AUMF DA

A. Unique Internal Link - Syria authorization is coming now bipartisanship is key to send a strong signal
about the Authorization and Use of Military Force (AUMF) I dont know how to cut
this lol
Rogin 9/5/14 (Josh Rogin, The Daily Beast, Congress Set to Bow to Obama on ISIS War,
9/5/2014, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/05/congress-set-to-bow-to-obama-on-isis-
war.html
The administration has now reported to Congress three times under the War Powers Resolution about
U.S. military force in Iraq; the first report was filed Aug. 8 and the most recent was filed Sept. 1. The
reports notified Congress that the U.S. was waging war in Iraq for four distinct reasons: to protect
American personnel in Erbil; to save the Yazidi minorities trapped on Mount Sinjar; to protect the Mosul
Dam; and to save the people of the Shiite town of Amirli. The War Powers clock expires Oct. 8, with a
possible extension to Nov. 8. But the administration could argue that each new notification resets the
clock and gives the president ongoing authority to attack in Iraq. To most in Congress, thats
disingenuous at best, because the strikes are all part of the same operation and are all against the same
foe in the same country. Its called the War Powers Act, not the Single Attack Powers Act. Technically
you are not restarting the 60-day clock, said a senior Senate aide involved in the debate. During
Obamas war on Libya in 2011, he used military strikes well past the 60- or even 90-day deadline. Then
he tried to claim there were no hostilities in Libya, to nullify the War Powers Resolution. This time
around, Obamas lawyers were more clever. The Libya episode taught him the lesson you can trust on
60 to 90 days, so instead they are trying to press the reset button on the clock, the aide said. In the
end, the administration wants to hang this on the presidents authority under Article 2 (of the
Constitution). The problem is, some of these strikes dont fall under Article 2. Its a legal shell game, a
senior GOP senate aide said. But more than that, its an ad hoc reaction to a threat. And so, the legal
rationale that flows from that is minimal because what hes doing is minimal. Theres a growing
consensus in both parties that the president has to do more to combat the growing ISIS threat and come
to Congress for some kind of legal endorsement. Even GOP doves like Sen. Rand Paul have changed their
tune recently and pledged to grant Obama permission to strike the terror group. I think we all agree
that having a national strategy for defeating the Islamic terrorist state is imperative, House Speaker
John Boehner told his caucus on a conference call Wednesday, according to a source on the call.
America is at risk of another 9/11 unless we confront and defeat this terrorist threat. The safety and
security of the American people, and that of our allies, is at stake. But with only two weeks in
September to legislate, theres little to no chance Congress will act before its next recess, which means
the issue will be punted to the post-election lame duck session. During that session, several senators will
try to add amendments authorizing Obamas ISIS war to the National Defense Authorization Actthe
bill that sets policies for the Pentagonwhich is seen on Capitol Hill as a must-pass. Sen. Jim Inhofe, the
top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has drafted legislation that would authorize
the president to use military force against ISIS, and is conferring with Senate colleagues about what
changes would be required to gather bipartisan support. "The only way to get the House to change their
mind would be either the Senate sends a strong bipartisan message by passing an AUMF [Authorization
of Military Force], or by passing an amendment to the NDAA," said Donelle Harder, an Inhofe aide.
Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, has also drafted legislation that would specifically authorize
Obama to strike ISIS inside Syria, where Florida-born journalist Steven Sotloff was murdered this week.
Nelson wants to add his legislation to the Defense Authorization bill as well, his spokesman Ryan Brown
said. This will ensure theres no question that the president has the legal authority he needs to use
airstrikes in Syria, Nelson said in a statement Wednesday. Let there be no doubt, we must go after ISIS
right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop this group thats
intent on barbaric cruelty.

Link: Presumed consent will require lots of fighting interest groups, religious groups, secular voters,
Republicans and will cause backlash at Obama 20 years of empirics on this question. Even if it passes,
itll be fought in court and rolled back.
Jennifer S. Bard (2012) pf @ Texas Tech, Lack of Political Will and Public Trust Dooms Presumed Consent,
The American Journal of Bioethics, 12:2, 44-46 PDI
For example, in January 2011, a presumed consent bill, A. 9865, 233rd Sess. (N.Y. 2010), which would have made New York the first state to require individuals to opt out of being donors, was

dropped by its sponsor in the face of strong opposition led by Assemblyman Dov Hikind. Assemblyman Hikind represented a
number of organized religious groups including the Rabbinical Alliance of America, the Catholic League, the National
Council of Young Israel, and leaders from Chesed Shel Emes. Hinkindwas quoted as saying, There was no doubt in my mind that if this bill
had become law, we would have ended up fighting protracted legal battles to prevent illegal organ harvesting . . . I

felt this legislation was tantamount to entrapment (Proposed Presumed Consent Bill Dropped 2010). The concerns are not limited to religious groups but

rather strike a chord of mistrust among secular voters as well. Commenting on a similar proposed bill in Colorado, S.B. 11-
042, 68th Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2011), which was also dropped by its sponsor after considerable vocal opposition , a Republican

State Senator, Shawn Mitchell, was quoted as saying, If enough people arent volunteering, that doesnt mean the government can suddenly lay claim to their body and to their organs after they die.
People, I would hope, would be willing to make this choice, but if theyre not, the government doesnt own their bodies. They do and after theyre dead, their families do (Sayani

