Sie sind auf Seite 1von 31

Politics Neg

Top Level

1NC Uniqueness
TPA and TPP will pass, PC is key
Hickey 12/31/14 (Jennifer, freelance writer and communications consultant, Obama Eyes Smoother Ride in New Congress
on Trade Deals )

The silver lining for President Barack Obama in the dark cloud of the 2014 midterm elections is
that with Republicans holding control of Congress, chances to move forward on approval of trade
promotion authority (TPA) and other key trade deals have greatly improved.
One of the top items on the administration's agenda is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a
comprehensive trade deal that is in its fifth year of intense negotiations, and has seen deadlines to
reach agreement pass by the last three years. With little hope of pushing a major trade deal through Congress
during a presidential election year, supporters and opponents recognize the coming
year is critical.
This is an all-hands-on-deck moment for the administration. They need to get out and educate
members and address the concerns they might have. Ive been advising colleagues who are skeptical and not supportive of trade to at
least engage in conversations and feedback, Democrat Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who is pro-trade, told The Washington Post.
A sign of the importance the administration places on achieving progress on the trade front is that U.S. Trade Representative
Michael B. Froman and his staff
according to The New York Times.

have held 1,500 meetings on Capitol Hill to push for TPP and TPA,

If signed, the TPP would become the largest trade deal ever passed. The deal would ease trade
barriers between the U.S. and 12 Asian nations that together comprise close to 40 percent of the
worlds GDP.
In working to secure its passage, one of Froman's key allies on Capitol Hill will be incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who indicated
after the election his willingness to work with Obama.
Ive got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America and the president and I discussed that right before
I came over here. I think hes interested in moving forward. I said, send us trade agreements, were anxious to look at them, said McConnell in
November, according to U.S. News & World Report.

Obama told the Business Roundtable earlier this month that he has committed to actively pushing
for trade deals and is confident that the TPP, as well as a trade deal with Europe, can be
achieved in the next year.
If he is to be successful, he must first take on members within the Democrat caucus.
it will help persuade wavering Democrats that supporting it is
the right thing to do and because it will demonstrate to Republicans that the president is willing to
wade into the fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch told Reuters.
"It should help move TPA along both because

With TPA's primary opponent, outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

no longer controlling the agenda,

the path forward for TPA, or "fast track" trade authority, is much smoother.
It also is one of the priorities of incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch.

TPA and advancing other parts of our trade agenda also represents an opportunity
for a fully Republican Congress to work with the administration. So, trade will almost certainly take up much of
the Finance Committees agenda as next year gets underway," said Hatch recently during a Financial Services Roundtable event, The
Hill reported.

The real challenge for Froman and supporters of trade will be to overcome opposition coming from
Democrats and their allies in the labor and environmental left-wing of their party.

Sparks global trade prevents backsliding to protectionism
Economist 2/22/14 [The Economist 2-22, How to make the world $600 billion poorer,
2/22/14 (Print Edition),]
IN JULY 2008 Barack Obama, then a candidate for the presidency, declared before an adoring crowd in Berlin that true
partnership and true progress [require] constant work and sustained sacrifice. So it is with free

trade. If not championed

by leaders who understand its broad benefits, it will constantly be eroded by narrow economic
nationalism. Mr Obama now appears to be surrendering to protectionists within his own party. If he cannot drag
Democrats back to their senses, the world will lose its best opportunity in two decades for a
burst of liberalisation. It will also be a signal that America is giving up its role as defender
of an open global economy in the same way that Mr Obama has retreated in foreign policy.
Mr Obama did little to promote free trade during his first term, but has seemed bolder in his second. He launched America

into ambitious new deals with large Pacific economies and the European Union, breathing
new life into global trade talks. Momentum built up; the constant work and sacrifice paid dividends. Members of
the World Trade Organisation agreed on a package of trade reforms in Decemberthe first truly multilateral deal in the
organisations 20-year history. Diplomats credit

the White Houses new resolve for helping to bring

stubborn parties to the table. Progress suddenly seemed possible in other areas, such as
liberalising trade in services and information technology, and reducing barriers to the exchange
of environmental goods and services, which would make it cheaper to curb carbon
First, shoot yourself in the foot. Then repeat
The hitch is that Congress

must approve trade agreements. Previous presidents had the advantage of

fast-track trade promotion authority, which let them present deals to Congress for a simple yes or no vote. Without it,
lawmakers can wreck carefully negotiated deals with toxic amendments. No country would engage in serious
talks with America under such circumstances. Fast-track is therefore essentialand elusive. Congress last granted it in
2002; it expired in 2007. The Obama administration blithely asserted that Congress would renew it, but many lawmakers, primarily
Democrats, have signed letters opposing it. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has all but ruled out a vote this year. And on
February 14th Joe Biden, the vice-president, told a gathering of Democratic leaders that he understood their opposition. The White
House appears to have given up with scarcely a fight. A fast-track vote before Novembers mid-term elections seems unlikely (see
Why panic about this? Tactically, it could just be another piece of Washington politicking: some

optimists claim that

Congress will return after the mid-terms ready to back fast-track, providing Mr Obama allows some
boilerplate language in the bill chiding China for allegedly manipulating its currency. Others wonder whether the trade deals are
really so vital. Indeed, the idea that they will not do much to help the economy is one excuse for Democrats undermining their
In fact, the deals on the table are big. Reasonable estimates say that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could boost the worlds annual output by $600 billionequivalent to adding another Saudi
Arabia. Some $200 billion of that would accrue to America. And the actual gains could be even larger. The agreements would clear
the way for freer trade in services, which account for most of rich countries GDP but only a small share of trade. Opening up trade in
services could help reduce the cost of everything from shipping to banking, education and health care. Exposing professional
occupations to the same global competition that factory workers have faced for decades could even strike a blow against the income
inequality that Mr Obama so often decries.

Tactically, even a short delay could prove fatal to both deals. Pacific negotiations have been
extended while America and Japan hammer out compromises on agriculture. Why should Japanese politicians risk infuriating their
farmers when any agreement can be torn up on Capitol Hill? The deal with the EU was meant to be done swiftlyperhaps in as little

as two yearsto keep politics from mucking it up. Europes

leaders will now doubt Americas commitment,

given how feebly Mr Obama has fought for fast-track. Trade sceptics, such as French farmers, are drooling.
Angela Merkel, Germanys chancellor, who is already furious about American spying, may decide that a trade deal is not worth
battling for.

