DA

A.Uniqueness-Romney will win in the SQuo-garners voters across the political spectrum
Stimpson 10/8/11 Former aide to Massachusetts governor Will Weld (John B., 10-8, Why Mitt Romney Is the GOP's Best Choice
to Win In 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/08/why-mitt-romney-is-gops-best-choice-to-win-in-2012/)

Mr. Romney has journeyed a long way since he introduced himself to Massachusetts voters in 1994. Now he is running for president of the United States. At a time when economic insecurity will be the paramount issue for voters, he is the Republican Partys best chance to win the White House in 2012. Not
since Jimmy Carter was president has there been such a crisis of confidence in America. Unemployment remains above 9 percent. Our debt-toGDP ratio is more than 95%, a trajectory that is unsustainable. Standard & Poors recently downgraded the countrys coveted AAA credit rating. And our elected leaders continue to kick the can down the road on reforming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the countrys three major budget-busters. To combat the multitude of complex leadership, financial, and operational problems facing the Federal government, the

next president will need to wear three leadership hats chief executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operations officer. Mr. Romney has experience in all three C-level functions. He spent the bulk of
his career in the private sector at Bain Capital, a Boston-based private equity firm that he founded. His job was to identify and invest in start-up companies, such as Staples and Dominos Pizza. But another big part of what he did was to invest in distressed companies, turn them around and make them profitable. This involved rebuilding management teams, improving company processes, identifying new products and markets, fixing balance sheets, and implementing other strategic changes to unlock value in these troubled companies. One of Mr. Romneys most notable turnaround situations was the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. In 1999, he was asked to take over as president and CEO of the Games, which was in the midst of a bribery scandal and on the verge of financial collapse. He reorganized the management team, brought back disgruntled corporate sponsors, balanced the budget, and restored public confidence in the organization. Why is his turnaround

experience important in this presidential race? Today, there is no greater turnaround situation than fixing the federal government. The to-do list is extensive: reduce debt, balance the budget, fix entitlement programs, reform
cumbersome tax codes and regulations, lower the costs of doing business for American companies, and open up markets for our goods and services around the world. In the private sector, Mr. Romneys goal was to increase shareholder value. While

the federal government is not a publicly held corporation, he brings a real world business approach to Washington that is badly needed to get the countrys fiscal house in order and improve the value of government programs as measured by their cost and effectiveness. But the toughest task will be coming up with bold ideas to revitalize
an economy on the brink of another recession. Economic challenges in the US, weak global GDP growth and sovereign debt issues in the euro zone have escalated the importance of electing a president who understands the language of business and the global economy. In this realm, Mr. Romney has the credibility and poise to lead as few others do because he has worked directly with small and large businesses and their management teams across diverse industries throughout the world. As he stated during the recent Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Florida, The American people create jobs, not government. Having put capital at risk, both his own and that of his investors, he knows firsthand the obstacles and pressures that businesses face in a global economy and how government can be a partner, not an adversary, in helping America compete. Mr.

Romney spent most of his career in the trenches of business, but he is also battle-tested in government. In 2002 he was elected governor of Massachusetts at a time when the state faced tremendous fiscal challenges. Despite taking office when there were just 23 Republicans in the 160 member House
of Representatives and six Republicans in the 40 member Senate, he successfully restructured government programs, consolidated state services, reduced wasteful spending, and otherwise closed a $3 billion budget shortfall without raising taxes or borrowing from Wall Street.

What makes Mr. Romney most appealing as a candidate in a general election, however, is his ability to attract independent voters, which will be a key voting bloc in swing states. As a Republican in Massachusetts, his election as governor was not a foregone conclusion. He defeated his Democratic opponent in one of the most liberal states in the country where Republicans comprised just 13% of voters. The bulk of voters (49%) were independents. Mr. Romney has proven that he can appeal to a broad cross section of voters.

B. Uniqueness-Hegemony low now-Obama

Krauthammer 9 (Charles, Pulitzer Prizewinning syndicated columnist and political expert, Charles
Krauthammer: On the loss of American hegemony, WSJ, 10/11/9,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461293823826308.html?mod=djemEditorialPage, KR)
Well, hegemony

is out. As Obama said in his General Assembly address, "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." (The "can" in that declaration is priceless.) And if hegemony is out, so is balance of power: "No balance of power among nations will hold." The president then denounced the idea of elevating any group of nations above otherswhich takes care, I suppose, of the Security Council, the G-20, and the Western alliance. And just to
make the point unmistakable, he denounced "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" as "making no sense in an interconnected world." What does that say about NATO? Of our alliances with Japan and South Korea? Or even of the European Union? Surely this is nonsense. But it is not harmless nonsense. It's nonsense with a point. It reflects a fundamental view that the only legitimate authority in the international system is that which emanates from the "community of nations" as a whole. Which means, I suppose, acting through its most universal organs such as, again I suppose, the U.N. and its various agencies. . . . To be sure, the idea of the international community acting through the U.N.a fiction and a farce respectivelyas enforcer of norms and maintainer of stability is absurd. . . . But whatever

bizarre form of multilateral or universal structures are envisioned for keeping world order, certainly hegemonyand specifically American hegemonyis to be retired.

