The way I understand it:
Modern democratic governments are systems entrenched in the state of exception. Society, through legislative norms, has moved towards a process by which popular support is often channeled into political movements that can ultimately determine a government's response and/or future policy in the context it's within, but also in an expansive preemptive sort. Taking from Schmitt's idea of the government, Agamben shows how the sovereign can determine the exception. It is through this authority that he traces a bunch of different systems of government and their tendency to intentionally place these forms of exception within their structures in order to allow the sovereign to respond to foreign or domestic threats.
He makes a big effort in his book Homo Sacer to show how this legal authority is ultimately grounded. He talks about the difference between constituted and constituting power. Whereas constituted power exists only in the state (within its original constitutional order), constituting power is situated outside the state and exists without it. Sovereign power successfully divides itself into constituting power and constituted power and "maintains its relationship to both". This is how political organizations like the french revolution becomes First French Empire, or how Trotsky's intellectual revolution became permanent through Stalin's intervention, and how Maoist china fell into an "uninterrupted revolution".
If we can trace this source of sovereign power, and moreover sovereign violence, to forms of exception often placed into government through legislative means, then we can find the state of exception is almost entirely promoted within democracies through a phenomenon of a simultaneous retreat from and support for juridical authority. In a sense, juridical power and legal domain is the creation of exception where something that has become "illegal" is only realized as such under a set of juridical norms predetermined by a form of constituting power.
Affirmatives often try to pass a law- to restrict 702, or backdooring capabilities etc. But they ignore that the state of exception isn't written in a code of law, but is instead the process of juridical power itself. The aff first can't escape this, because that law exists both inside and outside what is acceptable, and second because those plans are merely "juridical Lacunae"- exploited holes in legal processes that work as an identifier for an executive action which ultimately acts as a suspension of contextual law.
So the link isn't just that the affirmative is engaging in a process that cannot be corrected through this idea of “legal fiat”, it’s actively creating lacunae that serve as signifiers for executive authority. Agamben explains this later part by describing the format of Napoleonic code. Whenever a legal contradiction was found and reworked into a constitutional power, it was promptly suspended whenever necessary. sovereign dictatorships differ from commissarial dictatorships because they include rewriting legal jurisdiction (such as the plan), but in doing so creates a new pathway for necessity to tear down the efficacy of law in favor of the force of law.
The aff tries to redefine, reassign or otherwise create a legal authority which is grounded in the state of exception, a place devoid of law. In otherwords, a law can’t counteract its original function, and instead becomes that function’s manifestation.