The greatest risk of all is that the political momentum in America, having swung against
free trade, will be hard to reverse. Some Tea Party Republicans oppose fast-track because they are loth to grant Mr
Obama the authority to do anything. Democrats, keen to brand themselves as the anti-inequality party, may find economic
nationalism an easy sell on the campaign stump: and, once pledged to that cause in November, candidates will not vote for the
opposite in Congress.
And for this Mr Obama deserves some blame. He is far more ardent in bemoaning inequality than in explaining why an American
retreat from the world would be the wrong way to address it. He seldom mentions, for example, that cheap imports help the poor by
cutting their shopping bills, and so reduce inequality of consumption.
Its not a zero-sum world

There is nothing inevitable about globalisation. Governments have put up barriers

beforewith disastrous consequences during the 1930sand could do so again. So it is
alarming when America, the mainstay of an open global economy, gives off isolationist signals.
Only recently Congress childishly refused to honour an agreed-upon increase in Americas financial commitment to the
International Monetary Fund. The Federal Reserve is pushing forward with new banking regulations that could penalise foreign
banks and further Balkanise global finance (see article). Mr Obama continues to delay approval of a critical oil pipeline from Canada,
and is slow to grant permits to export American natural gas.

cannot turn inward, the Obama of 2008 said in Berlin. The Obama of 2014 is now responding: Yes we

Flips the aff & global war

Panzer 7Michael J. Panzner, Faculty Member specializing in Equities, Trading, Global
Capital Markets and Technical Analysis at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of
the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in New York and London for
HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and J.P. Morgan Chase, 2007 (Geopolitics,
Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes,
Published by Kaplan Publishing, ISBN 141959608X, p. 136-138)

Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other
nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great
Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic
downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during
the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and
immigration will almost certainly intensify. [end page 136]
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may
even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other
countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies,
they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure
assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on
investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement,
and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending.
In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfoliobased risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise
facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.

The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and
dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as

factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether
involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies
will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes

over the misuse,

overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace.
Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal
provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts
that stem from cultural and religious [end page 137] differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert
attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward
other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American
retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks,
bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level.
Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations
running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will
likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark
on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a
dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John
Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an intense confrontation between the United
States and China is inevitable at some point.

More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious
differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering
resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering
genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many
will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new
world war.
As events unfold, unsettling geopolitical tensions and the continuing economic collapse will weigh
heavily on the familiar routines of everyday life, forcing many Americans to wonder when, or if, it will
ever end.

2NC Trade Overview

Protectionism outweighs the case
a) Conflict escalationskewed supply and demand will cause tensions over
resourcescultural and religious differences will be exacerbated by economic
conditionsminimal provocation can escalate to full-scale military encounters
thats Panzer
b) Escalates to great power wars
Patrick 9 (Stewart, senior fellow and director of the Program on International Institutions and
Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Protecting Free Trade, March 13,

In the 1930s, global recession had catastrophic political consequences-in part because policymakers took exactly the wrong
approach. Starting

with America's own Smoot Hawley Tariff of 1930, the world's major trading nations
tried to insulate themselves by adopting inward looking protectionist and discriminatory
policies. The result was a vicious, self-defeating cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation. As states took refuge in
prohibitive tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies and competitive devaluations, international commerce devolved into a desperate
competition for dwindling markets. Between 1929 and 1933, the value of world trade plummeted from $50 billion to $15 billion.

Global economic activity went into a death spiral, exacerbating the depth and length of the Great
Depression. The economic consequences of protectionism were bad enough. The political consequences were worse. As Hull
recognized, global economic fragmentation lowered standards of living, drove unemployment
higher and increased poverty-accentuating social upheaval and leaving destitute populations "easy prey to dictators and
desperadoes." The rise of Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy and militarism in Japan is
impossible to divorce from the economic turmoil, which allowed demagogic leaders to mobilize
support among alienated masses nursing nationalist grievances. Open economic warfare
poisoned the diplomatic climate and exacerbated great power rivalries, raising, in Hull's view,
"constant temptation to use force, or threat of force, to obtain what could have been got through normal processes of
trade." Assistant Secretary William Clayton agreed: "Nations which act as enemies in the marketplace cannot long be friends at the
council table." This is what makes growing protectionism and discrimination among the world's major trading powers today so
alarming. In 2008 world trade declined for the first time since 1982. And despite their pledges, seventeen G-20 members have
adopted significant trade restrictions. "Buy American" provisions in the U.S. stimulus package have been matched by similar
measures elsewhere, with the EU ambassador to Washington declaring that "Nobody will take this lying down." Brussels has
resumed export subsidies to EU dairy farmers and restricted imports from the United States and China. Meanwhile, India is
threatening new tariffs on steel imports and cars; Russia has enacted some thirty new tariffs and export subsidies. In a sign of the
global mood, WTO antidumping cases are up 40 percent since last year. Even less blatant forms of economic nationalism, such as
banks restricting lending to "safer" domestic companies, risk shutting down global capital flows and exacerbating the current crisis.
If unchecked, such economic

nationalism could raise diplomatic tensions among the world's major

powers. At particular risk are U.S. relations with China, Washington's most important bilateral interlocutor in
the twenty-first century. China has called the "Buy American" provisions "poison"-not exactly how the Obama administration wants
to start off the relationship. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's ill-timed comments about China's currency "manipulation"
and his promise of an "aggressive" U.S. response were not especially helpful either, nor is Congress' preoccupation with "unfair"
Chinese trade and currency practices. For its part, Beijing has responded to the global slump by rolling back some of the liberalizing
reforms introduced over the past thirty years. Such practices, including state subsidies, collide with the spirit and sometimes the law
of open trade. The Obama

administration must find common ground with Beijing on a coordinated

response, or risk retaliatory protectionism that could severely damage both economies and
escalate into political confrontation. A trade war is the last thing the United States needs, given that China holds $1
trillion of our debt and will be critical to solving flashpoints ranging from Iran to North Korea. In the 1930s, authoritarian greatpower governments responded to the global downturn by adopting more nationalistic and aggressive policies. Today, the economic
crisis may well fuel rising nationalism and regional assertiveness in emerging countries. Russia is a case in point. Although some
predict that the economic crisis will temper Moscow's international ambitions, evidence for such geopolitical modesty is slim to date.
Neither the collapse of its stock market nor the decline in oil prices has kept Russia from flexing its muscles from Ukraine to
Kyrgyzstan. While some expect the economic crisis to challenge Putin's grip on power, there is no guarantee that Washington will
find any successor regime less nationalistic and aggressive. Beyond

generating great power antagonism,

misguided protectionism could also exacerbate political upheaval in the developing world. As
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently testified, the downturn has already aggravated political instability in a quarter
of the world's nations. In

many emerging countries, including important players like South Africa, Ukraine and Mexico,
political stability rests on a precarious balance. Protectionist policies could well push developing
economies and emerging market exporters over the edge. In Pakistan, a protracted economic crisis could
precipitate the collapse of the regime and fragmentation of the state. No surprise, then, that President Obama is the first U.S.
president to receive a daily economic intelligence briefing, distilling the security implications of the global crisis. What guidance
might Cordell Hull give to today's policymakers? To

avoid a protectionist spiral and its political spillovers, the

United States must spearhead multilateral trade liberalization involving all major developed and
developing countries.
c) Prefer our studies
Hillebrand 10Professor of Diplomacy @ University of Kentucky and a Senior
Economist for the Central Intelligence Agency. [Evan E. Hillebrand, Deglobalization Scenarios:
Who Wins? Who Loses? Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2 2010]
A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797) to Angell (1907) to Gartzke (2003) have theorized that economic

interdependence can lower the likelihood of war. Cruce thought that free trade enriched a society in general and so
made people more peaceable; Kant thought that trade shifted political power away from the more warlike aristocracy, and Angell
thought that economic interdependence shifted cost/benefit calculations in a peace-promoting direction. Gartzke contends that
trade relations enhance transparency among nations and thus help avoid bargaining miscalculations. There has also been a
tremendous amount of empirical

research that mostly supports the idea of an inverse relationship

between trade and war. Jack Levy said that, While there are extensive debates over the proper research designs for
investigating this question, and while some empirical studies find that trade is associated with international conflict, most
studies conclude that trade is associated with peace, both at the dyadic and systemic levels (Levy,
2003, p. 127). There is another important line of theoretical and empirical work called Power Transition Theory that focuses on the
relative power of states and warns that when rising powers approach the power level of their regional or global leader the chances of
war increase (Tammen, Lemke, et al, 2000). Jacek Kugler (2006) warns that the rising power of China relative to the United States
greatly increases the chances of great power war some time in the next few decades. The IFs model combines the theoretical and
empirical work of the peace-throughtrade tradition with the work of the power transition scholars in an attempt to forecast the
probability of interstate war. Hughes (2004) explains how he, after consulting with scholars in both camps, particularly Edward
Mansfield and Douglas Lemke, estimated the starting probabilities for each dyad based on the historical record, and then forecast
future probabilities for dyadic militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) and wars based on the calibrated relationships he derived from
the empirical literature. The probability of a MID, much less a war, between any random dyad in any given year is very low, if not
zero. Paraguay and Tanzania, for example, have never fought and are very unlikely to do so. But there have been thousands of MIDs
in the past and hundreds of wars and many of the 16,653 dyads have nonzero probabilities. In 2005 the mean probability of a
country being involved in at least one war was estimated to be 0.8%, with 104 countries having a probability of at least 1 war
approaching zero. A dozen countries12, however, have initial probabilities over 3%. The

globalization scenario projects

that the probability for war will gradually decrease through 2035 for every countrybut not every
dyad--that had a significant (greater than 0.5%) chance of war in 2005 (Table 6). The decline in prospects for
war stems from the scenarios projections of rising levels of democracy, rising incomes, and rising trade
interdependenceall of these factors figure in the algorithm that calculates the probabilities. Not all dyadic war probabilities
decrease, however, because of the power transition mechanism that is also included in the IFs model. The probability for war
between China and the US, for example rises as Chinas power13 rises gradually toward the US level but in these calculations the

probability of a China/US war never gets very high.14 Deglobalization raises the risks of war
substantially. In a world with much lower average incomes, less democracy, and less trade interdependence, the average
probability of a country having at least one war in 2035 rises from 0.6% in the globalization scenario to 3.7% in the deglobalization
scenario. Among the top-20 war-prone countries, the average probability rises from 3.9% in the globalization scenario to 7.1% in the
deglobalization scenario. The model estimates that in

the deglobalization scenario there will be about 10 wars

in 2035, vs. only 2 in the globalization scenario15. Over the whole period, 2005-2035, the model predicts four great
power wars in the deglobalization scenario vs. 2 in the globalization scenario.16 IV. Winners and Losers Deglobalization in the form
of reduced trade interdependence, reduced capital flows, and reduced migration has few positive effects, based on this analysis with
the International Futures Model. Economic growth is cut in all but a handful of countries, and is cut more in the non-OECD
countries than in the OECD countries. Deglobalization has a mixed impact on equality. In many non-OECD countries, the cut in

imports from the rest of the world increases the share of manufacturing and in 61 countries raises the share of income going to the
poor. But since average productivity goes down in almost all countries, this gain in equality comes at the expense of reduced incomes
and increased poverty in almost all countries. The only winners are a small number of countries that were small and poor and not
well integrated in the global economy to begin withand the

gains from deglobalization even for them are very

small. Politically, deglobalization makes for less stable domestic politics and a greater likelihood
of war. The likelihood of state failure through internal war, projected to diminish through 2035 with increasing
globalization, rises in the deglobalization scenario particularly among the non-OECD democracies. Similarly,
deglobalization makes for more fractious relations among states and the probability for
interstate war rises.
d) Quick retaliation1930s provesimmediately after Smoot-Hawley, dozens of
other nations passed protectionist policies this immediately causes economic


2NC Will Pass Wall

TPA will pass administration push will show republicans Obama is not a lame
duck and push presidentialist democrats to vote for fast track.
A) Reid has backed off and Obamas continued support will break the logjam on
democrats and republicans
Reuters 12/3/14 (Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority,
(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday committed

to urge lawmakers to back a bill giving

trade deals a fast track through Congress, an effort some think could break a logjam on the
issue and help secure major agreements under negotiation.
Speaking to business leaders, he

acknowledged differences within his own Democratic Party on free

trade agreements that he supports and said he would also make the case to unions that trade
brought benefits for workers.
A bill to give the Obama administration so-called fast-track power, which would allow only yes-or-no votes on trade deals in
Congress without amendments, has been stuck all year.

Obama said he planned to speak to congressional leaders on both sides to make "a strong case
on the merits of why this has to get done."
Trade experts said personal intervention by the president would boost support for trade
promotion authority, or TPA, in Congress, where there is opposition from some Republicans as well as

should help move TPA along both because it will help persuade wavering Democrats that
will demonstrate to Republicans that the president is
willing to wade into the fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said.
supporting it is the right thing to do and because it

Analysts say fast-track

authority would persuade other countries to make their best offers during
negotiations, secure in the knowledge that any pact could not be reopened by Congress.
Obama said free trade is "tough politics" among some lawmakers because many Americans feel their wages and
income have stagnated as a result of foreign trade.

B) Its a unique area for cooperation that lame duck Obama wants to cash in on
before leaving office.
Needham 12/15/14 (Vicki, The Hill, Hatch says trade an area where GOP, Obama can work together,
A top Senate Republican said on Monday that tackling

trade policy represents a way for a Republicancontrolled Congress and the White House to work together on an ambitious
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is expected to take the helm of the Senate Finance Committee, said passing trade promotion
authority (TPA) is not only an avenue to completing two massive trade deals the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) but is a place where Republicans can work with President Obama.


TPA and advancing other parts of our trade agenda also represents an opportunity
for a fully Republican Congress to work with the administration," he said during remarks at a
Financial Services Roundtable event.
"So, trade

will almost certainly take up much of the Finance Committees agenda as next year gets
Supporters argue that the 12-nation TPP, which includes nations from Chile to Japan, and the efforts between the U.S. and the
European Union to forge a trade deal are key to boosting the nation's economic growth.
Hatch said without TPA, also known as fast-track, "these efforts to expand market access will not succeed."

Fast-track allows Congress to vote on trade deals on up or down votes and without amendment.
Last week, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said

trade issues will continue to require both

parties in the next Congress.

Froman said that the

Obama administration has been comforted by the messages we've heard

from Republican leadership on their desire to work together on trade.
C) Republican controlled congress, but PC is still key.
Maruyama & Kyle 12/18/14 (Warren & Robert, The Hill, Republican control of Senate boosts prospects for TPA and

Republican gains in U.S. mid-term elections on November 4, including Republican control of the Senate, boosted
prospects for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), although it will not happen in the lame duck session and remains far from a
sure thing.
TPA, formerly known as the fast-track, gives the president authority to submit trade agreements to the Congress for an up-ordown vote on approval within specific time limits as long as the president consults closely with the Congress during the negotiations
and achieves certain negotiating objectives. Originally enacted in the Trade Act of 1974, TPA strikes a balance between (1) Congress
ultimate authority to regulate trade under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, (2) the need for a mechanism to assure U.S.
trading partners that the president has authority from the Congress to negotiate trade agreements that necessarily will include a mix
of both gains for U.S. exports as well as U.S. concessions that may generate political opposition. TPA ensures that the agreement
will be voted on and treated as a package. While Congress has given TPA to the President for various trade negotiations, the last
grant of such authority lapsed in June 2007 and has not been renewed. This has been an impediment in TPP, since it is not clear
whether the president can deliver the Congress on any deal that is struck.
After the Republicans took control of the Senate on November 4, President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio),

and the incoming Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), all cited international trade as one
of the issues where bipartisan cooperation is feasible. However, while the outlook for trade policy
and Congressional approval of TPA improved somewhat, TPA remains far from a certainty,
and could easily fall victim to the bitter partisanship that has consumed Washington, DC in recent years or
President Obamas weakened influence over Congressional Democrats.

2NC AT: Democrats

Democratic opposition will fall from a continue presidential push.
Lawson 12/3/14 (Alex, Obama Vows To Work On Reviving Fast-Track Trade Deals,

Renewing the lapsed authority is a top priority for Republicans and is therefore a likely
area of cooperation for the president and the GOP-controlled Congress beginning next year. But that
also means Obama must put out fires within the Democratic ranks.
The first step in that process, according to Obama, is to convince his own party to be more openminded about the real benefits of trade rather than trotting out the same fears of wage stagnation and outsourcing
that dominated the debates over China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement
Part of the argument that Im making to Democrats is, dont fight the last war, Obama said. If you
want to ... locate in a low-wage country, with low labor standards and low environmental standards, there hasnt been that much
preventing you from doing so.
In that vein, Obama

said that he would also be coordinating with labor and environmental leaders
to convince them to lend support to the most prominent U.S. trade negotiating effort, the 12-nation
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ironically, if we are able to get Trans-Pacific Partnership done, then were actually forcing some countries to boost their labor
standards, boost their environmental standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption, increase intellectual property protection,
he said. Those who oppose these trade deals, ironically, are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is expected to assume the gavel on the Senate Finance Committee in the next Congress, welcomed
Obama's comments on the future of the trade agenda, and TPA renewal in particular.
If past experience has taught us anything, its that we

need presidential leadership to get TPA over

the finish line, Hatch said in a statement. The presidents influence, particularly among
members of his own party, will be a vital component to congressional efforts."
Democrats will get on board reids out and the rest of the leadership need to ally
with the president for the next election. PC is key thats Hicky.
Republicans are driving a trade as a wedge issue which will force Obama to get
dems on board.
Guida 12/30/14 (Victoria, Politico, The GOP's divisive trade play,
President Barack Obamas

executive action on immigration might be driving Republicans to

distraction, but they have a wedge issue of their own to stick to Democrats: trade.
And with

control of both houses of Congress and 2016 on the horizon, the newly ascendant GOP isnt likely
to waste any time exploiting it.
When asked at his post-reelection press conference about where he thought Republicans and Democrats could work together, trade
was one of the first things incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) mentioned. Other Republican leaders have
echoed that sentiment.
It happens to be, in their judgment, good policy and also something they can achieve results on by working with the White House,
National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said. And its something thats going to irritate the left wing of the
Democratic Party. How can you go wrong with that?

Republicans know liberal Democrats have issues with global free trade deals, which they say can give
rise to decreased wages and job losses. So when the GOP throws its wholehearted support behind President
Barack Obamas massive trade agenda including efforts to conclude talks on the largest trade deals in U.S. history,
covering nations across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, they do so knowing it will pit the left wing of the
Democratic party against their leader in the White House and his allies among the dwindling
number of trade-friendly New Democrats in Congress.
This dynamic might not change in 2016, when Hillary Clinton launches into full presidential campaign mode. As a senator, Clinton
voted for trade agreements with Oman, Singapore and Chile, but against the Central American Free Trade Agreement, so she could
well support at least some of the remaining parts of Obamas trade agenda when the elections roll around.
Those elections could shift into full gear just as the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership goes to Congress for its approval a deal
that would overhaul and eclipse the North American Free Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, the 2016 elections could be bruising to the
GOP in the Senate, with Republicans defending two dozen seats 14 more than Democrats have to protect. Seven of those GOP
seats are in states Obama won in 2008 and 2012 (New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania), and
two more are in states the president carried just in 2008 (North Carolina and Indiana).

On the Democratic side, only two senators could be vulnerable: outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, of Nevada, and Michael Bennet, of Colorado.
Some analysts believe the GOP could try to put Democrats on the defensive in the run-up to 2016 by
forcing them into difficult votes that could cost them support among labor and environmental groups in their base.
The fact that its an issue that divides Democrats is icing on the cake, said William Galston, a former policy adviser under President
Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
The powerful AFL-CIO has been among the harshest critics of pending fast track trade legislation, though it has been more coy
about its positions on a pair of blockbuster trade deals with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries and the 28 nations of the European
Union. To get those deals though Congress, Obama

will need lawmakers to pass a bill allowing him to fasttrack the agreements through Congress with straight up-or-down votes and no amendments.
The labor group has been on the warpath against that legislation, also called trade promotion authority, and is spending money on
an ad campaign opposing it: Fast track. It means forgetting working Americans, reads one of the ads in the Washington metros
Capitol South station.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are also against the legislation because of the potential regulatory changes that
could be included in the Asia-Pacific trade deal, which they fear could roll back environmental protections.
With the backing of these groups, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), among
others, have been holding rallies and sending letters to assemble an anti-fast track army. They stand on the opposite side of the protrade New Democrat Coalition, which is losing 12 members because of defeats in the midterm election and retirements.
The Democrats in the House generally represent really safe Democrat seats, so if Im a Democrat, Im not worried about
Republicans coming in and knocking me out, one congressional staffer said in describing the influence of labor. Im worried about
someone challenging me from the left. This dynamic has become even more pronounced as moderate Democrats have lost their
seats, the aide said.
Galston said Democratic support for trade will boil down to an intense local calculus.
[Democratic members of Congress] are going to ask, Is this on balance beneficial or not to my district? Galston said. If the
answer is no, that doesnt mean some of them wont vote in favor of it anyway, but theyll sure think twice. A more open trading
regime is not equally friendly to all sectors of the economy and certainly not to all congressional districts.
Meanwhile, Republicans could push to alienate Democrats on trade to secure more funding from big business groups with deep
pockets, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, which are big supporters of free trade
Its a question of fundraising, one Democratic adviser said, which is why youll ultimately see a strong Republican vote in both
chambers on [a] TPP deal and TPA [trade promotion authority], whenever that occurs. And that dynamic also means that
Democrats with strong labor backing are more likely to oppose the trade agenda.
For its part, the

Obama administration is aiming to get half the Democrats in the

Senate on board with its plans, the Democratic adviser said.

2NC PC Key
The stars have aligned, but the deal isnt guaranteed -- PC is key
Landler & Weisman 12/31/14 (Mark & Jonathan, The Boston Globe Undaunted by the odds, Obamas trade chief
backs 12-nation deal,
Still, to members of Congress, Obamas

trade agenda has been waiting in the wings for so long that
the promises are beginning to ring hollow. Efforts to grant Obama trade promotion authority once known as fasttrack authority have gone nowhere.
Froman insists the

political stars have aligned. Republican control of the Senate has elevated
pro-trade lawmakers to key positions, and the international negotiations themselves have
But the deals completion is not guaranteed. Republicans inclined to give the president tradenegotiating authority are still seething at his executive action deferring deportation of millions of
unauthorized immigrants.

Democrats may be the bigger problem. Froman has met dozens of times with Representative Sander M. Levin of
Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction on trade. Levin said he
wants to work with the administration on the partnership. But hes not about to let Obama
negotiate the partnership on his own, then present it to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
TPA has good prospects but political capital is necessary to GOP flip floppers and
hardline democrats on board.
Maruyama & Kyle 12/18/14 (Warren & Robert, The Hill, Republican control of Senate boosts prospects for TPA and
In short, despite

TPAs improved prospects, the bill remains a work in progress and

could easily unravel. To pass TPA in the House and Senate, and get over the 60-vote
threshold to avoid a Senate filibuster, a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats will
be required. While Republicans are likely to provide the majority of the votes, particularly in the
House, at least some Democrats will be necessary in both chambers. As a result, both sides
likely will have to make accommodations. However, both sides remain wary of each others
potential demands. The Republicans are concerned that Wyden will seek far-reaching changes to
Baucus-Camp-Hatch that would generate opposition within the Republican Caucus. For their part, Democratic staffers are
worried that House and Senate Republicans will try to jam a partisan trade bill through the
Committee and floor processes, as occurred with the House-passed version of the Trade Promotion Authority Act of
2002, or weaken the so-called May 10 agreement between the Bush administration and Congressional Democrats on the treatment
of labor and environmental obligations in U.S. FTAs. If either scenario happens,

the process could go off the rails

again. Obamas immigration announcement represents a new complication, which could delay or
upset talk of bipartisan cooperation. Finally, TPA will require leadership and support from the
President. While Cabinet members have begun meeting at the White House to discuss TPA strategy, a bill as complex
and politically controversial as TPA will require a major public effort by the president, and a
well-organized and coordinated campaign by the US business community and the White House. In sum,
while there is an opening for TPA (and TPP), the process could easily stall, in which case the
responsibility for getting them done could slip to the next president.

*in 1NC growth impact PC key to deals for trade policy his power to persuace is
Boustany & Zollick 12/28/14

AT: Lame Duck / No Agenda

Obama is willing to spend political capital to get major agenda items across
Inskeep 12/29/14 (Steven, NPR Columnist Interview with Obama, Morehead State University in Kentucky, Despite
Election Defeat, Obama Sees Room To Push His Agenda,
President Obama

has begun his administration's final phase the way he began several other chapters of his
presidency: seeking to recover from disaster.
Obama has moved vigorously since his party lost the Senate in November. Without consulting
Congress, he's offering legal status to millions of immigrants. He's restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. Above all, he's
striving to show he will not be a lame duck.
The president took our questions the day before he left Washington for the holidays. The 40-minute, year-ending interview offered
clues to his final two years in the Oval Office, which is where we met. NPR is publishing the conversation in three parts starting
with Obama's efforts to govern alongside (though not necessarily along with) a Republican Congress.
Something has changed since the campaign season, when Obama was delaying action on immigration, fearing political damage. That
led to our first question: Why execute these maneuvers now?
Obama added that it's

fair to think of him as a president who thinks he has done what he had to do,
and now is free to focus on what he wants to do.
But Obama is not entirely "liberated": He can't

finish what he started alone. He'll need acts of

Congress to complete immigration reform, or to lift the Cuba embargo. That barely begins the lengthy list of issues
on which the president would like the help of lawmakers if he could get it.

For six years, the GOP has been criticized for reflexively obstructing Obama, and the president
has been criticized for keeping his distance from lawmakers. Could the president possibly do
anything to improve the situation?
Translation: I won't change anything specific, but hope my opponents' interests compel them
to change.

AT: Veto
Obama wont veto tax and global trade
Fox News 12/29/14 (Obama threatens to wield veto pen to counter GOP-led Congress,

To overturn Obama's veto, Republicans would need the votes of two-thirds of the House and
Senate. Their majorities in both chambers are not that large, so they would still need to
persuade some Democrats to defy the president.
But Obama

said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be necessary, because there's
overlap between his interests and those of congressional Republicans.
Potential areas for cooperation include tax reform and global trade deals -- both issues
where Obama and Republicans see at least partially eye to eye. Conversely, the likeliest points of friction
surround Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama's unilateral steps on immigration,
which let millions of people in the U.S. illegally avoid deportation and get work permits.


2NC Top Level

Their internal link evidence assumes work with republicans TPA is distinct
Republicans are on board
Obama wont veto tax and global trade
Fox News 12/29/14 (Obama threatens to wield veto pen to counter GOP-led Congress,

To overturn Obama's veto, Republicans would need the votes of two-thirds of the House and
Senate. Their majorities in both chambers are not that large, so they would still need to
persuade some Democrats to defy the president.
But Obama

said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be necessary, because there's
overlap between his interests and those of congressional Republicans.
Potential areas for cooperation include tax reform and global trade deals -- both issues
where Obama and Republicans see at least partially eye to eye. Conversely, the likeliest points of friction
surround Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama's unilateral steps on immigration,
which let millions of people in the U.S. illegally avoid deportation and get work permits.

AT: Immigration
Immigration doesnt effect the TPA the GOP are pissed about immigration,
theyre on board for trade. Obama needs to convince DEMS who are on the
presidents side about the issue.
Immigration is only driving the TPA debate allows the GOP to have a wedge issue
against the dems
Guida 12/30/14 (Victoria, Politico, The GOP's divisive trade play,

President Barack Obamas executive action on immigration might be driving Republicans to

distraction, but they have a wedge issue of their own to stick to Democrats: trade.
And with

control of both houses of Congress and 2016 on the horizon, the newly ascendant GOP
isnt likely to waste any time exploiting it.
When asked at his post-reelection press conference about where he thought Republicans and Democrats could work together,

trade was one of the first things incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) mentioned.
Other Republican leaders have echoed that sentiment.
Immigration doesnt hurt PC only divides the GOP. Bill wont pass till 2016.
Flakus 12/29/14 (Greg, Voice of America, US Immigration Reform Appears Unlikely in 2015.
Over the span of several U.S. election cycles, there have been calls for comprehensive immigration reform to fix a system that people
on both sides of the political spectrum agree is broken. But some observers say President Barack Obamas

recent executive
action aimed at temporarily shielding some undocumented foreigners from being deported may have doomed his
longer-term goal of forging a comprehensive agreement with Congress.
Obamas recent executive action allows some four million undocumented residents in the United States to seek temporary legal
status. But without Congressional approval, he cannot achieve comprehensive immigration reform.
Republicans, who won majorities in both houses of Congress in Novembers midterm elections, replied through Speaker of the
House, John Boehner.
Instead of working together to fix our broken immigration system, the president says he is acting on his own," he said. "That is just
not how our democracy works.
Tony Payan, Director of the Mexico Center at Rice Universitys Baker Institute, says Obama's action will help a lot of people come
out of the shadows and "essentially, become a little more integrated, in a legal, formal sense, into the American economy and the
American society.
"But it

was also very counterproductive because I feel that it polarized many of the Republicans
who might have been willing to do something on immigration, he added.
While some undocumented immigrants support the move, others have mixed feelings about what they see as a temporary fix.
Payan says there are concerns about applying for legal status under this temporary measure.
Once they surrender their personal information to the government, once the government knows who they are and where they are
and if the next president is not willing to extend that temporary protected status, then they are going to be found very quickly and to
be denied, he said.
Republicans say they want to secure the border with Mexico before approving other measures. The surge of Central American
immigrants at the Texas border earlier this year underscored this concern.

Republicans also oppose Democratic proposals for a so-called pathway to citizenship, which they see as a ploy to
increase the Democratic voter base.
But Houston immigration attorney Charles Foster says most immigrants seek legal resident status, not full naturalization.
If you look at the last big legalization bill signed by President Reagan, in the last 40 years, barely 30 percent have even gotten
around to applying for citizenship, he said.
Foster says the

immigration issue has divided the Republican Party.


the business community is very supportive of immigration reform, there is a very vocal
wing of the Republican Party that is adamantly against everything, said Foster.
Analysts say it may still be possible for the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama to achieve agreement on at least
some parts of immigration reform next year, but that full

the 2016 presidential election.

reform is more likely to be delayed until after

AT: Keystone
Keystone veto is a GOP opposed initiative, they want free trade. Obama needs to
focus on DEMS for TPA.
Keystone gets punted. GOP spends PC not Obama.
Colman 12/15/14 (Zack, Washington Examiner, Keystone XL: So will it finally get built?,
At this point,

it's not clear how Obama would benefit politically from approving Keystone XL after
years of waiting. Congressional Republicans are unlikely to cut a deal to approve one of the
administration's priorities, such as raising the federal minimum wage, just to get the pipeline through.
The same goes for the increasingly liberal Democratic Party. Keystone XL backers in Alaska, Louisiana,
North Carolina and Arkansas all pushed Obama to approve the project. All of them lost their elections. A Democrat
winning a Senate race in any of those states appears unlikely for some time.
"I'm not sure what the president gains from it at this point, or what the Democratic Party gains in the long term," Ebinger said. "I
think the

president would like to punt this indefinitely."

Delays are starting to annoy even Democrats who have opposed the project. Some are starting to speak out against what they consider disingenuous
climate change concerns posed by environmental groups.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said more progress on climate change is occurring in other arenas. He pointed to a nonbinding agreement between Obama
and Chinese President Xi Jinping on reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020, a move that would get the world's top two emitters on the same
page for the first time.
"That dwarfs the concerns that we've heard now for a number of years on Keystone," Carper said recently. "I think the other factor that's working here
is we have waited for not months, but years, to get a decision on Keystone."
Hoeven said he thinks the legislative style that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., hopes to install would smooth passage for a
bipartisan Keystone XL bill that includes energy items important to some Democrats.
McConnell has hinted he would operate with an open amendment process, unlike current Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has blocked
"I fully expect that we will bring the bill to the floor, and there will be an open amendment process," Hoeven said. "Maybe there will be some
amendments offered that have some broad support to get over the 67-vote threshold."
That could lure other Democrats. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., for example, voted against the Keystone XL bill in November. But given the chance to
advance one of his top priorities for years he has advocated extending a tax structure known as "master limited partnerships" to renewable energy
he might vote for building the pipeline.
Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, explained that the senator opposed the Keystone XL bill partly because it was a "straight authorization," leaving the
door open to backing it in a different legislative vehicle.

Still, even attracting the three or four additional Democrats needed to override a
veto would be a challenge.

AT: Obamacare
Obamacare is a GOP v. Obama problem, trade is a dems v. Obama problem.
Doesnt apply/
Obama will just veto
The Guardian 12/29/14 (Obama: I will use veto pen and defend gains in healthcare and environment,

I havent used the veto pen very often since Ive been in office, partly because legislation that I objected to was
typically blocked in the Senate even after Republicans took over the House, Obama told NPR, in a conversation recorded
before he left for a Christmas vacation in Hawaii.

I suspect there are going to be some times where Ive got to pull that pen out. And Im
going to defend gains that weve made in healthcare; Im going to defend gains that weve made on environment
and clean air and clean water.

The language of Obamas pledge echoes his 2014 State of the Union address, in which he promised
to use his pen and phone to overcome an intransigent Congress and seek
alternatives to legislation.
The Democrats loss of the Senate in Novembers midterm elections means Republicans

are likely to try to reverse

that momentum and pass legislation. Such legislation can be blocked by the White
House, unless there is a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress.

AT: Taxes
Taxes are cooperative areas between the GOP and dems. Doesnt hurt the agenda.
Miller 12/3/14 (Jake, CBS News, Obama woos GOP on tax reform, immigration, free trade deals,
President Obama

outlined several "enormous areas" of potential bipartisan compromise during a

Republicans to make progress on
tax reform, free trade, and immigration - assuming they're willing to deal with him.
speech before the Business Roundtable on Wednesday, saying he's prepared to deal with

The president told the organization, composed of the CEOs of some of America's largest
companies, that the U.S. has recovered from the financial crisis of 2008 by many measures, and
he said the degree of optimism among foreign leaders about the future of the U.S. economy is
But he also said that "politics and ideological
help accelerate the economic recovery.

gridlock" are preventing progress on other fronts that could

On corporate tax reform, a high priority among Republicans in Congress, the president said he'd like to see a
package that lowers rates and closes loopholes to create a more efficient tax system. He said his administration's
proposals have a "lot of overlap" with a tax reform plan released earlier this year by House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Michigan, and he also expressed some "openness" to a
repatriation tax holiday that would allow corporations to bring offshore assets back to the U.S. without penalty.
There's "definitely a deal to be done," he said.
Even if tax reform is politically contentious, trade has enough GOP support in the
status quo.
Miller 12/3/14 (Jake, CBS News, Obama woos GOP on tax reform, immigration, free trade deals,

Congressional Republicans have repeatedly touted their desire to work with the administration
on tax reform, but they've questioned the administration's appetite for compromise. Incoming Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, for example, underscored his desire to reform corporate taxes on Tuesday at the
Wall Street Journal CEO Council's annual meeting, but not if significant new revenues are part of the deal. "We're not going to pay a
trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more competitive," he said.
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama

also hailed fresh progress in negotiations over two new free trade
agreements prized by Republicans. He cited a "great hunger" among Asian nations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and said that effort is "moving forward." He also said his administration, led by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, is
"reinvigorating negotiations" with European countries on a Transatlantic trade deal.

Those deals have drawn fire from labor and environmental interests on the left, but the president
sought to blunt that criticism by arguing the deals would mandate higher labor and environmental standards
among nations participating in the free trade zone. He stressed the need to finalize an agreement and "explain it to the public" so
they more fully understand the benefits.

Republicans have sounded more bullish on the prospects for compromise on trade
agreements than on some other issues. "At least on trade, I think there's a potential
for agreement," McConnell said Tuesday.

AT: NSA Reform

Passed. No new bills
Knickerbocker 12/28/14 (Brad, Electronic eavesdropping: NSA reports on its privacy violations,

The Senate last month blocked a bill to end bulk collection of Americans' phone records by the
NSA. Voting was largely along party lines, with most Democrats supporting the bill and
most Republicans voting against it.
The legislation would have ended the NSA's collection of domestic calling records, instead requiring
the agency to obtain a court order each time it wanted to analyze the records in terrorism cases, and query records held by
the telephone companies. In many cases the companies store the records for 18 months.

Link Stuff

AT: States = No Backlash

This doesnt effect the DA
1) The plan isnt popular in every state, states that would backlash would still
require substantial wrangling by the president
2) Congress people vote against matters passed by states all the time, it would
still require large investment of PC
3) Timeframe government has to legalize before the states do still costs PC
to act
American Civil Procedure: A Guide to Civil Adjudication in US Courts, Edited by John Bilyeu Oakley, Professor of Law at the
University of California, Davis, and Vikram D. Amar, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the School
of Law of the University of California at Davis, Kluwer Law International, 2009, page 19

Although it is commonplace today to refer to the United States as a single entity and as the
subject of statements that grammatically employ singular verbs, it is important to remember
that the United States remains in many important ways a collective term. The enduring legal
significance of the fifty states that together constitute the United States, and their essential dominion over most legal matters
affecting day-to-day life within the United States, vastly complicates any attempt to summarize the civil procedures within the
United States. Within

the community of nations, the United States is a geopolitical superpower that

acts through a federal government granted constitutionally specified and limited powers.
The organizing principle of the federal Constitution,1 however, is one of popular sovereignty, with
governmental powers distributed in the first instance to republican institutions of government
organized autonomously and uniquely in each of the fifty states. Although there are substantial similarities in
the organization of state governments, idiosyncrasies abound.