C.Link ORS is increasingly popular-means Obama gains popularity-gets the white house again
Steele 09Lt Col, USAF (Thomas M, 12 February 2009, AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY, EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES (EELV) FOR OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA540092 Ajones) ORS Present In April 2007, the Department of Defense (DoD) submitted

to Congress its Plan for Operationally Responsive Space. Congress approved the plan, and at this time the ORS concept enjoyed the support required to actively pursue operationally responsive space capabilities. Unlike past plans focused on one system or capability, todays ORS plan includes the full spectrum of systems and capabilities to meet the combatant commanders responsive space requirements. The Commander, United States Strategic Command (CDRUSSTRATCOM) has
expressed three desires: first, to rapidly exploit and infuse space technological or operational innovations; second, to rapidly adapt or augment existing space capabilities when needed to expand operational capability; and third, to rapidly reconstitute or replenish critical space capabilities to preserve operational capability. These

desires have led to a multi-dimensional concept to implement ORS to improve the responsiveness of existing space capabilities (e.g., space segment, launch segment, ground
segment) and to develop complementary, more affordable, small satellite/launch vehicle combinations and associated ground systems that can be deployed in operationally relevant timeframes.10 In April 2008, DoD published a more detailed document, the Implementation Plan for Operationally Responsive Space. This plan identified a specific program office to pursue promising concepts and established the rules of engagement for acquiring new capabilities. The

plan placed STRATCOMs desires into a three tiered structure designed to satisfy ORSs requirements. This tiered system is designed to guide and focus the space communitys selection of
promising technologies for further testing and development based on combatant commanders requirements and responsiveness needs.11

D.Romney is key to increasing hegemony-multiple warrants-soft and hard power

Holland 10-6-11 Journalist for Reuters( Steve, 10-6-11, Romney says would exert US leadership globally,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/07/usa-campaign-romney-idUSN1E79524W20111007) Strengthen cooperation with Mexico By Steve Holland CHARLESTON, S.C., Oct 6 (Reuters) -

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will vow on Friday to exert U.S. leadership worldwide with military power and diplomacy in a speech aimed at showing he has foreign policy mettle. Romney will say that if elected in November 2012, he will promise a series of actions over his first 100 days in office to demonstrate American might. "I will not surrender America's role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president," Romney will say, according to excerpts released by his campaign.
Romney, a former businessman who was also Massachusetts governor, has little foreign policy experience. In his speech, he seeks to demonstrate to Americans he would be able to handle crises abroad and exert U.S. leadership in an unsettled world. He

also attempts to portray Democratic President Barack Obama, whom he wants to replace, as weak despite some clear foreign policy successes by the president, such as the killing last May of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and well-received efforts to wind down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Romney

would step up pressure on Iran over its nuclear program by ordering the regular presence of an aircraft carrier task force in
both the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region and begin discussions with Israel to increase military and intelligence coordination.

Stressing the need to maintain U.S. military supremacy, Romney will pledge to prevent any massive cuts in defense spending. He has denounced an August agreement between Obama and Congress that could permit deep cuts in the U.S. defense budget as part of an effort to tackle record budget deficits. Romney would order the U.S. Navy built up by increasing the shipbuilding rate to about 15 a year from nine in order to bolster the American presence on the high seas. "The United States should always retain military supremacy to deter would-be aggressors and to defend our allies and ourselves," he will say. He would work to bolster relations with Israel that some critics say have been damaged by what they feel was Obama's favoring of the Palestinians over Israel. Romney would also strengthen the U.S.-British "special relationship" and begin talks with Mexico on border violence due to the drug trade. "America must lead the world, or someone
MAINTAINING MILITARY SUPREMACY else will," Romney will say.

E. Turns case-U.S. hegemony key to global peace Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, The Need For American Hegemony, February 20th, 2009,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA American benevolent hegemony indeed benefits the entire world. Robert Kagan, a well-known neoconservative, states the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good for a vast portion of the worlds population and that to undermine U.S. hegemony would cost many others around the world far more than it would cost Americans. In fact, billions of people worldwide live safe and prosper under the umbrella of U.S. military might and Americaninfluenced global markets Imagine the world without U.S. hegemony. Who would deter nations like North Korea, China, and Iran from attacking their neighbors? For 55 years, an American presence in South Korea has deterred North Korean belligerence. Across the East China Sea, the U.S. 7th Fleet discourages the Peoples Republic of China from using military power to force the annexation of the 60-year old democratic de-facto nation of Taiwan. Of course, the American-led Multi-National Force Iraq continues to ensure freedom and democracy in Iraq while daunting regional Iranian aggression Of course, American benevolence abroad arose from the wastelands of post-World War II Europe and Asia. During the Cold War, the U.S. found itself as the sole guarantor of freedom for numerous Asian and European counties threatened by Soviet aggression. Americas ability to influence the world economy and maintain significant military presences in West Germany and Japan allowed its allies to prosper in relative safety.

