Opening Packet Negative HSS 2017

***OFFCASE MATERIALS START

HERE
Topicality
 1NC Shell - T Education = Classroom instruction

Next off Topicality

Education is prescribed classroom instruction not anything one learns through the schools
Administrative policies.
Websters
Webster's 1913 Dictionary - http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/education
Education (noun):
The act or process of educating; the result of educating, as determined by the knowledge skill, or discipline of character, acquired; also, the act or
process of training by a prescribed or customary course of study or discipline; as, an education for the bar or the pulpit; he has
finished his education.

Prefer our interpretation its a voter:

Limits they allow Affs to extend to any aspect of learning that happens to be picked-up in school. Non-
classroom Affs like vegan lunches, environmentally-sound garbage disposal or solar powered-schools all
educate in some manner. Limits are key to preparation and depth of understanding.

Ground they move the topic away from classroom curricular shifts. Thats the heart of the controversy and
gets at the nexus question of how we should be learning. They skew Neg fairness and create tiny non-
controversial Affs about building fire codes or better interior painting.
 Trans- Pessimism Kritik
Two notes for students:
- This is solely the 1NC Shell (for convenience). The rest of this Kritik is in the larger Trans- Pessimism file.
- Some of the cards in this shell may appear in case frontlines (when the Aff claims a discrimination advantage).
Watch for duplication.
 1NC Shell - Trans- Pessimism Kritik
Next off is the Trans- Pessimism Kritik

History proves Anti-Discrimination laws will fail. Scope is too narrow and few can afford to sue anyway.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke #CutWithKirby - The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

As the concept of trans rights has gained more currency in the last two decades, a seeming consensus has emerged about
which law reforms should be sought to better the lives of trans people.' Advocates of trans equality have primarily
pursued two law reform interventions: anti-discrimination laws that list gender identity and/or expression as a category of
non-discrimination, and hate crime laws that include crimes motivated by the gender identity and/or expression of the victim as triggering
the application of a jurisdiction's hate crime statute. Organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have supported state
and local organizations around the country in legislative campaigns to pass such laws. Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia currently
have laws that include gender identity and/or expression as a category of anti-discrimination, and 108 counties and
cities have such laws. NGLTF estimates that 39 percent of people in the United States live in a jurisdiction where such
laws are on the books.'' Seven states now have hate crime laws that include gender identity and/or expression.'1' In 2009 a federal law, the
Matthew Shepard and Tames Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, added gender identity and/or expression to federal hate crime law. An
ongoing battle regarding if and how gender identity and/or expression will be included in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a
federal law that would prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation, continues to be fought between the conservative national gay and
lesbian organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), legislators, and a variety of organizations and activists seeking to push an inclusive
bill through Congress. These two legal reforms, anti-discrimination bills and hate crime laws, have come to define the idea of "trans rights" in the
United States and are presently the most visible efforts made by nonprofit organizations and activists working under this rubric.
The logic behind this law reform strategy is not mysterious. Proponents argue that passing these laws does a number of important
things. First, the passage of antidiscrimination laws can create a basis for legal claims against discriminating employers,
housing providers, restaurants, hotels, stores, and the like. Trans people's legal claims when facing exclusion in such contexts have often failed
in the past, with courts saying that the exclusion is a legitimate preference on the part of the employer, landlord, or business owner.iv Laws that
make gender identity/expression-based exclusion illegal have the potential to influence courts to punish discriminators and provide certain
remedies (e.g., back pay or damages) to injured trans people. There is also a hope that such laws, and their enforcement by courts,
would send a preventative message to potential discriminators, letting them know that such exclusions will not be tolerated; these laws
would ultimately increase access to jobs, housing, and other necessities for trans people.
Hate crime laws are promoted under a related logic. Proponents point out that trans people have a very high murder rate and are subject to a great
deal of violences In many instances, trans people's lives are so devalued by police and prosecutors that trans murders are not investigated or trans
people's murderers are given less punishment than is typical in murder sentencing. Proponents believe that hate crime laws will intervene in these
situations, making law enforcement take this violence seriously. There is also a symbolic element to the passage of these laws: a statement that
trans lives are meaningful, often described by proponents as an assertion that trans people are human. Additionally, both proponents of anti-
discrimination laws and hate crime laws argue that the processes of advocating the passage of such laws, including media advocacy representing
the lives and concerns of trans people and meetings with legislators to tell them about trans people's experiences, increases positive trans visibility
and advances the struggle for trans equality. The data-collection element of hate crime statutes, through which certain government agencies keep
count of crimes that fall into this category, is touted by proponents as a chance to make the quantity and severity of trans people's struggles more
visible.
The logic of visibility and inclusion surrounding anti-discrimination and hate crime laws campaigns is very popular, yet there are many
troubling limitations to the idea that these two reforms comprise a proper approach to problems trans people face in
both criminal and civil law contexts. One concern is whether these laws actually improve the life chances of those who are
purportedly protected by them. Looking at categories of identity that have been included in these kinds of laws over the last
several decades indicates
that these kinds of reforms have not eliminated bias , exclusion, or marginalization. Discrimination
and violence against people of color have persisted despite law changes that declared it illegal. The persistent and growing racial
wealth divide in the United States suggests that these law changes have not had their promised effects, and that the structure of systemic racism is
not addressed by the work of these laws." Similarly, the twenty-year history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demonstrates
disappointing results. Courts have limited the enforcement potential of this law with narrow interpretations of its impact, and people with
disabilities remain economically and politically marginalized by systemic ableism. Similar arguments can be made about the persistence of
national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and other forms of pervasive discrimination despite decades of official prohibitions of such
behavior. The persistence of wage gaps, illegal terminations, hostile work environments, hiring/firing disparities, and bias-motivated violence for
groups whose struggles have supposedly been addressed by antidiscrimination and hate crime laws invites caution when assuming the
effectiveness of these measures.
Hate crime laws do not have a deterrent effect. They focus on punishment and cannot be argued to actually prevent bias-motivated violence. In
addition to their failure to prevent harm, they must be considered in the context of the failures of our legal systems and, specifically, the violence
of our criminal punishment system. Anti-discrimination laws are not adequately enforced. Most people who experience discrimination
cannot afford to access legal help, so their experiences never make it to court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has severely
narrowed the enforceability of these laws over the last 30 years, making it extremely difficult to prove discrimination short of a signed letter from
a boss or landlord stating, "I am taking this negative action against you because of your [insert characteristic]." Even in cases that seem as
obvious as that, people experiencing discrimination often lose. Proving discriminatory intent has become central, making it almost
impossible to win these cases when they are brought to court. Theselaws also have such narrow scopes that they often do not
include action taken by some of the most common discriminators against marginalized people: prison guards , welfare bureaucrats,
workfare supervisors, immigration officers , child welfare workers, and others who have significant control over the lives of
marginalized people in the United States. In a neoliberal era characterized by abandonment (reduction of social safety net and infrastructure,
especially in poor and people of color communities) and imprisonment (increased immigration and criminal law enforcement), anti-
discrimination laws provide little relief to the most vulnerable people.

Anti-Discrimination Laws are worse than nothing. They boost oppression by obscuring structural factors that
create ongoing disparate outcomes. Holding onto the Law only hampers actualization of the Negatives
Alternative.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke Modified for language that may offend - #CutWithKirby - The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