Sanctions must be removed first, or else its not legalized.

Woods 11 Ph.D. candidate in Criminology @ University of Cambridge [Jordan Blair Woods (JD from UCLA School of Law), A Decade after
Drug Decriminalization: What can the United States learn from the Portugese Model?" University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 15 UDCDCSL L. Rev. 1 (Fall 2011)

There are three main legal approaches to drug use, each of which has benefits and drawbacks. At one end of the spectrum is criminalization. In a
criminalized regime, drug use is a criminal offense. Individuals face criminal charges and proceedings if they are caught using legally prohibited drugs.
n29 At

the other end of the spectrum is legalization. In a legalized regime, people are legally permitted to use
drugs under regulated conditions without the threat of criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions. n30 In between these two
options is decriminalization. In a decriminalized regime, drug use is not a criminal offense, but may remain subject to non-criminal sanctions (such as
administrative sanctions). n31 Decriminalization takes a position on the legal treatment of drug use only, and takes no position on [*7] drug production
or drug distribution. n32 Thus, in a decriminalized regime, drug production and drug distribution may remain criminalized.

AT: State (pot)

Only fed gov policies matter

Kamin 14 Professor and Director of the Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program @ University of Denver [Sam Kamin, The Limits of
Marijuana Legalization in the States, Iowa Law Review Bulletin, Volume 99 (2014)

Marijuana regulation in the United States is in a period of unprecedented flux. While the federal government continues to list marijuana as a Schedule I
narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)a drug whose manufacture and sale is a felony punishable by up to life in prison1 many
states are starting to treat the drug quite differently. The

last twenty years have seen an increasing number of states

legalize marijuana for medical purposesremoving the criminal penalties for those using the drug pursuant to a doctors recommendation
and setting up regulatory regimes under which qualifying patients may purchase and possess the drug.
This increasingly differential treatment of marijuana under state and federal law creates significant legal uncertainty. The

reason for the scare

quotes in the previous paragraph, of course, is that states cannot simply legalize that which the federal government
prohibits. While a state may remove its own marijuana prohibition and may even create a regulatory system
under which licensed dispensaries sell marijuana to those who can show a medical need, a state is powerless to insulate its citizens
from the threat of federal law enforcement. Also hanging over the states is the specter of federal
preemptionthe possibility that the federal government will sue in federal court to enjoin the states attempts to tax and regulate marijuana on the
basis that federal law preempts such state action.2 pg. 39-40

AT: States (Organs)

NOTA would have to be repealed an act of Congress
ANDIEW & BLOCK 11 Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of
Economics, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans [Scott Andiew V and
Walter E. Block, Organ Transplant: Using the Free Market Solves the Problem, J Clinic Res
Bioeth 2:111. doi:10.4172/2155-9627.1000111]

Suppose you go to the hospital after experiencing several days of nausea, fatigue and trouble urinating. After havingOPTN test after
test run on you and spending your week in and out of the hospital, you are told that you are in need of a kidney transplant. The news
would be devastating; however the journey to receiving a transplant has just begun. Your first step would probably be to contact the
finest transplant facility and the best doctors. They would evaluate you and put you on the organ transplant waiting list. On this list
you could sit and wait a very long time. You undergo dialysis often and feel weaker by the day. Are you ever going to get a kidney?
You ask yourself the question a thousand times. It is a question that has no definitive answer. Thousands of Americans die every year
while on organ transplant waiting lists. The system in place today allows some of those on waiting lists to wither away and die. This
seems incredulous due to medical technology advances and increases in transplant surgery survival rates. So are there even enough
organs out there to go around? The answer is a simple yes. However, under

the current government regulated

system, in which organs cannot be sold by the donor, the number of people dying on waiting
lists is sobering. Every year over 1,300 people die awaiting heart transplants and over 3,000
people die awaiting kidney transplants (United Network for Organ Sharing, 2010). The problems are the
lack of quality donated organs. The government has only allowed a select handful of organizations to run the transplant
industry. The solution: repeal the National Organ Transplant Act and allow the free market to work
for the sick and dying, instead of against them, as at present.
The system today

In 1984 the U.S. Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) to regulate and help organize
the growing field of organ transplants (U.S. Congress 1984). The act laid out the requirements to organize a qualified
organ procurement agency, the requirements to join the organ procurement and transplantation network, accounting practices
within the organ procurement and transplantation organizations, and prohibited the purchase of organs or tissue[1]1. The act called
for an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, to be run by private, non-profit organizations under federal
contract. The only organization of this kind is the United Network for Organ Sharing or UNOS. UNOS was the first certified in 1986
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of the OPTN [1]. UNOS works in conjunction with organ procurement
agencies and transplant centers. Under the federal contact, UNOS has established an organ sharing network that the organization
claims to "maximize the efficient use of deceased organs through equitable and timely allocation" [1]2. UNOS also "guided persons
and organizations" concerned with transplants in order to increase the number of possible organs for transplant. UNOS allocates
organs using a centralized computer system linking organ procurement agencies and transplant centers to improve efficiency in the
transplantation process, bringing organs to those who need them most and are the best candidates for the transplant surgery [1].

The plan is political suicide

Calandrillo 4 [Steve Calandrillo (Law ProfU of Washington); George Mason Law Review, Vol. 13, pp. 69-133, 2004; Cash
for Kidneys? Utilizing Incentives to End America's Organ Shortage]


Despite the above analysis, any

form of legalized human organ market would be far from a utopian

it would be political suicide to propose, entail significant administrative costs to
establish and monitor, and remain morally distasteful to many Americans. While such

markets havebeen debated without much progress in the past, far less attention has been paid to dozens of other monetary and

an incentive-based approach would avoid imposing

risk on living donors, dramatically expand the pool of available organs, and shock the conscience
far less than allowing living-seller markets.190
nonmonetary incentives that could be employed. Taking