Counterplan
CP Text --- In an appropriate test case, the United States Supreme Court should issue a narrow ruling
that federal authority over _______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _ commandeers the states legislative functions in violation of the 10th and 11th Amendments. The Supreme Court should devolve authority of this narrow ruling to the State Governments and United States Territories. The 50 States and relevant U.S. territories should __________[Insert Plan]_______________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _ _____________________________________________________________________________________ .

Contention 1 --- Competes based on disads linked to Federal Government action. Contention 2 --- Solves The Court can make this ruling and devolve power to the states --- it wont be rolled back
Miller 98 (Mark A., Attorney at Law Baker Botts LLP, Cleveland State Law Review, Lexis)
The history of the Tenth Amendment is an appropriate starting point in the development of substantive federalism. For a long period of time, the Tenth Amendment operated as nothing more than a plain statement of the obvious that afforded little protection to the states. 249 In the aftermath of Garcia, state sovereignty was left to the political processes. 250 Tenth v. United States when

Amendment power was reborn in New York the Court held that Congress could not commandeer the states' legislative function. 251 This protection is decreed no matter how strong the federal interest in the legislation may be. 252
Protections over state sovereignty were expanded again in the 1996 Term when the Court invalidated certain portions of the Brady Act. 253 According to Printz, Congress cannot force the states' executive branches to enact federal regulatory programs regardless of the federal interest involved. 254 Whenever the structural framework of dual sovereignty is compromised, the Tenth

Amendment steps in to prevent a usurpation of federalism. 255 Printz and New York held that Congress was incapable of commanding the states to take a
course of action that it could not undertake directly. 256 But what happens if Congress breaches the Tenth Amendment through an Article I power like the Spending Clause? Do the Court's enunciated protections extend to Article I? These are the questions that the theory of substantive federalism answers. The restraint on Article I began, to large extent, in Garcia when Justice O'Connor predicted that the Commerce power would be affirmatively limited [*191] by state autonomy. 257 The door was further opened in New York when the plenary nature of the Commerce Clause was labeled as "subversive" to the interests of state sovereignty. 258 United States v. Lopez

put the first nail in the

coffin when it struck down an exercise of the Commerce power as going so far as to approach a "police power of the
sort retained by the States." 259 The Commerce Clause, in other words, authorizes control over interstate commerce, but does not authorize regulation of the states. 260 Seminole Tribe, however, lends the greatest support to the substantive federalism theory. The

Eleventh Amendment -- a core guardian of state sovereign interests 261 -- withstands any attempt by Congress to pierce the shield of federalism with Article I. 262 Similar to the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment once provided little protection to the
states when Congress flexed its Article I muscle. 263 Along with the strengthening of the Eleventh Amendment, New York and Printz add to the growth of federalism and the devolution of unrestricted congressional power. The same 5-4 majority 264 has written the opinions in New York, Lopez, Seminole Tribe, and Printz, and it is only a matter of time before the rationale in Seminole Tribe is extended to the Tenth Amendment as a limit on the Spending Clause. 265 Substantive federalism presents the argument that the Tenth Amendment will be used in much the same manner as the Eleventh Amendment was used in Seminole Tribe. If a core principle of state sovereignty will be encroached upon by an Article I power, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the intrusion. 266 On the other side of the coin, Congress must look to the Tenth Amendment and ask whether its proposed legislation will impinge upon principles of federalism. If

substantive federalism can operate to block congressional action under the Commerce Clause, then it can also curtail the Spending power. 267

States solve same Legislation at both state and federal levels solve equally Jill A. Marsteller, & Randall R. Bovbjerg, 8-11-1999, John-Hopkins social studies professor and
Urban Institute Executive, Federalism and Patient Protection Changing Roles for State and Federal Government, Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/publications/309099.html The likely effect of federal patient protection legislation also depends on the extent to which states have already enacted similar statutes. Duplicative federal legislation would not make substantial changes. Indeed, if federal legislation delegates enforcement authority to states (as discussed below), nothing would change. The exceptions to this, of course, are that federal statutes may preempt conflicting state requirements and that
they can protect more insured people than state regulation can. The provisions under consideration at the federal level were generally enacted first at the state level, so they tend to be similar to the managed care rules seen at the state level. However, the details of some provisions, such as the appeals timetable, often vary across states and between the states and the federal proposals.

