The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Resolved: On balance, the current Authorization for Use of Military Force too much power to the Pres
in United States
Debra AI Prediction
SQL ERROR Table 'i2483808_vf2.Comment' doesn't existError getting name of the opponent: Table 'i2483808_vf2.User' doesn't existError getting argument count: Table 'i2483808_vf2.Comment' doesn't existError getting vote count: Table 'i2483808_vf2.Comment' doesn't existError getting comment count: Table 'i2483808_vf2.Comment' doesn't exist
Debate Type: Traditional Debate
Voting Format: Casual Voting
Opponent:
Rounds: 3
Time Per Round: 12 Hours Per Round
Voting Period: 24 Hours
Forfeited
Arguments
Arguments Comments
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you look closely at the resolution
Resolved: On balance, the current Authorization for Use of Military Force gives too much power to the president.
The article argues
"Congress routinely punts tough policy decisions to the White House by giving deference to presidents. This slide away from the intent of the Constitution can be addressed in part by Congress reclaiming its power."
This paragraph is almost a clickbait. It offers a strong position that it wasn't intended by the Constitution, but doesn't really offer followup evidence on that point. Also congress reclaiming the power is very different than people reclaiming the power as suggested in the title of the article.
"By giving the executive branch a wide berth in carrying out the laws, members of the House and senators can always claim that an unpopular law was carried out in a manner Congress did not intend. That provides political cover for pusillanimous policymakers. It also entrenches bureaucrats who are not answerable to the people in the way representatives and senators are."
That's an interesting argument. Essentially it says that the only reason why it wasn't changed is because bureaucrats are afraid of making an unpopular decision and be blamed if something goes wrong. I think they will absolutely be blamed, because once there is a real emergency and the President needs to ask Congress for permission then it will quickly turn south.
The article provided two examples where the author felt the President abused his power. One by Obama and one by George W. Bush.
example 1)
One of the most egregious examples of the president acting in light of wide congressional deference is the Antiquities Act and the broad use of it by President Obama. “In setting aside 550 million acres over the course of eight years, Obama's use of the Antiquities Act hardly complies with the "smallest area compatible" requirement of the 1906 law.” Congress has let this misuse of presidential power continue instead narrowing the scope of its use legislatively. This is also illustrated in immigration law, where the executive branch has significant leeway, of which President Obama’s executive amnesty is an example.
Example 2)
President George W. Bush also contributed to this erosion of congressional power through his frequent signing statements. Indeed, as Richard Epstein wrote, “In these statements, the president often has claimed that the new laws violate the Constitution and signaled his intention not to enforce certain provisions, despite having signed them into law.” Congress failed to tackle this executive branch excursion into its power. The result is a less democratic and accountable federal government.
Neither of these two examples directly confront the issue of abuse of the military oower by the president.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
Authorization for Use of Military Force Gives too much power to the President for the following reasons.
- Congress gave up it’s power and isn’t willing to confront the broken process to get it back. The thehill.com opinion paper articulated that well, as politicians are too worried about the polls.
The entire point of Congress is to represent the people. The argument that people aren’t making decisions directly, but represented via Congress is a moot point as it’s not reasonable to assume that people can be represented in a direct voting.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I also provided specific points about the article that demonstrated that there isn’t any real evidence for insisting getting Congress involved in urgent decisions.
The point about people representation is perfectly fine, but not at times of crisis. We need to rely for elected officials and President to do the job we elected them to do.
In conclusion,
Authorization for Use of Military Force by the President of the United States is an appropriate measure that shouldn’t change.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Our key points of contention seem to remain that you suggest that it’s okay for President to act as a monarch and make unilateral decisions. Your claim for urgent situations can easily become a cover for any Presidential decisions undermining Congressional authority.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra