Jump to content
ShreeBuck

XO doesn't cost political capital and bypasses congress

Recommended Posts

I need cards that say these things. I only have the Gonzaga file at the moment, and the cards either have a lack of warrants or are just crappy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the evidence exists that is actually good quality.

 

 

No, the XO cp is based around this concept.

 

Shree, spend 5 minutes and cut your own ev if you're not satisfied with a camp file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the XO cp is based around this concept.

 

Shree, spend 5 minutes and cut your own ev if you're not satisfied with a camp file.

 

You act like most arguments people run are based on good evidence, thats a joke.

 

Just because the argument exists and is popular and relies on a single concept, doesn't mean that concept is warranted and the evidence is ever good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You act like most arguments people run are based on good evidence, thats a joke.

 

Just because the argument exists and is popular and relies on a single concept, doesn't mean that concept is warranted and the evidence is ever good.

 

QFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You act like most arguments people run are based on good evidence, thats a joke.

 

Just because the argument exists and is popular and relies on a single concept, doesn't mean that concept is warranted and the evidence is ever good.

 

 

 

I'm willing to bet the "XO bypasses Congress" cards are pretty good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP 11/10/2008 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/obama-see-oval-office-first-time/print/

 

John Podesta, who's handling Obama's preparations to take over in the White House on Jan. 20, said on Sunday that Obama was reviewing Bush's executive orders on those and other issues as he prepares to put his own stamp on policy after eight years of Republican rule. "There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set." Use of executive authority is the quickest way for a new president to exert his power, given that passage of new laws by Congress can be a painfully slow process, even when the chief executive enjoys a legislative majority. Podesta pointed specifically to two particularly controversial Bush executive orders as candidates for reversal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the evidence exists that is actually good quality.

 

there is actually decent evidence that says executive orders bypass congressional backlash and the such. it's also just a true argument. many politics links stem off of passing a piece of legislation through congress as leading to backlash and requires the use of political capital. obviously, an xo would avoid that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public has little perception of executive orders

 

Phillip Cooper (University of Vermont political science professor) October 28, 1999 Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony

Few Americans, even those normally considered part of the informed public, know anything about executive orders. That is true even for many experienced public service professionals at all levels of government. When informed that there are now some 13,140 numbered executive orders in which the chief executive has sought to issue directives having binding legal force to agencies in the executive branch, a very common response is that no one ever told them the president could make law with the stroke of a pen.

 

Executive orders avoid the cumbersome process of pushing through legislation

 

Phillip J. Cooper (Professor, Liberal Arts at University of Vermont) 2002 By Order Of The President: The Use And Abuse Of Executive Direct Action

Executive orders are often used because they are quick, convenient, and relatively easy mechanisms for moving significant policy initiatives. Though it is certainly true that executive orders are employed for symbolic purposes, enough has been said by now to demonstrate that they are also used for serious policymaking or to lay the basis for important actions to be taken by executive branch agencies under the authority of the orders. Unfortunately, as is true of legislation, it is not always possible to know from the title of orders which are significant and which are not, particularly since presidents will often use an existing order as a base for action and then change it in ways that make it far more significant than its predecessors. The relative ease of the use of an order does not merely arise from the fact that presidents may employ one to avoid the cumbersome and time-consuming legislative process. They may also use this device to avoid sometimes equally time-consuming administrative procedure, particularly the rulemaking processes required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

 

Presidential action provides cover to congress—takes the heat

 

Phillip R. Trimble (Professor of Law at UCLA) American Journal Of International Law, October 1989

In other situations, it may serve a member's political interest to let the President take the heat for decisions that are conceded to be desirable in the overall national interest but are unpopular in certain sectors. It may be awkward to vote for or against retaliatory tariffs, like those imposed in response to the European Community's ban on hormone-treated beef; they will hurt some importers while helping some fanners, but will also risk a general trade war that would hurt everyone. Third World debt relief is another example.