Extending the Lopez precedent is critical to send strong signal encouraging federalism worldwide --- this solves global war and promotes economic growth
Calabresi 95 (Steven G., Assistant Prof Northwestern U., Michigan Law Review, Lexis)
The prevailing wisdom is that the Supreme Court should abstain from enforcing constitutional limits on federal power for reasons of judicial competence and because the Court should spend essentially all its political capital enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment against the states instead. This view is wrong. First, the

rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is

a good thing, and it is the best and most important structural feature of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional federalism, notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. Third, the Supreme Court is institutionally competent to enforce constitutional federalism. Fourth, the Court is at least as qualified to act
in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment area. And, fifth, the doctrine of stare [*831] decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any new, prospectively applicable Commerce Clause case law. The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash in the pan. 232 Elite opinion holds that the future of American constitutional law will involve the continuing elaboration of the Court's national codes on matters like abortion regulation, pornography, rules on holiday displays, and rules on how the states should conduct their own criminal investigations and trials. Public choice theory suggests many reasons why it is likely that the Court will continue to pick on the states and give Congress a free ride. But, it

would be a very good thing for this country if the Court decided to surprise us and continued on its way down the Lopez path. Those of us who comment on the Court's work, whether in the law reviews or in the
newspapers, should encourage the Court to follow the path on which it has now embarked. The country and the world would be a better place if it did. We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary federalism

has swept across the world in recent years. To a significant extent, this is due to global fascination with and emulation of our own American federalism success story. The global trend toward federalism is an enormously positive development that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace, free trade, economic growth, respect for social and cultural diversity, and protection of individual human rights. It depends for its success on the willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief that those deals will be kept. 233 The U.S. Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the future striking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own American federalism deal. Lopez could be a first step in that process, if only the Justices
and the legal academy would wake up to the importance of what is at stake.

Economic stagnation causes global nuclear war

Mead 92 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow Council on Foreign Relations, New Perspectives Quarterly, Summer, p. 30)
The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression- will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have

pinned their hopes on the international market economy.

They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if

the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the
1930's.

K
Taxpayers have a moral right to their income which the aff plan violates the state cant identify social goods that could reimburse income, any social goods identified are delivered inefficiently, taxation destroys social goods anyways, and their evidence is biased towards expanded government. Kuznicki 9 (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects, Research
Fellow and Managing Editor at Cato Unbound [an intellectual think tank publication], prior Production Manager at the Congressional Research Service, Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University, Cato Journal, Book review of The Libertarian Illusion: Ideology, Public Policy, and the Assault on the Common Good, Spring/Summer 2009, Volume 29 Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0de93721-30a4-4513-87f157bf16a8aa5e%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=12, SP) A taxpayer has a moral claim to all of his honestly acquired income. This claim is stronger than that of any other individual or group. Adding the words "state" or "society" to the claims of others does not change this situation in any relevant sense. This is the heart of libertarian thought on taxation. If lowering taxes changes the state's revenue, a libertarian may find this a fortunate or unfortunate side effect, at his discretion. Hudson, however, disagrees not only with Norquist and Laffer, but also with the libertarian moral claim. He writes. The ability that any of us have to earn income and acquire wealth depends only partly on our own individual efforts. It relies as well on the operation of political, economic, and social institutions that make it possible for any of us to "earn a living." . . . Viewed in this light, those deductions from my paycheck can be seen as reimbursement to society for that portion of my earnings derived from social goods [p. 43]. Although social goods clearly are part of everyone's capacity to earn income, it's a precipitous move to say that the state may therefore tax us. It is by no means clear that the state, among all institutions in society, is best equipped to receive that which we offer in gratitude for social goods. It is doubtful that the state could identify the relevant goods, and that it has supplied, or could supply, any but a few of them effectively. It's even doubtful whether the state could know when taxation itself has become destructive of social goods. Indeed, the state's own incentives run toward overassessing its importance, delivering social "goods" that no one wants, and supplying them in comically inefficient ways. Communitarianism appears unfazed by these concerns, and it proposes adding many new government programs that seem equally likely to fall into these same old traps. It seems that our debt to society is never fully paid, but that society, in the form of the state, is always eager to supply us with more. At what point, if any, is my debt to societyor my debt to a certain very earnest intellectual of highminded idealsrepaid? And why do I find myself having to describe productive work in terms that verge on those of criminal justice?

Taxation is theft the state is a system of violence using coercion to gather taxation for the aff plan. Rothbard 81 (Murray N. Dean of the Austrian School of economics. The Cato Journal The Myth of
Neutral Taxation Fall, 1981, pp. 519-564) TS We are now in a position to analyze government and its relationship to the market. Economists have generally depicted the government as a voluntary social institution providing important services to the public. The modern "public choice" theorists have perhaps gone furthest with this approach. Government is considered akin to a business firm, supplying its services to the consumer-voters, while the voters in turn pay voluntarily for these services. All in all, government is treated by conventional

economists as a part of the market, and therefore, as in the case of a business firm or a membership organization, either totally or in part neutral to the market. It is true that if taxation were voluntary and the government akin to a business firm, the government would be neutral to the market. We contend here, however, that the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large. The State is the only legal institution in society that acquires its revenue by the use of coercion, by using enough violence and threat of violence on its victims to ensure their paying the desired tribute. The State benefits itself at the expense of its robbed victims. The State is, therefore, a centralized, regularized organization of theft. Its payments extracted by coercion are called "taxation" instead of tribute, but their nature is the same.

Coercive societies cause violence they polarize social forces, reduce multidimensional fields, de-emphasize peaceful exchange, and make citizens pay in blood and taxes. Rummel 85 (R. J., Professor Emeritus in the Political Science Department at the University of Hawaii,
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Libertarian Propositions on Violence within and between Nations: A Test against Published Research Results, September 1985, Volume 29 Number 3 http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/173944.pdf, SP) The basic principle is that socioeconomic and political freedom, the hallmark of a libertarian society, minimizes violence. As the theoretical understanding of this has been developed elsewhere (Rummel, 1975- 1981, 1983a, 1984),' I need only point out that such a society is a multi- dimensional field of diverse social forces-some intersecting, some opposing, some overlapping. The net effect is to crosspressure interests, to cross-cut status and classes, and thus inhibit the growth of societywide violence. As a society becomes more authoritarian or coercive, however, the spontaneity of a social field declines, social forces become polarized, the multidimensionality of interests is reduced. Interests and issues begin to revolve around a single dimension: one's political power. The dividing line between the "ins" and "outs" becomes a conflict front across society along which extreme violence can occur. At this theoretical level, then, the key ideas are that of a social field, cross-pressures, and polarization. At a less abstract level, there are the explanations common to liberal scholars: the aggregating and compromising, and therefore conflict- reducing, effects of competitive party systems; the institutionalization of societywide conflict resolution through competitive politics and the ballot ("the ballot replaces the bullet"); the formalization and regulation of conflict and violence (e.g., labormanagement collective bargaining laws); the democratic emphasis on exchange instead of authority and coercion; the unwillingness of democratic majorities to pay in blood and taxes for the foreign adventures of a political elite.

Infringements on liberty must be rejected at all costs or we forfeit to totalitarianism. Petro, Toledo Law Review, 1974 (Sylvester, Spring, page 480)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Dijas. In sum, if one believed in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

We must take every chance to battle for libertarian freedom. Bicksler 9 (James L., Professor in Finance and Economic at Rutgers University at the Rutgers Business
School, International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Classical libertarianism: The economic perspectives of Milton Friedman including his likely views on the proper role of government in the subprime mortgage debacle, 2009, Volume 6 Issue 1 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5252cd7e-08a6-444c-a76864b61efc7de3%40sessionmgr15&vid=4&hid=18, SP) The quest and battle for economic, political and civic freedoms is never won in a finality sense. It is a day-to-day, meaning an ongoing battle, where new challenges and variations of old arguments and fallacies for collectivism and its policies arise. The particular issue on the battleground for freedom and its implications for freedom changes over time.

T
A. Interpretation- Space development refers to peaceful activities, including research and technology expansion and exploration of outer space - most contextual

SDPA 2005 (Space Development Promotion Act of the Republic of Korea, Journal of Space Law, 33, 5-31,
http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/library/space/Korea/Laws/33jsl175.pdf) AV Article 1 (Purpose) This Act is aimed at facilitating the peaceful use and scientific exploration of outer space and contributing to national security, the sound development of national economy and the improvement of peoples living, by promoting space development in a systematic way and ensuring the efficient use and administration of space objects Definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows: (a) The term space development means one of the following: (i) Research and technology development activities related to design, production, launch, operation, etc. of space objects; (ii) Use and exploration of outer space and activities to facilitate them; (b) The term space development project means a project to promote space development or a project to pursue the development of education, technology, information, industry, etc. related to space development; (c) The term space object means an object designed and manufactured for use in outer
space, including a launch vehicle, a satellite, a space ship and their components; (d) The term space accident means an occurrence of damage to life, body or property due to crash, collision or explosion of a space object or other situation; (e) The term satellite information means image, voice, sound or data acquired by using a satellite, or in formation made of their combination, including processed or applied information.

B. Violation- The aff increases development of non-peaceful activities. C. Standards1. Limits- There is an unlimited amount of weapons that can be put in space and non-peaceful activities for space. Our definition limits the topic to a reasonable amount of affs. 2. Education- The literature on non-peaceful uses of space is minimal we learn more going in-depth in peaceful uses of space. 3. Ground- Our definition allows for in-depth debates and stable ground for each team on peaceful uses of space, allowing non-peaceful uses takes away neg ground because there is no literature and thousands of different weapons we could debate. D. Topicality is a voter for jurisdiction and the reasons above. Prefer competing interpretations over reasonability because reasonability is arbitrary and leads to judge intervention.

Case
First, on Inherency, Air force launching ORS satellites now
SMSCPA, 2011Center at the Kirtland Air Force Base; directed the ORS satellite launch operation [Space and Missile Systems Center's
Public Affairs, ORS-1 satellite successfully launched into space, 7/5/2011, http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123262656] Los Angles AFB, Calif. -- The U.S.

Air Force successfully launched the first Operationally Responsive Space prototype satellite aboard a Minotaur I launch vehicle on June 29, at 9:09 p.m. MDT, from Pad 0B at the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Spaceport, a facility owned by the Virginia Commercial Flight Authority, located at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va.

ORS-1 deployed 12 minutes after launch. This marks a great achievement by the Space and Missile Systems Center's Space Development and Test Directorate and the Operationally Responsive Space Office, both located at Kirtland AFB, as well as their contractor teams. ORS-1 is the Operationally Responsive Space Office's first operational prototype satellite and represents the potential of low-cost, tactically focused satellites designed to provide critical battlespace awareness capabilities to the joint warfighter. "Words
cannot express how proud I am of the entire ORS-1 team," said Col. Carol Welsch, SMC/SD Acting Director and ORS-1 Mission Director. "The men and women of the Space Development and Test Directorate, the Operationally Responsive Space Office, and our industry partners of Goodrich, ATK, and Orbital have all worked tirelessly to move forward on the concept of a responsive space capability designed to support the warfighter. Their teamwork and dedication is simply inspiring." Rapidly

developing and fielding ORS-1 is an important step to demonstrating the possibilities to meet emerging and persistent warfighter needs in operationally relevant timelines. "Our team was able to develop, integrate, test and launch this system in just over 30 months which is a remarkable
achievement," said Colonel Welsch.

On space dominance, there are literally no challengers, space is not key. Edelman 10 (Eric S. Edelman has served in senior positions at the White House and the Departments of State and Defense, including
postings as U.S. ambassador to Finland and Turkey. He is currently a distinguished fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, for which he produced a longer version of this article. The Broken Consensus: America's Contested Primacy http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/articles/2010-NovDec/full-Edelman-ND-2010.html //Donnie) Its important to remember that American

decline will not be determined purely by economic gains or losses. The future shape of the international system will depend more on broader measures of national power than percentage shares of global production. Factors like GDP, population, defense spending, and a variety of other criteria should also be taken into account. The key variable would seem to be the efficiency and effectiveness with which nations convert resources into usable hard and soft power. At
least as important as the objective measures of national power are the subjective assessments by international statesmen and military leaders of the international distribution of power. Those

judgments are inevitably affected by a range of cultural, psychological, bureaucratic, and political factors. It is worth asking how the putative competitors stack up on some of these dimensions. Europe. Over the years, most declinist predictions have assumed that a united Europe would be a key component of a multipolar world. But even before the current economic crisis began to take the wind out of Europes sails, the EU had failed to translate its economic clout into global political power. Continued dependence on the United States security guarantee may have allowed Europeans to spend less for their own security, but it also diminished their capacity to project power. Moreover, Europes mixture of a graying population with a growing percentage of immigrants will exacerbate its economic and social problems, making it highly unlikely its military power will increaseor even be wielded outside of Europe. Even if the old powers were able to surmount these demographic trends, the political challenges of deeper and more extensive European integration remain. As Global Trends 2025 suggests, the EU could well become a hobbled giant distracted by internal bickering and competing national agendas, and less able to translate its economic clout into global influence. Japan. In the 1970s and 1980s it was widely assumed that Japan would join Europe as part of an emerging multipolar world in which the United States would be cut down to size. Rather than scaling the heights of global economic dominance, however, Japan entered a decade of deep recession, economic stagnation, income loss, high levels of unemployment, and political drift as its asset bubble burst. Today, Japan barely figures in the discussions of what comes next for two reasons: the lost decade of stagnation,

compounded by the current recession, and daunting demographics in the form of a wave of aging that is not only larger than that of any other developed country but also approaching much faster. Brazil. Will Brazil fill the vacuum left by Japans own
undisputed decline? Its rise to great-power status has certainly been anticipated for years. Brazil combines high growth with democracy, relatively tranquil domestic politics, varied exports, and a business climate relatively welcoming to foreign investors. On the regional level, Brazil has