Critical race theorists have developed analyses about the limitations of antidiscrimination law that are useful in
understanding the ways these law reforms have and will continue to fail to deliver meaningful change to trans people.
Alan Freeman's critique of what he terms the "perpetrator perspective" in discrimination law is particularly helpful in conceptualizing the limits
of the common trans rights strategies.xi Freeman's work looks at laws that prohibit discrimination based on race. He exposes how and why
antidiscrimination and hate crime statutes do not achieve their promises of equality and freedom for people targeted by discrimination and
violence. Freeman argues that discrimination law misunderstands how racism works, which makes it fail to effectively address it.
Discrimination law primarily conceptualizes the harm of racism through the perpetrator/victim dyad , imagining that the
fundamental scene is that of a perpetrator who irrationally hates people on the basis of their race and fires or denies service to or beats or kills the
victim based on that hatred. The law's adoption of this conception of racism does several things that make it ineffective at
and help it contribute to obscuring the actual operations of racism . First, it individualizes racism. It
eradicating racism
says that racism is about bad individuals who intentionally make discriminatory choices and must be punished. In this
(mis)understanding, structural or systemic racism is rendered invisible (less apparent). Through this function, the law can only
attend to disparities that come from the behavior of a perpetrator who intentionally considered the category that must not be considered (e.g.,
race, gender, disability) in the decision she was making (e.g., hiring, firing, admission, expulsion). Conditions like living in a district
with underfunded schools that "happens to be" 96 percent students of color,xii or having to take an admissions test that has been proven to
predict race better than academic success*11' or any of a number of disparities in life conditions (access to adequate food,
healthcare, employment, housing, clean air and water ) that we know stem from and reflect long-term patterns of exclusion and
exploitation cannot be understood as "violations" under the discrimination principle , and thus remedies cannot be won. This
narrow reading of what constitutes a violation and can be recognized as discrimination serves to naturalize and affirm the status quo of
maldistribution. Anti-discrimination law seeks out aberrant individuals with overtly biased intentions.xlv Meanwhile, all the daily disparities
in life chances that shape our world along lines of race, class, indigeneity, disability, national origin, sex, and gender remain untouchable and
affirmed as non-discriminatory or even as fair.
The perpetrator perspective also obscures the historical context of racism. Discrimination is understood as the act of taking into
account the identity that discrimination law forbids us to take into account (e.g., race, sex, disability) when making a decision, and it does not
regard whether the decision-maker is favoring or harming a traditionally excluded group. In this way, the discrimination principle has been used
to eviscerate affirmative action and desegregation programs.^' This erroneously conceptualized "colorblindness" undermines the
possibility of remedying the severe racial disparities in the United States that are rooted in slavery, genocide, land theft,
internment, and immigration exclusion, as well as racially explicit policies that historically and presently exclude people of color from
the benefits of wealth-building programs for US citizens like Social Security, land grants, and credit and other homeownership support.' The
conditions that created and continue to reproduce such immense disparities are made invisible by the perpetrator perspective's insistence that any
consideration of the prohibited category is equally damaging. This model pretends the playing field is equal, and thus any loss or gain in
opportunity based on the category is harmful and creates inequality, again serving to declare the racial status quo neutral. This justification for
systemic racism masquerading as a logic of equal opportunity gives rise to the myth of "reverse racism," a concept that misunderstands racism to
suggest parallel meanings when white people lose opportunities or access through programs aiming to ameliorate impacts of racism and when
people of color lose opportunities due to racism.
Discrimination laws reliance on the perpetrator perspective also creates the false impression that the previously excluded or marginalized group
is now equal, that fairness has been imposed, and the legitimacy of the distribution of life chances restored. This declaration of equality and
fairness papers over the inequalities and disparities that constitute business as usual and allows them to continue.
Narrowing political resistance strategies to seeking inclusion in anti-discrimination law makes the mistaken assumption
that gaining recognition and inclusion in this way will equalize our life chances and allow us to compete in the (assumed fair)
system. This often constitutes a forfeiture of other critiques, as if the economic system is fair but for the fact that bad discriminators
are sometimes allowed to fire trans people for being trans.3" Constituting the problem of oppression so narrowly that an anti-
discrimination law could solve it erases the complexity and breadth of the systemic, life-threatening harm that trans
resistance seeks to end. Not surprisingly, the rhetoric accompanying these quests for inclusion often casts "deserving workers" people
whose other characteristics (race, ability, education, class) would have entitled them to a good chance in the workforce were it not for the
illegitimate exclusion that happened.xviii Using as examples the least marginalized of the marginalized, so to speak, becomes necessary when
issues are framed so narrowly that a person who faces intersecting vectors of harm would be unlikely to benefit from anti-discrimination law.
This framing permitsand even necessitatesthat efforts for inclusion in the discrimination regime rely on rhetoric that affirms the legitimacy
and fairness of the status quo. The inclusion-focus of anti-discrimination law and hate crime law campaigns relies on a strategy of simile,
essentially arguing "we are just like you; we do not deserve this different treatment because of this one characteristic." To make that argument,
advocates cling to the imagined norms of the US social body and choose poster people who are symbolic of US standards of normalcy, whose
lives are easily framed by sound bites that resound in shared notions of injustice. "Perfect plaintiffs" for these cases are white people with high-
level jobs and lawful immigration status. The thorny issues facing undocumented immigrants, people experiencing simultaneous discrimination
through, for example, race, disability and gender identity, or people in low-wage jobs where it is particularly hard to prove discrimination, are not
addressed by anti-discrimination law. Laws created from such strategies, not surprisingly, routinely fail to protect people
with more complicated relationships to marginality. These people, who face the worst economic vulnerability, are not lifted up as the "deserving
workers" that anti-discrimination law advocates rally to protect.

The Alternative begins by rejecting the Affs appeal and places Trans- resistance outside the Law. Critical
trans- resistance solves without masking broader systems of violence.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke Modified for language that may offend - #CutWithKirby - The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

If we shift our framework from trans rights to critical trans resistance , we find ourselves with new analysis of the
harms that people who defy gender norms face, and new ideas for how we might dismantle systems that produce and enforce
gender norms. Such a shift means that we move from demands for recognition and inclusion in law to demands for material
changes to our lives. We recognize formal legal equality as a window dressing for harmful and violent political and
economic arrangements (settler colonialism, white supremacy, capitalism, heteropatriarchy), and we come to understand
that what we want and need will never be won through a legal system founded in and dedicated to preserving
racialized-gendered property statuses. Our social movement strategies , then, become centered in mobilization, and our
targets become the sites of violence we see producing trans death. The demands for wealth redistribution, prison abolition and an end to
immigration enforcement that are emerging from trans communities suggest an emergent critical trans politics guided by the urgent circumstances
we face and a desire to center those living under the most severe forms of coercive violence as a guide for prioritization . The social
movement infrastructure we need to win these demands is far more participatory, democratic, and decentralized than what
has emerged in law-reform centered rights-seeking formations. The loud concerns raised within social movements in the last decade
about the roles non-profitization and professionalization have played in containing and undermining transformative social change are useful to
trans politics as we perceive the current push to institutionalize our work in those same hierarchical, elitist, undemocratic, unaccountable
forms to push for the same narrow status-quo affirming agenda.xxxiii Across the US, local communities are proposing and creating different
tools, forms and agendas to address these concerns and to innovate infrastructure for trans resistance. This resistance refuses to make itself
legible in a neoliberal framework, to articulate demands for rights that reproduce racist, ableist, anti-poor, xenophobic
frameworks of deservingness and undeservingness, to sell off transformative goals for funding opportunities, or to endorse violent
institutions for a chance at being nominally invited to be part of them. Co-developing this critical trans politics requires all of us to
tap our creativity, imagination, bravery, compassion, humility, self-reflection, patience, generosity, and perseverance, as we seek
change deep enough to dismantle the violences that are foundational to our current conditions .
 Supreme Court Politics Disad
Note:
This includes only a specific 1NC Shell for the Trans- Bathroom Affirmative. It also includes a few additional cards
that are specific to the Trans- bathroom Aff. Students should look to the larger Supreme Court Politics Disad for all
remaining backlines.
 1NC Shell - Court Politics
First/next off is court politics

Kennedy blocks travel ban now via a liberal application of animus, but PC key its a huge test of his resolve
Flanagin 17 ---- Jake, J.D. Candidate (Georgetown University Law Center), Legal Intern at the National Political
Advocacy Department of the ACLU, former Editorial Fellow at The Atlantic, Trumps Travel Ban Will Live or Die
on the Vote of the Supreme Courts Wildcard Justice, Quartz, 6/5, https://qz.com/998865/anthony-kennedy-
trumps-travel-ban-will-live-or-die-on-the-vote-of-the-scotus-wildcard-justice/

A test of Kennedys resolve may arise in the courts consideration of the presidents executive order banning entry to
the US by citizens
of six Muslim-majority countries. The Department of Justice has asked the court to overturn a decision handed down
by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a freeze on the travel ban, and allow parties to proceed with oral arguments. So-called emergency
application of the ban in the interim would also overturn a nationwide injunction issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in January.
The government requires a five-vote majority for the order to survive. We can expect the four liberals to oppose the
ban, and if Kennedy swings left, it will bring a decisive end to months of struggle between the executive and judicial
branches on one of Trumps tent-pole campaign promises.
The possibility boils down to a key bit of legalese, according to Bloombergs legal-affairs columnist, Noah Feldman. Lower-court
decisions have focused on the existence of animus, Feldman explains, or illegitimate prejudice in the crafting of the order; and, as it
happens, animus is one of Kennedys favorite instruments for batting down cases . If Kennedy reads Trumps
executive order temporarily blocking immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries as an exercise of anti-Muslim animus, the ban will fall at
the court, he writes.
Kennedy first identified animus as a contemporary means to invalidate unconstitutional laws in his 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans, in which the justice sided with
the majority in striking down an amendment to the Colorado state constitution which forbade the state legislature and city governments from adopting anti-
discrimination laws to protect LGBT Americans. The amendments sheer breadth was so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that [it] seems inexplicable
by anything but animus toward the class that it affects, he wrote in an opinion that could very well substitute Muslims for gay people.
Kennedy has applied the animus argument in a number of landmark cases since, including United States v. Windsor, which
struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalize same-sex marriage in all 50
states. In Feldmans view, its not a legacy Kennedy is likely to forego so close to retirement age: I find it almost impossible to believe
that Kennedy, at 80, would want to sign an opinion closing his eyes to animus, which he himself did so much to make into a constitutional touchstone. The question
remains, however, whether Kennedys animus towards animus is enough to inspire another four years, at the least, on the court. Because, given the ideological nature
of the Trump administration, its a concept that will surely rear its head again.