 

Presidential action allows reps to avoid taking positions and engaging in costly political battles

 

Phillip R. Trimble (Professor of Law at UCLA) American Journal Of International Law, October 1989

It does not do so for good reason. Congress is above all a political body. Its members are practical politicians who see themselves as responsible for the effective functioning of the Government, in addition to being accountable to their particular constituencies. Because of their role as national statesmen — occasionally enhanced by a desire for higher office — they recognize that many foreign policy problems are truly national problems and do indeed require "one voice," which a legislative body cannot provide. Being practical politicians, they also understand that foreign policy decisions require compromises of competing interests and ' often trade-offs between regional or factional constituencies to promote the overall national interest. More fundamentally, the strictly political interests of Congress lead it to expect and to defer to presidential leadership. Those interests include, most obviously, reelection. To that end, a member must advance particular special interests and also maintain a favorable public posture as an effective legislator and politician. Those interests inevitably dictate some positions, for example on trade and military programs, or aid to Greece and Israel. But most foreign policy is far removed from immediate political concerns. Senator Case repeated a quip, perhaps apocryphal, by one of his colleagues to the effect that "I go to the Health, Education and Labor Committee to help my constituents, and I come here [to the Foreign Relations Committee] [*753] to have fun." Politically, there is often no advantage in having to take a position, through a recorded vote, on pressing foreign policy questions with no immediate implication for local constituencies and with uncertain long-term consequences. To the contrary, it may be preferable to accept presidential leadership and preserve the ability to criticize decisions that turn out wrong. That can enable a person to take credit for popular decisions and to criticize, gathering helpful publicity and stature, those that go awry. Thus, a member may see no advantage in having to vote on support for the opposition in Angola or Cambodia. Stopping communism may be popular; but if victory results in advancing the fortunes of South Africa or Pol Pot, it may not be so desirable. Voting for a policy necessarily entails taking responsibility for its failure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XO avoids congress is obvious.

 

My post was more responsive to the XO avoids public perception, which I think is BS. I am pretty sure it is empirically proven when Obama made his recent XOs, ones that are more than just little things that nobody gives a crap about, the media spins it just like a congressional bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in this thread resembles a good piece of evidence that takes into account the Obama administration - Audit makes the only reasonable post regarding this. FYI:

 

1/25/09 - Obama XO to close GITMO was massively perceived by congress and cost him political capital. These cards are much better than the old Cooper/Mayer "XOs aren't perceived" cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the point is it doesn't tradeoff with other items on congress's agenda. the card i posted is about obama and is the closest i've seen any card to saying that. but whatever, if the ev is so bad perhaps you'd rather use analytics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the point is it doesn't tradeoff with other items on congress's agenda. the card i posted is about obama and is the closest i've seen any card to saying that. but whatever, if the ev is so bad perhaps you'd rather use analytics.

 

The problem is that it does. With most XOs being small things, then sure, this argument is very true. In the context of the cards you will find, it is true. But in the context of a massive (substantial) shift to alternative energy, this XO would be huge. If you win that AE is unpopular, or whatever, there would be no inherent difference between congress getting the blame or now, the prez getting the blame. In both cases, it would cause the politics scenario.

 

Although I haven't done the research personally, I am sure that a good number of debaters will be prepared to engage you here and I think its an argument they could easily win, especially w/ the Obama administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that it does. With most XOs being small things, then sure, this argument is very true. In the context of the cards you will find, it is true. But in the context of a massive (substantial) shift to alternative energy, this XO would be huge. If you win that AE is unpopular, or whatever, there would be no inherent difference between congress getting the blame or now, the prez getting the blame. In both cases, it would cause the politics scenario.

 

Although I haven't done the research personally, I am sure that a good number of debaters will be prepared to engage you here and I think its an argument they could easily win, especially w/ the Obama administration.

 

Well, you're entitled to hold this opinion. But there are good cards posted here saying the structure of an XO avoids the time and debate and hearings and fillibustering in Congress, thus allowing Congress to focus its time on other issues. Anyways, the posted here was just asking for a card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but I think what Synergy is getting to is not that XO's are invisible but that they aren't the same as a normal bill. I think the only thing Congress can do is to pass a bill refusing to fund. This is significantly different than the normal order of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be wrong, but I think what Synergy is getting to is not that XO's are invisible but that they aren't the same as a normal bill. I think the only thing Congress can do is to pass a bill refusing to fund. This is significantly different than the normal order of things.

what he is saying is that xo's dont link to a normal p'tx da like political capital etc....what audit is talking about is a public perception da. Yes, with the obama admin everything is very public and getting a public perception da passed as a n/b would be harder but not impossible. The three ways for it to still work is that either 1) what ever Obama does is golden in the public eye so it would turn a negative positive or 2) Plan wasnt on "agenda" and will get passed under the radar normally or 3) Obama passses on friday and it goes unnoticed ;) The fact of the matter is there really arent that many public perception da's now that elections are over so xo is actually pretty sweet when dealing with most tix da's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...