already played a leading role in managing hemispheric security issues like the crises in Haiti and more recently in Honduras; however, as the National Intelligence Council suggests, a more global role would appear to be a bit of a stretch given the countrys economic and social vulnerabilities. There is a vast gap separating the rich from the poor, and Brazil trails other large developing countries in levels of educational attainment, spending on research, and infrastructure development. Violent crime is endemic. The country suffers from chronic underinvestment, and government spending is growing at an alarming pace. Regulations and labor laws have grown complicated and constraining, and there are chronic fears about the countrys finances. If anything, Brazil after Lula could be a prime candidate to forge a stronger relationship with the U.S. in order to ease its successful integration into the global economy and establish it as an alternative to the populist, anti-globalization agenda promoted by Venezuelas Hugo Chvez. Russia. Russias prospects put it in a different category than the other BRIC countries because its catastrophic demographic situation is a powerful limitation and suggests Russia is a declining rather than a rising power. Nicholas Eberstadt has described Russias contemporary demographic disaster in these pages as only the most recent episode of population decline in the past hundred years, albeit the first not resulting from revolution, forced collectivization, or war (but rather from the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union). Demographic and health-related limits on military manpower are likely to compel Russia into continued, long-term reliance on nuclear weapons as the only conceivable counterbalance to foreign military power. Its conventional forces, while posing a limited threat to former parts of the Soviet empire such as Ukraine and Georgia, will be a decreasing concern at the global level, and without a concerted effort at modernization, Russias economy will likely face a secular decline. India. In 2004, the NICs Mapping the Global Future report identified India as a rising power along with China. At current rates of growth, India will surpass China sometime after 2025 as the country with the worlds largest population. India has been averaging about five percent economic growth per year for the last decade, and forecasts for the future are bright. Economic success is also generating increased military capability, and India is likely to be one of the most lucrative markets for arms exports in the years ahead. But the country is also beset by an array of demographic, economic, social, political, and security problems that are daunting, to say the least. Still, even if the most bullish projections for India do not come to pass, it is clearly a country on an upward trajectory. Exactly what kind of great power India will become remains a matter of some debate. Because of its colonial background,
national sovereignty issues are particularly sensitive, but India seems a strong candidate for an enhanced relationship with the United States. Both countries share democratic values and, at least among the elite in India, the English language. India and the United States also share the same strategic preoccupations: both are worried about the activities of Islamist extremists and the rise of China. Although the development of a U.S.-Indian strategic partnership will not come easily or quickly given past differences, such an outcome is more likely than the emergence of India as a peer competitor. China. That leaves China, whose rise has attracted more attention than that of any of the other BRIC countries. It has unseated Japan as the worlds second-largest economy and will, according to the New York Times, surpass the U.S. as early as 2030. The global recession has barely put a dent in Chinas ascent. Chinese officials have been at pains to assure one and all that they have no aspirations of hegemony or dominion over other countries. Chinas

intentions and aims, however, may become more expansive as its power increases, and its increasingly assertive international behavior has begun to trouble many. But China too has many significant challenges to overcome. The strong hold of the state on the economy and the patronage relationships that link the party and state to major industries have generated massive waste and inefficiencies in the economy. Rising income inequality and arbitrary abuses of authority have created a combustible mix of socioeconomic tension and unrest, to the point that increasing levels of social protest have become an everyday occurrence. Chinas demography,
however, may

present the countrys leaders with the most intractable issues of all. In the next decade and a half,

Chinas population will stop growing and begin to decline. The proportion of elderly to working-age individuals will also shift, giving China a so-called 4-2-1 population structure in which one child will have to support two parents and four grandparents. Chinas approaching demographic shifts will also

intersect with a growing gender imbalance in which males vastly outnumber females in the younger portions of the population as an indirect result of the one-child policy. In fact, the potential for a perfect storm of economic, demographic, and social unrest has led some observers to conjecture that China, far from being a rising power, is actually on the verge of collapse. For the moment, however, China must be seen as a strong competitor, in particular because its economic advance has enabled it to amass significant and growing military capabilities. Even if the country experiences turbulence, it will continue to be assertive, although it is hard to know exactly what form that new assertiveness will take. Some suggest that Chinas increasing economic and military strength
will drive a contest for power in the region and a long-term strategic competition with the United States. Others believe Chinas increased interaction with multilateral institutions will help it integrate peacefully into the international system as a responsible stakeholder. Much will depend on the ideas that China develops about its global role. The increasing discussion of the decline of the United States, and the West more broadly, could have an impact on the attitudes of Chinese leaders and the methods they employ in accomplishing their international objectives. Americas