Aff requires Kennedy to swing another high-profile case via another liberal application of animus costs PC
Dunlap 17
Bridgette Dunlap is a lawyer and a scholar whose work centers on public understanding of and access to legal systems. Bridgette
is a fellow and adjunct professor at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School. From the
article: Gavin Grimm: What Supreme Court Announcement Means for Trans Rights Rolling Stone - March 7, 2017
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/gavin-grimm-what-supreme-court-announcement-means-w470772

What will this mean for transgender student rights?

The argument that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination isn't anywhere near as novel
as Jeff Sessions would have you believe, so we can hope the Supreme Court will rule that Title IX prohibits it once this case or a
similar one is before it again. However, if the court wasn't ready to rule that all discrimination against trans gender people is
sex discrimination, it could still rule more narrowly that bathroom bans are. As a friend of the court brief filed by a group of
law professors in Grimm's case explains, rules like Gloucester's prevent students from choosing the restroom appropriate to their gender identities
as other students are permitted to on the basis of their genitals and that is sex discrimination.
We can also expect courts to find that the Equal Protection clause protects transgender people from government discrimination, as a federal court
in Pennsylvania did recently. What it takes for a law that classifies people based on particular characteristics to pass constitutional muster
depends on whether the law targets a "suspect class." Laws that classify people based on race get the highest level of scrutiny and therefore rarely
survive review. Sex-based classifications get "intermediate scrutiny," which means they will be struck down unless the government has an
"exceedingly persuasive" justification.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether transgender people are a suspect class, but the Pennsylvania district court did in Evancho et al.
v. Pine-Richland School District. There, the court found that laws affecting transgender people as a class meet the test for heightened scrutiny
because transgender people have historically been discriminated against, have defining characteristics with little relation to their ability to
contribute to society, and are a minority with relatively little political power.
There's an argument to be made that laws that discriminate against transgender people should receive the highest scrutiny. There's also an
argument to be made that bathroom bans are so irrational that they shouldn't survive even the lowest level of scrutiny,
which applies where a suspect class isn't targeted. But that may not matter. Bathroom bans are passed by reactionaries who don't want
transgender boys in the boys' room or the girls room because their demonstrated intent is to tell transgender kids they are "freaks" who don't
deserve to be anywhere. They're
the kind of animus-based attacks that so flagrantly offend our constitutional values that
the Supreme Court and swing vote Justice Kennedy in particular has struck them down without being too
precious about tiers of scrutiny. Under Trump, the DOE has stopped telling local governments they can't bully transgender children but
that doesn't mean they can.

Travel ban overruling key to constrain presidential powers over immigration and national security
Hay 17 ---- Mark, political columnist for Vice, former editor of Awaaz and the Columbia Political Review, MPhil in
Islamic Studies (University of Oxford), B.A. in religion, political studies, and international relations (Columbia),
Trump's Travel Ban Is Far from Dead, 6/2, Vice, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/trumps-travel-ban-is-far-
from-dead

But no matter which way it rules, by

tackling the travel ban the Supreme Court will be forced to make a huge judgment on the
powers of the presidency in immigration, which as Law points out is a sector where the executive branch has a lot of leeway .
Either the ban will be allowed to go into effect, and in the process the courts will reaffirm that Trump and his successors can
pursue whatever twisted immigration agendas they like so long as they hide them under sound legal language. Or the ban will fall,
meaning the presidency will forever face a new constraint on its executive powers .
"The precedent set by this case for the judiciary's proper role in reviewing the president's national security and immigration
authority will transcend this debate, this order, and this constitutional moment ," the Department of Justice wrote in its petition
for review to the Supreme Court. They meant this as an caution to the Supreme Court, but it is nonetheless a rare Trumpian truth.

Unchecked presidential powers cause nuclear war Accidents and miscalc

Adler 8 David Gray, Professor of Political Science at Idaho State University, The Judiciary and Presidential
Power in Foreign Affairs: A Critique, 6-1,
http://www.freerangethought.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6&Itemid=41

{11} The structure of shared powers in foreign relations serves to deter abuse of power , misguided policies, irrational
action, and unaccountable behavior .[31] As a fundamental matter, emphasis on joint policymaking permits the airing
of sundry political, social, and economic values and concerns. Such a structure wisely ensures that the ultimate
policies will not merely reflect the private preferences or the short-term political interests of the President.[32] {12}
Of course, this arrangement has come under fire in the postwar period on a number of policy grounds. Some have argued, for
example, that fundamental political and technological changes in the character of international relations and the position of the United States in
the world have rendered obsolete an eighteenth century document designed for a peripheral, small state in the European system of diplomatic
relations. Moreover, it has been asserted that quick action and a single, authoritative voice are necessary to deal with an
increasingly complex, interdependent, and technologically linked world capable of almost instantaneous massive
destruction. Extollers of presidential dominance also have contended that only the President has the qualitative
information, the expertise, and the capacity to act with the necessary dispatch to conduct U.S. foreign policy.[33] {13}
These policy arguments have been reviewed, and discredited , elsewhere; space limitations here permit only a brief
commentary.[34] Above all else, the implications of U.S. power and action in the twentieth century have brought about an even
greater need for institutional accountability and collective judgment than existed two hundred years ago. The
devastating, incomprehensible destruction of nuclear war and the possible extermination of the human race demonstrate the
need for joint participation in any decision to initiate war. Moreover, most of the disputes at stake between the executive
and legislative branches in foreign affairs have virtually nothing to do with the need for rapid response to crisis. Rather, they
are concerned only with routine policy formulation and execution, a classic example of the authority exercised under the
separation of powers doctrine.[35] {14} Nevertheless, these joint functions have been fused by the executive branch and have
become increasingly unilateral , secretive, insulated from public debate , and hence unaccountable .[36] In the wake
of Vietnam, Watergate, and the Iran-contra scandal, unilateral executive behavior has become ever more difficult to
defend. Scholarly appraisals have destroyed arguments about intrinsic executive expertise and wisdom in foreign
affairs and the alleged superiority of information available to the President.[37] Moreover, the inattentiveness of
presidents to important details and the effects of "groupthink" that have dramatized and exacerbated the relative
inexperience of various presidents in international relations have also devalued the extollers' arguments. Finally,
foreign policies, like domestic policies, are reflections of values. Against the strength of democratic principles, recent occupants of the White
House have failed to demonstrate the superiority of their values in comparison to those of the American people and their representatives in
Congress. {15} The assumption of foreign affairs powers by recent presidents represents a fundamental alteration of the
Constitution that is both imprudent and dangerous . We turn now to an examination of the judiciary's contribution to executive hegemony
in foreign affairs.
 Docket items

Travel ban and CWA and class action = all top of the Courts October docket.
Dorf 17
Michael C. Dorf is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. He has written or edited three books, including No Litmus Test:
Law Versus Politics in the Twenty-First Century, and Constitutional Law Stories. Dorf is a former law clerk to Justice Anthony
Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court. He graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. While at Harvard as an
undergraduate, he was the American Parliamentary Debate Association national champion. Will Gorsuch Make the Supreme
Court Less Polarized Newsweek - 4/10/17 - http://www.newsweek.com/michael-dorf-will-gorsuch-make-supreme-court-less-
polarized-581081

Gorsuch will participate in cases to be argued later this month, including one involving church-state separation and another that
poses the question what it takes to strip a naturalized citizen of her citizenship. The docket for next term , which begins in October,
includes cases involving the scope of arbitration, the Clean Water Act, and class actions.

Higher-profile cases loom. A challenge to President Donald Trumps executive order limiting travel to the United States by
nationals of six majority-Muslim countries could make it to the high court in the coming months .
 Kennedy = swing vote

Kennedy link:

On this controversial case, the least-restrictive means would be that Kennedy would flip over to a liberal vote
Hurley 17
Lawrence Hurley - Correspondent at Reuters and former U.S. Supreme Court Reporter for the Los Angeles Daily Journal -
Trump's transgender move puts spotlight on Supreme Court case Reuters, AOL News - available at:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/24/trumps-transgender-move-puts-spotlight-on-supreme-court-case/21720864/

Lawyers for both Grimm and the Gloucester County School Board have urged the court to decide whether Title IX applies to
transgender students rather than taking a narrower approach by sending the case back to a lower court.
In a court filing on Thursday, the ACLU said that, regardless of the administration's position, the court "can - and should - resolve the underlying
question of whether the Board's policy violates Title IX."
The school board's lawyers made similar comments in their most recent court filing, saying that the meaning of the federal law is "plain and may
be resolved as a matter of straightforward interpretation."
But the court could take a more cautious approach and send the case back to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. That court's April 2016 ruling in favor of Grimm relied on the Obama administration's interpretation of the law.
Kyle Duncan, a lawyer representing the school board, said the court must at a minimum throw out the appeals court decision because "the entire
basis for that opinion" was the no-longer extant Obama administration interpretation.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: PIVOTAL VOTE?
With the eight-justice court likely to be closely divided, Trump's Supreme Court nominee, conservative appeals court judge Neil
Gorsuch, could end up casting the deciding vote if he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate in time. Otherwise, the court, which is divided
equally between liberals and conservatives, could split 4-4, which would set no nationwide legal precedent.
Clues as to how the high court could rule can be gleaned from its decision last August to temporarily block the
appeals court decision in Grimm's case from going into effect. That emergency request from the school board did not require the
justices to decide the merits of the case.
The vote in favor of the school board was 5-3, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, joining the four conservative justices. Breyer made clear in
a statement at the time that his vote would not dictate how he would approach the case if the court took the issue up.
That decision indicated that the court is likely to be closely divided at oral argument. Grimm's hopes may rest in Justice
Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who voted against Grimm last summer but has sometimes sided with liberals in major
cases, including several on gay rights.
But even lawyers closely following the case are not sure which way Kennedy could go.

Kennedy would be the swing vote on a Trans- bathroom case.

Millhiser 17
Ian Millhiser - Justice Editor, ThinkProgress and author of Injustices: SCOTUS History of Comforting the Comfortable and
Afflicting the Afflicted from the article: 9 terrible things Neil Gorsuch could do in his first full term on the Supreme Court
ThinkProgess April 7th Modified for language that may offend - https://thinkprogress.org/nine-terrible-things-neil-gorsuch-
could-do-in-his-first-full-term-on-the-supreme-court-3f4edd86209c
Trans rights
Earlier this year,
the Supreme Court intended to hear Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (Grimm), which concerns the
right of trans students to use a bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. The justices wound up kicking the case
back down to the lower courts, however, after the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era policy guidance that was at the heart of the case.
Although, a federal appeals court sided with Gavin Grimm, the trans student challenging a Virginia school boards policy preventing him from
using the mens room at school, the lower court opinion relied primarily on the Obama administrations pro-trans interpretation of a federal
education regulation. Now that the Trump administration walked away from this interpretation, it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to send
the case back down so that the lower court consider the remaining issues in the case.
The issue of anti-trans discrimination is not going away, however, and it is likely that either this case or a related case will make it
up to the justices again soon.
Although Grimm won in the appeals court, he did not benefit from this ruling because the Supreme Court stayed itin a
decision joined by all four conservatives plus Justice Stephen Breyer (although Breyer wrote that he joined the conservatives solely
as a courtesy). That suggests Kennedy and possibly even Breyer are uncertain votes in favor of trans rights.
Gorsuch is very unlikely to side with trans students in a similar position to Grimm, which means that those students
will almost certainly need to win Kennedy and Breyer in order to prevail.
 Court Politics link premise

a Decision for Grimm requires three Left-leaning Justices to push for the win, and two more to expend
capital to say yes.
Carter 17
W. Burlette Carter - Professor of Law at George Washington University. Professor Carter is a historian whose scholarship and scholarship in
progress covers a wide variety of historical topics including early American legal treatment of women and minority groups (including LGBTQIA
communities), early legal education, and sports history. She has taught Civil Procedure, Evidence, Trusts and Estates, Sports and the Law, and
Women, Money, and the Law. Professor Carter is a graduate of the Harvard Law School and Agnes Scott College. From the publication: George
Washington Law Review: On the Docket March 21st Modified for language that may offend - http://www.gwlr.org/gloucester-county-school-
board-v-g-g/

Three JusticesRuth B. Ginsburg , Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor voted against a stay in (Grimm) G.G. That may
be a sign of support for the broader interpretation of the term sex in federal statutes, and a supportive view of equal
protection. But on a panel of nine , the three will need to convince two other Justices to come on board for the win.
The split due process/equal protection analysis in Obergefell suggests that the votes needed for an equal protection-centered opinion were not
then available. We will see if they are available when (Grimm) G.G., or a similar case about bathroom access and gender
identity, finally receives Supreme Court review.
 Link booster - Plan will be high-profile and controversial

The Aff will be high-profile and controversial

Heriot 16
et al ; Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Since 2007 she has been a member of
the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Gail was also a professor and associate dean at George Mason University School
of Law. She is a former civil rights council to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amicus Brief -
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE
GRIMM, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF
OF AMICI CURIAE GAIL HERIOT AND PETER N. KIRSANOW, MEMBERS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CWIL
RIGHTS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS PRWATE CITIZENS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER September Available at
SCOUTS blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter modified to avoid potentially objectionable language -
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-amicus-heriot.pdf
This Case Has Captured the Public's Attention as a Symbol of the Rule of Law's Decline; Vindicating the Rule of Law in this Case Is
Thus Vital to the Health of the American System of Laws.
For a variety of reasons, many abuses of the administrative state slip by the public unnoticed. Similarly, legitimate governmental actions are
sometimes unfairly called abusive. This case is different : It is correctly viewed (considered) by many as an egregious
overreach. When the preliminary injunctions in both this case and its opposite , Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:16-
cv-00054-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2016), were issued, they made the news across the country.
It is not hard to see why. First, the statutory interpretation issue can be readily grasped. Few would argue that Title IX's sex discrimination ban
was originally understood to require OCR's conclusions. Indeed, OCR made no such claim. See supra at Section II. As for Price Waterhouse and
Oncale, few have ever heard of them, and if they did hear of them they would be unlikely to believe that such decisions could change a statute's
clear meaning.
Second, fairly or unfairly, the underlying social issue tends to provoke a strong response from many members of the
public. When Target Corporation announced on April 19, 2016, that it would begin inviting transgendered individuals to use
the store restroom that corresponds to their gender identity rather than to their sex (as was clearly Target's legal
right), an online petition began to be circulated. As of this writing (September 4th), it has garnered the signatures of 1,417,548
individuals, all of whom have pledged to boycott Target (as was clearly the legal right of the signatories).8 Google reports that Target's stock
plummeted over 15.7% between April 19th and September 2nd (market closing as of the time of this writing), while its chief
competitor, Wal-Mart, saw its stock increase 3.9%.
Similarly, the issue of toilet, locker room, and shower assignment was thought by some (perhaps correctly in retrospect) to be
embedded in a Houston initiative that prohibited gender identity discrimination . As a result, Houston voters ( a group
that voted heavily for President Obama in 2012) voted it down by a 3 to 1 margin.
Supporters of the Transgender Guidances have argued that male-to-female transgendered persons are no threat to the safety of females.9
Opponents have argued that OCR's (and Target's) policy requires no proof that one psychologically identifies with the opposite sex. The effect is
that ill-motivated individuals can use the intimate facility of their choice without fear of being turned away. In some instances, this has led to
tragic results. See, e.g., Sam Pazzano, Predator Who Claimed to be Transgender Declared Dangerous Offender, Toronto Sun, Feb. 26, 2014.
Even if one regards these cases to be too rare to be significant in setting public policy, they will be discussed in lurid detail on the radio,
television, newspapers, magazines, and blogs and circulated over Face-book and Twitter.
Polls indicate that strong majorities of Americans oppose OCR's policies.FN10 Of course, polls should not drive this Court's
deliberations. But under some circumstances they should have an indirect bearing on which cases receive priority. The judiciary has the primary
responsibilityboth real and symbolicas the guardian of the rule of law. When an administrative action brings the rule of law into disrepute,
the courts should be mindful of the threat it poses to the legal system.

(Note to Students: OCR is the US Dept of Educations Office of Civil Rights. Under the Obama
Administration, the OCR wrote a guidance letter endorsing that students be permitted to use the bathroom that
corresponds with their gender identity.)
 Federalism Disad
Note:
This includes only a specific 1NC Shell for the Trans- Bathroom Affirmative. It also includes a few additional cards
that are specific to the Trans- bathroom Aff. Students should look to the larger Federalism Disad for all remaining
backlines.
 1NC Shell - Federalism

Federalism is seen as in balance now---education reform remains largely under state control
Jacob 17 Brian A. Jacob, Nonresident Senior Fellow - Economic Studies, Center on Children and Families,
February 2, 2017, How the U.S. Department of Education can foster education reform in the era of Trump and
ESSA, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-the-u-s-department-of-education-can-foster-education-reform-in-
the-era-of-trump-and-essa/
The current administration has vowed to leave education matters up to the states, continuing a movement started
with the Every Student Succeeds Act ( ESSA), which dramatically limited the federal governments role in school
accountability. While greater local control certainly has some benefits, it risks exacerbating the massive disparities in educational performance
across states that already exists.
In 2015, there was almost a 30 percentile point difference in 4th grade math proficiency rates between the top and bottom states, only some of
which can be explained by state-level social and economic factors. The massive disparity in progress is perhaps even more disturbing. Between
2003 and 2015, student proficiency rates grew by over 40 percent in some states, while remaining flat or even declining in other states.
The Department of Education (DoED) should take steps to highlight these disparities by identifying the lowest performing states and providing
information on the status and progress of all states on a variety of educational metrics. The DoED might also provide modest funding and
technical assistance to help demographically similar states work together to improve their public education systems.
On the campaign trail, President Trump often called for giving more discretion over education policy to states and
localities, critiquing Common Core and what he viewed as other instances of federal overreach . In her recent
confirmation hearing, President Trumps nominee for Education SecretaryBetsy DeVosrepeatedly argued for
leaving education matters up to the states.
And this desire for local control is not limited to the current administration. In 2015, Congress passed the Every
Student Succeeds Act ( ESSA) with strong bipartisan support. This legislation replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) system
of school accountability with a more narrowly tailored and flexible approach to school reform. Instead of requiring all schools to meet annual
performance targets, ESSA requires states to focus on a small set of low-performing schools and gives them considerable latitude to design the
interventions they deem appropriate.
In discussing ESSA, chair of the Senate Education Committee Lamar Alexander claimed, The department was in effect acting as a national
school board for the 42 states with waivers100,000 schools. The
states were doing fine until the federal government stuck its
nose into it So it was important to get the balls back in the hands of the people who really should have it .
But the evidence suggests that not all states are doing fine. Indeed, there are massive disparities across states in terms of current student
performance, and these differences are not merely a factor of the social and economic conditions in the state. All states have been actively
engaged in efforts to turnaround failing schools , but the effectiveness of such efforts has varied dramatically across jurisdictions.
Public education will (and should ) always be driven predominantly by local actors teachers, administrators, school
board members, and state legislators . Even under NCLB, states and districts had a mostly unfettered ability to run
schools as they saw fit. But with autonomy comes the potential for greater disparity, as more capable, focused, and well-resourced states
pull even further ahead of those with less capacity, fewer resources, and greater political dysfunction.

A Supreme Court ruling for Grimm kills Federalism. Education is a key area and the Aff hampers creative
local solutions to a complex issue.
Dewart 16
Ms. Deborah J. Dewart is a lawyer specializing in Nonprofit Corporations, Estate Planning and Business Transactions cases.
Amicus Brief - GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND
MOTHER, DEIRDRE GRIMM, Respondent BRIEF OF LIBERTY, LIFE, AND LAW FOUNDATION,
WETHEPEOPLEINORDER.COM, AND THE NATIONAL LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONER September Available at SCOUTS blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter modified to avoid
potentially objectionable language - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-amicus-LLL.pdf

The architects of the Constitution created a federal government "powerful enough to function effectively yet limited enough to preserve the hard-
earned liberty fought for in the War of Independence." Shelby v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 853 (D.C. Cir. 2012). "[A] group of formerly independent
states bound themselves together under one national government," delegating some of their powersbut not allto the newly formed federal
administration. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 574 (1964). Power is divided, not only horizontally among the three co-equal
branches (Section I), but also vertically between federal and state governments. This Court has long recognized the
critical need to preserve that structure. The Letters not only encroach on legislative and judicial territory, but also invade a matter of
intense state and local concern that is not among the federal government's enumerated powers.
Education Is Primarily A State And Local Concern.
Education is among the many powers reserved to the states and the people. Apart from a constitutional restriction
such as equal protection of the law:
[S]tate governments do not need constitutional authorization to act. The States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern
governmentpunishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for development, to name but a feweven though the
Constitution's text does not authorize any government to do so.
NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2578 (emphasis added). Judicial restraint should characterize any federal attempt to intervene in public
education:
Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems requiring care and restraint. ... By and large,
public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97,104 (1968). "We see no reason to intrude on that historic control in this case." Bd. of Curators of University of
Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 91 (1978) (citing Epperson and declining to formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring a hearing).
The same is true here. There is no reason for the federal judiciary to interfere in the privacy policies of local schools and shut citizens out of the
process.
The Fourth Circuit Decision Threatens Individual Liberty To Participate In The Political Process.
This case implicates the most sensitive privacy concerns of young school children. Accommodation of those concerns
both for transgender students and all othersrequires compassion and skillful crafting of workable policies for each school
district. It may also require construction or remodeling of facilities to implement accommodations. The federal government
has attempted to dictate a one-size-fits-all "cookie cutter" solution for the entire nation. It is impossible, at the
federal level, to consider the multitude of factors that may differ from one school district to another.
Federalism safeguards individual liberty, allowing states and local communities to "respond to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping
the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power." Bond v. United
States, 564 U.S. 211, 221 (2011). Public school boards illustrate the outworking of this fundamental principle. Board
members are typically selected, often by popular election, from among local citizens. Parents, teachers, and even students
have the opportunity to participate in meetings and express their concerns. If the Fourth Circuit decision stands, these voices
(perspectives) will be silenced (ignored) all across America.
This Court recently reinforced the importance of maintaining "the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system . . .
[o]therwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and
individual liberty would suffer." NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2602. In short, "federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power." Id. at
2578 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is hard to imagine a more striking instance of arbitrary power than this
case presents .

U.S. Federalism is modelled globally

Rahdert 7 Mark C., A.B. 1974, Harvard College; J.D. 1978, Yale Law School. Professor of Law, Temple
University Beasley School of Law, ARTICLE: COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY, 56 Am.
U.L. Rev. 553, February 2007
A. External Factors Perhaps the main reason that this debate has surfaced at this particular juncture is that foreign sources on constitutional questions are available to a degree and in a quality never previously experienced. There are
four principal causes. First, until recently, there was relatively little comparative constitutional material worthy of serious consideration by U.S. courts. Now there is, forcing U.S. judges for the first time to decide what to do about it.
Second, the decisions of foreign constitutional courts increasingly grapple with the same (or very similar) constitutional issues as their U.S. counterparts. This is particularly true in human rights, where there has been an international
convergence of constitutional human rights norms, making discussion of these issues in foreign courts more potentially relevant to U.S. jurisprudence. Third, many foreign [*562] constitutional courts possess sufficient expertise,
professionalism, judicial independence, transparency of process, and caliber of reasoning to make their views worthy of mature consideration. Finally, while there is still a long way to go, improvements in information technology and
availability make the decisions of foreign courts more accessible than they have ever been in the past. 1. Growth of foreign constitutional precedent Most comparative constitutional material is of recent origin. The bulk has
developed since World War II. n37 Prior to the War, liberal democracies outside the United States were rare, n38 and those with systems for authoritative legal interpretation and application of constitutional norms were even rarer.
n39 English-speaking systems (most accessible because of a common tongue and common legal roots) were still part of the British common law system, which operated without a formal written constitution and without American-
style judicial review. n40 Other major non-English legal systems were either relatively short-lived constitutional democracies (such as the German pre-war Weimar republic), n41 functioned under civil law traditions that vested
constitutional authority outside the courts (as was the case in pre-war France), n42 or simply lacked the indicia of true democratic governance (as was true in most of Asia, [*563] Central America, and most jurisdictions south of the
Equator). n43 Consequently, there was practically no worthwhile constitutional precedent anywhere else in the world. English law played a significant though occasional role in American constitutional thinking, n44 but the
constitutional law of other nations had virtually no role at all. The past fifty years have changed all of that in remarkable ways, most notably through the enactment of new constitutions and the development of tribunals for

authoritative constitutional interpretation and application in democratic systems around the world. n45With direct U.S. encouragement, elements of American-style
constitutionalism were transplanted into the new post-war constitutional structures adopted in Japan and West
Germany. n46 Some leading Western European nations contemporaneously adopted new constitutional systems complete with
formal constitutional courts. n47 English-speaking constitutional legal systems with judicial review powers emerged in several British [*564] Commonwealth nations including Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand. n48 New supranational constitutional systems with authoritative judicial structures, most notably the European Court of Human Rights and the courts of the European Union, developed. n49 Constitutions

and constitutional courts were installed in some of the nations that emerged from crumbling colonial empires in
Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. n50 More recently, systems of constitutional law and adjudication in
constitutional courts were adopted in several Eastern European republics that were organized (sometimes with U.S. technical assistance) after the disintegration of the Communist bloc and the Soviet Union. n51 Indeed, if one

were to create a list of the fifteen or twenty leading world constitutional systems today, the overwhelming majority
either did not exist or were in their infancy fifty years ago. 2. Similarity of issues Many of the world's leading constitutional
systems have been in business long enough to develop significant and relatively mature law on constitutional
questions that resonate with issues in the United States. There is, for example, a robust transnational jurisprudence on such
issues as reproductive freedom, n52 freedom of speech, n53 [*565] freedom of religion, n54 racial and ethnic equality, n55
language rights of minorities, n56 gender equality, n57 sexual orientation equality, n58 privacy, n59 constitutional limits on
punishment, n60 the right to counsel for the indigent, n61 and the rights of the accused. n62 An international jurisprudence is
also developing on such structural issues as separation of powers and the rulemaking authority of government
agencies , n63 war and emergency executive powers, n64 and even (to a limited degree) federalism . n65 [*566] Exploring the jurisprudence of other nations on these and other similar constitutional
questions, one is struck by the similarity to U.S. constitutional law . This similarity has at least two sources: a commitment to common constitutional norms, and the need to

apply them to comparable cultural, social, political, and economic developments. n66 While the various world constitutional systems reflect important

differences in language, structure, and history, they are often committed to the same basic principles as the U.S.
Constitution. This is especially true in the field of human rights n67 because the U.S. Constitution has served as a model for human rights
guarantees around the world. n68 While more modern constitutions elsewhere have often expanded beyond the U.S. Constitution, including explicit guarantees that the U.S. Constitution lacks, n69
many have looked (often explicitly ) to the U.S. Constitution for guidance when crafting their own Constitutions . n70
Because their constitutional [*567] law embraces comparable basic human rights, it encounters similar constitutional questions. While reliance on the U.S. model for structural issues has been less direct, other democracies also share
some common structural ground, particularly in the delineation of separate spheres for legislative, executive/administrative, and judicial functions. n71 Like the U.S. Constitution, many foreign constitutions delineate legislative and
executive powers and functions, and their legal systems face instances of potential horizontal and vertical conflict among internal governmental structures. n72 Not only do other systems share a commitment to similar constitutional
norms, they also experience similar challenges in applying these principles to the realities of contemporary culture. n73 [*568] In the twenty-first century, economic and technological developments, demographic changes, political,
social, cultural, or religious issues, and world events often cross national boundaries, creating the same sorts of constitutional friction in more than one constitutional system. Thus, for example, nations committed to principles of
equality have addressed the rights of various subgroups, including ethnic and linguistic minorities, women, indigenous groups, and non-citizens. n74 Nations committed to free expression have grappled with the effects of mass media,
the Internet, distribution of sexually explicit materials, disclosure of government secrets, press invasions of privacy, hate speech, and saturated media coverage of high-profile criminal trials. n75 And nations committed to
constitutional reproductive and medical privacy have defined the scope of those rights in the context of rapid advances in reproductive and medical technology. n76 3. Analytic methods Constitutional decision makers often employ
similar analytic processes. For example, concepts such as separation of powers, standards of review, means-ends analysis, balancing of interests, and proportionality n77 familiar to American constitutional law have counterparts in
other constitutional systems. The principles do not have identical meanings or applications in different systems, and there are other analytic structures that lack direct U.S. cognates. n78 [*569] Nevertheless, there is a definite analytic
common ground across constitutional systems. Additionally, many foreign constitutional tribunals exhibit high levels of professionalism, use transparent and fair processes, maintain the impartiality and political independence of
judges, engage in thorough legal reasoning, and display a strong commitment to the rule of law. All of this supports the potential utility of foreign courts' judgments on common questions of law. n79 One particularly notable feature of
comparative constitutional adjudication is the frequency and analytic clarity of international courts' reference to and discussion of U.S. precedent on constitutional questions. In Canada, n80 Australia, n81 Germany, n82 the European
Court of Human Rights, n83 Israel, n84 India, n85 South Africa, n86 Japan, n87 and elsewhere, judges [*570] frequently refer to and discuss U.S. constitutional law and precedent. Indeed, the depth of foreign courts' knowledge and
discussion of U.S. constitutional precedent contrasts with the dearth of knowledge and discussion of comparative sources in most U.S. constitutional law. When skilled and thoughtful judges elsewhere deem U.S. constitutional law
relevant to constitutional issues in their legal system, it supports the reciprocal inference that their decisions might be relevant to questions of U.S. constitutional law. 4. Availability The final external factor favoring greater use of
comparative constitutional precedent is its increasing availability. n88 Most foreign constitutional tribunals maintain detailed and accurate records of their proceedings, publish them in accessible formats, and sometimes even translate
them into English. n89 These materials are internationally available and in many instances electronically accessible. n90 While some lag time still exists between decision and publication, it is growing progressively shorter, so that it
is often possible to acquire detailed knowledge of foreign decisions shortly after they are rendered. These developments combine to create the distinct impression that foreign constitutional courts might well have significant potential
utility as a source for analysis of current U.S. constitutional questions. [*571] They set the foundation for internal U.S. debate over the legitimacy of comparative constitutional analysis.

US specifically influences Iraqi federalism which is key to counter civil war and ISIS. Absent federalism,
escalation would spill-over to the region
Pollack 14
(Kenneth, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institute, Options for U.S.
Policy Toward Iraq, July 24, http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2014/07/24-options-us-policy-toward-
iraq-pollack)
Second, it is equally critical that we accept the reality that Iraq has fallen once more into civil war. It is not on the brink of civil
war. It is not sliding into civil war. It is not at risk of a new civil war. It is in a civil war . This is what civil war
looks like. And civil wars have certain dynamics that need to be understood if they are to be ended, or even merely survived. Iraqs current
situation is the recurrence of the civil war of 2006-2008. In 2007-2008, the United States committed tremendous military and economic resources
to pull Iraq out of that first instance of civil war. This time around, Washington has made clear that it will not devote anything like the same
resources and there is no other country that can. This second point is important because intercommunal civil wars like Iraqs are difficult
for external powers to end without either a significant commitment of resources or a terrible slaughter by one or more of the
combatants. Given the American publics understandable unwillingness to re-commit the kind of resources we did in 2007-2008, we are unlikely
to bring the Iraqi civil war to a speedy end with minimal bloodshed and still safeguard the range of American interests engaged there. For those
reasons, the hard truth we face is that, in the circumstances we currently find ourselves in, our options range from bad to awful. Nevertheless,
doing nothing because all of the options are unpalatable would be the worst choice of all. Civil wars do not just go away if they are
ignored. They burn on and on. They also have a bad habit of infecting neighboring statesjust as the Syrian civil war
has helped re-ignite the Iraqi civil war. If we try to turn our back on Iraq once again, it will affect its neighbors . It could
easily affect the international oil market (and through it, the U.S. economy , which remains heavily dependent on
the price of oil no matter how much we may frack). It will also generate terrorists who will seek to kill Americans.
So our option may be awful, but we have no choice but to try to make them work. Plan A: Rebuilding a (Somewhat) Unified Iraq Although I
believe that the Obama Administrations Iraq policy has been disastrous, and a critical factor in the rekindling of Iraqs civil war,[1] I find myself
largely in agreement with the approach they have adopted to deal with the revived civil war. Our first priority should be to try to
engineer a new Iraqi government that Kurds, Shia and moderate Sunnis can all (endorse) embrace, so that they can
then wage a unified military campaign (with American support) against ISIS and the other Sunni militant groups.[2] That needs to
remain Washingtons priority until it fails because it is the best outcome for all concerned, including the United States. Doing so would be
the most likely way to dampen or eliminate the current conflict, and create the fewest causes for future violence. It
could also succeed relatively quickly in a matter of months rather than years like all of the other options . However,
it will be extremely difficult to pull off. The keys to this strategy will be to convince the Kurds not to break from Iraq and
convince moderate Sunnis to remain part of the Iraqi political processand to turn on ISIS and the other Sunni
militant groups. As I and other experts on Iraq have written, this will require both a new political leadership and a drastic overhaul of
Iraqs political system. With regard to the former condition, at this point, it seems highly unlikely that Nuri al-Maliki can remain prime
minister and retain either the Kurds or meaningful Sunni representation in his government. However, even if he were removed and new, more
acceptable leaders chosen, there would still be a long way to go.[3] Even moderate Sunni leaders are not going to go back to the status quo
insist on decentralizing power from the center to the periphery, a redistribution of power within the
ante. They now
federal government, and a thorough depoliticization of the Iraqi security services so that they cannot be used as a
source of repression by what will inevitably be a Shia-dominated central government. They are likely to demand
to be allowed to form a federal region like the Kurdistan Regional Government, complete with a separate budget and their
own military forces akin to the Kurdish Peshmerga. For their part, the Kurds will want even more than that. At this point, given the extensive
autonomy that the KRG already enjoys, coupled with the territorial and administrative gains it has won in the wake of the ISIS offensive, greater
federalism probably wont be an adequate alternative to independence for the Kurds. If the Kurds can be prevented from seceding, it will
probably require Baghdad to accept a confederal arrangement with Erbil. The difference here is that in a typical federal system, resources and
authorities are generated from the center and delegated to the periphery for all but a limited number of constrained functions. However, keeping
the Kurds on board will likely necessitate a shift to one in which resources and authority begin in the periphery and
then are shared with the center for specific purposes and under specific constraints. The Kurds are likely to insist that the
KRG maintain the current lines of control in disputed territories unchanged until a referendum can be conducted in accordance with article 140 of
the Iraqi constitution. Baghdad will have to recognize Erbils right to develop and market the oil it produces as the new status quo. As for oil
revenues, Erbil will demand that it be allowed to keep the Kirkuk oil fields it has now secured, and agree that Baghdad and Erbil each be allowed
to pump as much oil as they like and pay all of their own expenses from those revenues. Assuming that moderate Sunnis, Kurds and
moderate Shia can all agree on these various changes, we could see the resurrection of a unified Iraqi polity . It
is reasonable to assume that in those happy circumstances, many Sunni tribes will be ready to fight ISIS and the other
Sunni militant groupsand to accept assistance from the United States to do so. (Although they have made clear that they will not accept
assistance from the Iraqi security forces until they have been thoroughly depoliticized.) Moreover, these are really the only circumstances in
which the United States should be willing to provide large-scale military assistance to the Iraqi government to fight ISIS and the other militant
groups. Only in those circumstances will such assistance be seen as non-partisan, meant to help all Iraqis and not just the Shia (and their Iranian
allies).

Middle East war goes nuclear

Primakov 9
(Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs. This article is based on the scientific report for which the author was awarded the
Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations,
9/08)
The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms of its potential for spreading globally. During the Cold War, amid which the Arab-Israeli
conflict evolved, the two opposing superpowers directly supported the conflicting parties: the Soviet Union supported Arab countries, while the United States supported Israel. On the one hand,
the bipolar world order which existed at that time objectively played in favor of the escalation of the Middle East conflict into a global confrontation. On the other hand, the Soviet Union and the
United States were not interested in such developments and they managed to keep the situation under control. The behavior of both superpowers in the course of all the wars in the Middle East
proves that. In 1956, during the Anglo-French-Israeli military invasion of Egypt (which followed Cairos decision to nationalize the Suez Canal Company) the United States contrary to the
widespread belief in various countries, including Russia not only refrained from supporting its allies but insistently pressed along with the Soviet Union for the cessation of the armed
action. Washington feared that the tripartite aggression would undermine the positions of the West in the Arab world and would result in a direct clash with the Soviet Union. Fears that hostilities
in the Middle East might acquire a global dimension could materialize also during the Six-Day War of 1967. On its eve, Moscow and Washington urged each other to cool down their clients.
When the war began, both superpowers assured each other that they did not intend to get involved in the crisis militarily and that that they would make efforts at the United Nations to negotiate
terms for a ceasefire. On July 5, the Chairman of the Soviet Government, Alexei Kosygin, who was authorized by the Politburo to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Soviet leadership, for the
first time ever used a hot line for this purpose. After the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces, which later claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson
immediately notified Kosygin that the movement of the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean Sea was only intended to help the crew of the attacked ship and to investigate the incident. The situation
repeated itself during the hostilities of October 1973. Russian publications of those years argued that it was the Soviet Union that prevented U.S. military involvement in those events. In contrast,
many U.S. authors claimed that a U.S. reaction thwarted Soviet plans to send troops to the Middle East. Neither statement is true. The atmosphere was really quite tense. Sentiments both in
Washington and Moscow were in favor of interference, yet both capitals were far from taking real action. When U.S. troops were put on high alert, Henry Kissinger assured Soviet Ambassador
Anatoly Dobrynin that this was done largely for domestic considerations and should not be seen by Moscow as a hostile act. In a private conversation with Dobrynin, President Richard Nixon
said the same, adding that he might have overre-acted but that this had been done amidst a hostile campaign against him over Watergate. Meanwhile, Kosygin and Foreign Minister Andrei
Gromyko at a Politburo meeting in Moscow strongly rejected a proposal by Defense Minister Marshal Andrei Grechko to demonstrate Soviet military presence in Egypt in response to Israels
refusal to comply with a UN Security Council resolution. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev took the side of Kosygin and Gromyko, saying that he was against any Soviet involvement in the
conflict. The above suggests an unequivocal conclusion that control by the superpowers in the bipolar world did not allow the Middle East conflict to escalate into a global confrontation. After
the end of the Cold War, some scholars and political observers concluded that a real threat of the Arab-Israeli conflict going beyond regional frameworks ceased to exist. However, in the 21st
The U.S. military operation in Iraq has changed the balance of forces in the
century this conclusion no longer conforms to the reality.
Middle East. The disappearance of the Iraqi counterbalance has brought Iran to the fore as a regional power claiming
a direct role in various Middle East processes. I do not belong to those who believe that the Iranian leadership has already made a political decision to create nuclear
weapons of its own. Yet Tehran seems to have set itself the goal of achieving a technological level that would let it make such a decision (the Japanese model) under unfavorable
Israel already possesses nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. In such circumstances, the absence of a
circumstances.
Middle East settlement opens a dangerous prospect of a nuclear collision in the region, which would have
catastrophic consequences for the whole world. The transition to a multipolar world has objectively strengthened the role of states and organizations that are
directly involved in regional conflicts, which increases the latters danger and reduces the possibility of controlling them. This refers, above all, to the Middle East conflict. The coming of Barack
Obama to the presidency has allayed fears that the United States could deliver a preventive strike against Iran (under George W. Bush, it was one of the most discussed topics in the United
fears have increased that such a strike can be launched by Israel, which would have unpredictable
States). However,
consequences for the region and beyond. It seems that President Obamas position does not completely rule out such a possibility.
 2NC Link Funding conditions violate Federalism