2011). Although Senator Mitchell is technically incorrect about body ownership, he is correct that the public mistrusts the government when it comes to

health care. The concern that President Obamas health care reform efforts included death panels
that would decide who would and would not get needed treatment is a facet of that same fear that
the government and the health care system will abuse their power (Death Panels Revisited 2010). These withdrawals
of the bills following strong opposition from those who fear that presumed consent will lead to involuntary donation are
consistent with efforts to pass the same kinds of laws 10 and even 20 years ago. One challenge in studying presumed consent laws
is that they are so unpopular in the United States and often withdrawn before they are voted on that it is difficult to

trace their history. When histories are available, they show clear evidence of rejection. A failed 2003 Texas presumed

consent bill, Texas House Bill 2111 78th Leg. (Tex. 2003), however, provides insight into the depths of the ideas unpopularity because it was presented with four other bills

promoting organ donation House Bill 89 (paid leave for state employees who serve as organ donors),
Senate Bill 160 (resources for education about organ donation provided to health care providers and
attorney regarding anatomical gifts), Senate Bill 1225 (removal of organ or tissue from deceased
under circumstances requiring inquest), and Senate Bill 1226 (related to formation of kidney-sharing
pool) andwas the only one that failed to be voted into law.

C. Impact Only a new AUMF solves outstanding legal questions solves interbranch conflict.
DePetris 9/2/14 (Daniel R. DePetris, Foreign Policy Consultant, 09/02/2014, Why Obama
Should Ask Congress for an ISIS AUMF,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-r-depetris/why-
obama-should-ask-cong_b_5745460.html) EM
But fear aside, Obama should go directly to Congress for a new AUMF -- that is, if he plans to embark on the kind of large-scale, comprehensive
anti-IS strategy in both Iraq and Syria that his own Secretary of State, John Kerry, pushed for in an August 29New York Times op-ed. Doing so would meet several

objectives, the first being a much-needed clarification on the legal underpinnings that guide the use of U.S.
military force against a constantly amorphous and evolving international terrorist enemy. The 2001 AUMF, which was a mere 60 words passed
overwhelmingly three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has been on the books for nearly thirteen years and has been

stretched to the breaking point in order to accommodate threats emanating from al Qaeda associates and
affiliates. Although the Islamic State may have been the spawn of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the very public breakup between Ayman al-

Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi means that the 2001 AUMF cannot be used as the domestic legal basis of an
anti-IS military campaign (it's difficult for even the most clever constitution lawyer to argue that a document justifying the targeting of al Qaeda could be used to target a
group that wasn't formed until 2004). Only a new authorization could resolve the outstanding questions that legal scholars and

lawmakers continue to have on the war powers issue post-9/11. Secondly, going to Congress to obtain buy-in would

provide the president with the bipartisan, domestic backing that only the people's representatives can
provide on the eve of a major military operation. If the United States works best when it speaks with one
voice, as President Obama said last summer, allowing lawmakers to have an open, objective and healthy national debate before voting
is only appropriate. Finally, a new AUMF directed solely against the Islamic State would serve an incredibly useful political function for the White House. Instead of being the
one actor tied to the success or failure of a military operation, the administration would spread the responsibility and costs across two, co-equal branches of government. If things go bad for
U.S. personnel or if the strategy is too slow to produce lasting damage on the terrorist group, members of Congress who clamor for action but fail to step up and vote will not be able to sit
back, go on national television and engage in the familiar Monday-morning quarterbacking that has come to define contemporary Washington politics. Both branches, Congress and the White
House, will own the successes and shortfalls of the operation.

Political flexibility and co-operation necessary to devise solutions to prvent extinction. Uniquely key
because we solve for all scenarios. Jaminson 93,
Jamison 93 (Linda, depute of Governmental Relations @ CSIS, 93
Linda S., Deputy of Governmental Relations @ CSIS, "Executive-Legislative Relations after the Cold
War." Washington Quarterly, Spring Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 189

Indeed there are very few domestic issues that do not have strong international implications, and likewise there are numerous transnational issues in which all nations have a stake.
Environmental degradation, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, population control, migration, international narcotics trafficking, the spread of
AIDS, and the deterioration of the human condition in the less developed world are circumstances affecting all corners of the globe. Neither political
isolation nor policy bifurcation is an option for the United States. Global circumstances have drastically changed with the end of the Cold War and the political and policy conditions that
sustained bipartisan consensus are not applicable to the post-war era. The formulation of a new foreign policy must be grounded in broad-based principles that reflect domestic economic,
If the federal government is to
political and social concerns while providing practical solutions to new situations. Toward a cooperative US Foreign Policy for the 1990s:

meet the new international policy challenges of the post-cold war era, institutional dissension caused by partisan competition and executive-
legislative friction must give way to a new way of business. Policy flexibility must be the watchword of the 1990s in the
foreign policy domain if the United States is to have any hope of securing its interests in the uncertain years ahead . One former
policymaker, noting the historical tendency of the United States to make fixed attachments, has argued that a changing world dictates policy flexibility, where practical solutions can be
developed on principles of broad-based policy objectives (Fulbright 1979 ). Flexibility , however, will not be possible without interbranch cooperation .
The end of the Cold War and the new single-party control of the White House and Congress provide a unique opportunity to reestablish foreign policy cooperation. Reconfiguring post cold war
objectives requires comprehension of the remarkable transformations in world affairs and demands an intense political dialogue that goes beyond the executive branch (Mann 1990, 28-29).