moment of unipolarity has been based on a singular fact: the United States is the first leading state in modern international history with decisive preponderance in all the underlying components of power: economy, military, technology, and geopolitics. All of its competitors face
internal and external security challenges that are as or more serious than Americas own. Japan faces not only
economic and demographic challenges, but also a rising China and a de facto nuclear-armed failing state, North Korea. India has domestic violence, insurgencies in bordering countries, and a persistent security dilemma in the form of China. Demographic challenges will be particularly acute for Europe, Japan, and Russia in the areas of military manpower and economic growth. China, India, Brazil, and Russia all suffer from significant regional disparities that have led, or could lead, to social unrest and political instability. Europe faces the

challenge of incorporating the new members of the EU into its institutional structures against a backdrop of a major economic slump. The United States, by contrast, has several underappreciated sources of national

power and continued advantage. As Samuel P. Huntington has noted, U.S. power flows from its structural position in world
politics . . . geographically distant from most major areas of world conflict as well as from being involved in a historically uniquely diversified network of alliances. Natural resources

are another area of advantage for the United States. Agriculture has been a bastion of American competitiveness, and Americas farmers and producers have never been more efficient or productive than they are today. The media may have lavished a great deal of attention on U.S. dependence on imported oila true strategic liabilitybut they have neglected its abundant coal and gas resources. In fact, the United States (combined with Canada) trails only the Middle East in the overall
wealth of its energy resources.

International co-operation checks your impacts from escalating. Mason 9 (Professor David S. Mason teaches U.S. politics, society and foreign policy, international politics, and
comparative politics (especially European) at Butler University in Indianapolis. Response to Essays by Joseph Nye and M.D. Nalapat http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=194 //Donnie) American decline is not necessarily a bad thing, though, given the increasing interconnectedness of countries and global issues. It will be easier for the United States to interact cooperatively with other countries-and for them to deal with Washington-if the U.S. is not so dominant and domineering. President Obama has adopted a much more conciliatory and modest approach to other countries-viz. his speeches in Ankara and Cairo-and this befits a country that has less reason to crow about its superiority and exceptionalism. As Professor Nye points out, most of the big issues facing the U.S., and the rest of the world, are not susceptible to the application of power by a single country. More things are ''outside the control of even the most powerful state.''

Space leadership guts US soft power Brown 9 (Trevor (BA, Indiana University; MSc, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University [Singapore])
is a new author interested in political, economic, and military strategy for the medium of space.vor, is a Soft Power and Space Weaponization http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html //Donnie)

Evidently, rhetoric emanating from the United States regarding space has made members of the international community suspicious that America could bar them from the medium on nothing more than a whim. Such apprehensions unnecessarily contribute to further reductions in soft power. The United States should
take care to ensure that other nations receive the impression that it has no intention of hindering their peaceful use of space. If those countries find current US space supremacy tolerable, then perhaps in time they could endure the United States possession of weapons if

this were a significant aspect of US primacy in space and maintenance of the status quo. But if US rhetoric and

posturing leave other nations with the belief that the United States has stratagems for orbital despotism, then the international system will hesitate to look to it for leadership. Furthermore, even if most nations cannot compete in space, they will nevertheless do whatever they can to oppose the United States. Soft power key to heg, internal link turns your advantage. Nye 4 (Joseph S., Professor of International Relations at Harvard. Soft Power and American Foreign Policy, Summer 2004, Political Science
Quarterly, Volume 119, Issue 2; page 255, proquest, download date: 9-21-07)

In the global information age, the attractiveness of the United States will be crucial to our ability to achieve the outcomes we want. Rather than having to put together pick-up coalitions of the willing for each new game, we will
benefit if we are able to attract others into institutional alliances and eschew weakening those we have already created. NATO, for example, not only aggregates the capabilities of advanced nations, but its interminable committees, procedures, and exercises also allow these nations to train together and quickly become interoperable when a crisis occurs. As

for alliances, if the United States is an attractive source of security and reassurance, other countries will set their expectations in directions that are conducive to our interests. Initially, for example, the U.S.-Japan security treaty was not very popular in Japan, but polls show that
over the decades, it became more attractive to the Japanese public. Once that happened, Japanese politicians began to build it into their approaches to foreign policy. The

United States benefits when it is regarded as a constant and trusted source of attraction so that other countries are not obliged continually to re-examine their options in an atmosphere of uncertain coalitions. In the Japan case, broad acceptance of the United States by the Japanese public "contributed
to the maintenance of US hegemony" and "served as political constraints compelling the ruling elites to continue cooperation with the United States."18 Popularity can contribute to stability. Finally, as the RAND Corporation's John Arquila and David Ronfeldt argue, power in an information age will come not only from strong defenses but also from strong sharing. A traditional realpolitik mindset makes it difficult to share with others. But

in an information age, such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases their inclination to do so. As we share intelligence and capabilities with others, we develop common outlooks and approaches that improve our ability to deal with the new challenges. Power flows from that attraction. Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely ephemeral popularity ignores key insights from new theories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age. We cannot afford that.