorized by the war powers provision, but also

gives the neg War Powers good DA links that can be debated out, by the aff violating the war

powers act.

Basically, have the Congress directly restrict the presidential action he is doing rather than

restricting authority that they already have the president.

Constitional restrictions?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/area

Definition of AREA

1

: a level piece of ground

2

: the surface included within a set of lines specifically : the number of unit squares equal in

measure to the surface see metric system table, weight table

3

: the scope of a concept, operation, or activity : field
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Ffield&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHm1gFwfftG0_Iir0pv_cIvF99nRghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Ftable%2Fdict%2Fweight.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE_YH8XBKqqaO-BZv-bCl224wlf-Ahttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Ftable%2Fdict%2Fmetric_system.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHcg0T41xKsRekNys9W5Cl-PFYqYQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Farea&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFLm9ZHfPmS_rXeKKxiW_NZn8fq1g


15/19

4

: areaway

5

: a particular extent of space or surface or one serving a special function: as

a : a part of the surface of the body

b : a geographic region6

: a part of the cerebral cortex having a particular function

areal adjective

areally adverb

See area defined for English-language learners

See area defined for kids

Wittes/ Young

On May 29, 2013, at 11:58 PM, Kelly Young wrote:

Hello Mr. Wittes,

I have been following your Lawfare blog and a number of you and your colleagues articles in

recent months and really enjoy your work.

I was wondering if you could assist me. I have recently worked on a project to craft a year-long

college debate topic about restricting the war powers of the President. The topic will cover

issues like UAVs, detention, covert ops, offensive cyber operations, etc. Schools around the

country voted and this topic has been selected as our topic for the year. Over 200 schools will

debate about this topic for the next school year.

We are currently working on how to properly phrase our debate resolution and we could use

some assistance. If you don't mind, would you be able to briefly answering a couple of

questions? This would help us tremendously as we move forward.

1. Is there a legal and functional difference between presidential war powers and

Commander-in-Chief powers? Some people claim that war powers are a subset of broader
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wordcentral.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fstudent%3Fbook%3DStudent%26va%3Darea&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEVou-StJIbrp7Uc63luXfJwD9jIwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.learnersdictionary.com%2Fsearch%2Farea&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGbHH9o6kRxOHhNGFprJYrLZzItGghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fareaway&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFaX5vwncJtagOkmeN2vv4TYLYQeg


16/19

C-in-C powers, but the literature on the subject since the 9-11 attacks seems to discuss them in

a conflated fashion. Is there an important difference and does this conflation matter in your

opinion?

If there's a meaningful difference, I think the difference is the other way around--that is, the war powers

include a somewhat broader array of powers than the Commander-in-Chief powers do. For example, the

president has the authority to negotiate peace treaties (ending wars) this is not a function of commander in

chief power but it is a war power. The president also has the authority to veto a declaration of war--as he

does any piece of legislation. This is, again, not really a commander in chief authority (it doesn't involve

commanding the armed forces), but it is clearly a power pertaining to war and peace. Perhaps most

importantly, war powers arguably include those powers not specified in the Constitution but granted the

President by Congress--for example, the power to wage war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban authorized by

the AUMF.

I think the real difference is just that the phrase "war powers connotes all of the powers available to the

president that pertain to the power to make war, while the phrase Commander in Chief powers refers to

those powers to command the the military that flow directly from the Commander in Chief Clause of the

Article II.

2. If there is a difference, would actions such as the authority to use UAV/drone strikes and

detention/rendition fall under Commander-in-Chief or presidential war powers? Does

warrant-less wiretapping falling within or both sets of powers?

The power to use force against the enemy and to detain the enemy involve chiefly the congressionally

granted authority to use force under the AUMF. They also necessarily involves some degree of inherent

presidential authority to command the military--though the Obama administration has downplayed this

particular source of its power.

The warrantless wiretapping program is now also authorized by Congress (under the FAA). Before that

statutory authorization, however, the administration claimed authority to do it under the AUMF. And before,

it claimed the inherent Commander in Chief power to do it. So again, a mix of different sources of power.

3. If we make the claim, " we should increase restrictions on the war powers of the President of

the United States," do you think that

This question appears to have been cut off.


17/19

Here are some examples of the resolutions being discussed if this helps contextualize my

questions:

Resolved: the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions

on one or more of the following [Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the

President of the United States: targeted killing attacks launched from unmanned aircraft

systems; offensive cyber operations; warrantless domestic electronic surveillance;

covert operations; or detention of enemy combatants.

I would use the more capacious phrase "war powers" in any of the following resolutions.


on the [Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United

States to: utilize targeted killing attacks launched from unmanned aircraft systems;

conduct offensive cyber operations; engage in warrantless domestic electronic

surveillance; conduct covert operations; detain enemy combatants; or introduce United

States Armed Forces into hostilities.


on the [Commander in Chief / presidential war powers] of the President of the United

States to: utilize targeted killing attacks launched from unmanned aircraft systems;

conduct offensive cyber operations; conduct covert operations; or introduce United

States Armed Forces into hostilities.

Resolved: That the United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on the war

powers of the President of the United States.


18/19

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

Resolved: That the United States federal government should statutorily restrict powers claimed by the

President of the United States from The Authorization to Use Military Force.

Resolved: Powers claimed by the President of the United States from The Authorization to Use Military

Force should be substantially restricted by statute.

Thank you for your assistance - we would greatly appreciate any help in making this a better

educational experience for the hundreds of college students that would debate this topic.

Sincerely,

Kelly Young

Kelly M. Young, Ph.D.

Director of Forensics/

Associate Professor

Communication Department

Wayne State University

585 Manoogian Hall

Detroit, MI 48201

(313) 577-2953

Suggestions for Future Topics

Further discussion needed of how to conduct the designation of specific topics under therotation.

Discussion of Hester advocacy model - Need to find ways to improve the research/

verification of basic terms AND specific topic proposals.

Discussion of trying to identify more robust student invovlement.

Encourage more dialogue and discussion at tournaments

Work to raise awareness of the way the topic process and how to encourage


19/19

participation.

Support topic blogging/ extended notes/ agenda when possible

Encourage advocacy papers to function as petitions (e.g. people can sign in

whole or part)

Have a topic-revision point (Wake or so) where the TC proposes continuing the

current wording and a couple of tweaks heading into spring. Still constrained bythe topic area paper, however.

Have a student NDTCEDA facebook group where directors rarely post

Have a TC twitter feed so that people can send in short comments (in addition to

sending them to a TC member)

Have a TC recording secretary role that works under the TC chair to keep people

in the loop (including meeting notes, etc). Finish the TC work each year with

approval of the minutes (or do so within a coule of days after the TC finishes)

prespowerswordings-tcagenda

Documents