Coercive Funding Link - The Aff creates a new wave of Federal Funding conditions these coercively hamper
Federalism.
Loyola 16
et al; Mario Loyola is Senior Fellow at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. He served in the Pentagon as a special
assistant to the undersecretary of defense for policy. Loyola is a contributing editor at National Review and a senior fellow at the
Texas Public Policy Foundation, where he was director of federalism and constitutional studies. He received a B.A. in European
history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a J.D. from Washington University School of Law. Amicus Brief -
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE
GRIMM, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF
OF AMICUS CURIAE WISCONSIN INSTITUTE FOR LAW & LIBERTY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER - September -
Available at SCOUTS blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter modified to avoid potentially objectionable language -
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/16-273-cert-amicus-WILL-.pdf

While the Court has been generally permissive of such programs, it has continued to insist that the states must "remain
independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 928 (1997). It has
warned that the federal government can neither compel state governments to regulate, nor compel state officials to perform
any particular function. Printz, 521 U.S. at 935. In
the context of conditional federal grants to the states, such as the federal
education funds at the core of the case at bar, the Court has warned that conditions may not "be so coercive as to the pass
the point at which pressure turns into compulsion. " South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211 (1987).
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex "under any education program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). However, Title IX guarantees recipients' right to maintain "separate living facilities for the
different sexes," 20 US.C. 1686, while 34 C.F.R. 106.33 further guarantees recipients right to maintain "separate toilet, locker room, and
shower facilities on the basis of sex."
Every application for federal education assistance to which Title IX applies must provide an assurance that the education program or activity to
which the federal assistance applies will be operated in compliance with Title IX and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. 34 C.F.R. 106.4.
Title IX provides that every federal department or agency empowered to extend education assistance is authorized to effectuate the provisions of
Title IX "by issuing rides, regulations or orders of general applicability," but "[n]o such rule, regulation or order shall become effective unless
and until approved by the President." 20 U.S.C. 1682.
At issue in this case is the legal effect, if any, to be given a letter written by James A. Ferg-Cadima, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
in the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, dated January 7, 2015, in response to an email request for any "guidance or rules"
relevant to the Gloucester County School Board's resolution of December 9, 2014, which triggered the current litigation.
The Ferg-Cadinia letter states that "Title IX ... prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating on
the basis of sex, including gender identity," and that when maintaining separate facilities for the different sexes as
permitted by the statute and its regulations, "a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their
gender identity." It is crucial to note that the Ferg-Cadima letter mentions both separate bathroom facilities, which are covered by 34 C.F.R.
106.33, and separate "housing" facilities, which fall under the "living facilities" provision in the statute itself, 20 U.S.C. 1686. The Ferg-Cadima
letter is therefore an interpretation of both regulation and statute.
Applying the doctrine of deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations articulated by the Court in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452
(1997), the Fourth Circuit in the decision below gave the Ferg-Cadima letter controlling weight as an interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R
106.33. G.G. v. Gloucester Country School Board, 822 F.3d 709 (4th CSr. 2016).
As a result of the Fourth Circuit's decision below, petitioner faces the loss of federal education assistance, if it does not comply with the
Ferg-Cadima letter. Federal education assistance compromises more than five percent of Petitioner's operating fund revenue for FY 2017.
Gloucester County Public Schools FY '17 School Board's Approved Budget: Operating Fund Revenue.
The situation into which the Ferg-Cadima letter has thrown Petitioner raises a number of grave constitutional problems for
federalism , one that is substantive and the other, procedural.
The first set of problems concerns the coercive nature of the transgender-related conditions that now attach to federal
education funds as a result of the Fourth Circuit's ruling. First, the Fourth Circuit has demonstrated that Dole's distinction between
"encouragement" and "compulsion" of state governments offers little protection from the coercive manipulation of conditions attached to federal
funds. Second, under NFIB v Sebelius, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012), there is now a serious factual question as to whether the threatened
loss of federal education funds for failing to comply with the Ferg-Cadima letter, in this case amounting to more than five
percent of Petitioner's entire operating budget, is "relatively mild encouragement" or a "gun to the head." (excessive).
See, 132 S.Ct. at 2604. Third, Petitioner had no reason to imagine that the conditions described in the Ferg-Cadima letter might be attached to the
federal funds it applied for and agreed to accept, and certainly had no adequate notice of such conditions, as this Court has required. See, NFIB,
132 S. Ct. at 2606.
 Politics Disad
Note:
This includes only a specific 1NC Shell for the Trans- Bathroom Affirmative. It also includes a few additional cards
that are specific to the Trans- bathroom Aff. Students should look to the larger Politics Disad for all remaining
backlines.
 1NC Shell Politics

Tax reform will pass despite hurdles Trump PC key solves sustainable economic growth
Kudlow 5-20 [Larry Kudlow, CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally syndicated columnist, formerly chief
economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, University of Rochester and Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 5-20-2017 Don't Bet Against Tax and
Health Care Reform in 2017
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/don_t_
bet_against_tax_and_health_care_reform_in_2017]
If the smart money folks on Wall Street think a special counsel to oversee the Russian probes spells defeat for business tax cuts, they're
leaning well over their skis.
The Dow Jones industrial average sold off over 300 points on Wednesday, but it may have come back to its senses with a 140-point gain on Friday. And while there's
the likelihood of health care reform by the summer and tax reform by year's end (or
never 100 percent probability in forecasting political risk, it seems
early 2018) is quite high .
Paradoxically, special counsel Robert Mueller will provide cover for President Trump, as it will take him many months to
complete his investigation. The leaks are going to dry up. By law, information on the probe must be protected. So, whatever the outcome,
Trump will have months without the attack headlines in which to sell his tax-cut plan .
Meanwhile, amid all the controversies, the GOP Congress knows it could get whacked in next year's midterms if it doesn't
govern -- a big incentive .
And Trump still has the backing of his core base , which is at least 40 percent of the electorate. These disenchanted voters may not agree
with everything he says. But they still strongly believe Trump is their best chance to drain the swamp -- to overturn the Beltway elites, to
deliver border security, to improve trade deals and to cut taxes and regulations to deliver the full-fledged deeply rooted sustainable prosperity we haven't seen in
20 years.
Warts and all, Trump and his polices is still their vote. ( He needs to go out there and rally these folks .)
And all this talk of impeachment based on obstruction of justice is just Democratic political pap. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who
is no partisan, calls it "an awfully thin soup." Former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy says, "the basis for claiming at
this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there." Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe told Congress there's been no interference in the
FBI's investigations and no request for additional funding.
And if Comey did write a memo about obstruction of justice, he is legally obligated to report it to the highest levels of the Justice Department. Failure to do so could
invoke criminal charges.
Why did he wait until he was fired to have his leakers put this out?
Yet behind all this mess, House Speaker Paul Ryan keeps telling people that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. He's
right.
Look, the House has already passed a replacement of Obamacare. And a Senate health care working group led by top Republican leaders, including Sens. Lamar Alexander and Ted Cruz, is
making progress resolving key issues between moderates and conservatives. There's no reason why the American Health Care Act can't become law by the August recess.
And that opens the door for taxes.
House Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady just began expert tax hearings. After the recess, Brady will likely
convene a markup session.
Rep. Peter Roskam, who chairs the congressional tax policy subcommittee, said last week, "I'm of the view that 2017 is the year." He thinks tax reform
is easier than replacing Obamacare .
So, following a markup, Ways and Means can report out a bill. And because prosperity is America's No. 1 issue, it will pass the floor
relatively easily . And that will put pressure on the Senate to get moving.
It's likely that a tax cut working group will again convene to hash out important details. The border-adjusted tax, or BAT, will have to go. But
the very core of the tax bill is a simple three steps: a deep corporate tax-rate cut, immediate expensing for new
equipment of all kinds and the repatriation of offshore cash. This is the tonic that will restore capital formation ,
productivity , real wages and growth .
Both Senate and House leaders have to understand how flexible reconciliation is. It can be nearly anything you want
it to be. The key player is Senate President Mike Pence, who can overrule the parliamentarian.
Congressional leaders should heed the words of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has become the administration's leading spokesperson for economic growth
and lower tax rates. He told the Senate Banking Committee last week, "What I have said repeatedly is that any plan we put forward we believe should be paid for with
economic growth."
He is estimating a 3 percent growth rate by 2021. I suspect it will arrive faster. And the difference between growth of less than 2 percent from the Congressional
Budget Office and 3
percent growth is well over $3 trillion in additional revenue. It's the mother of all pay-fors.
And lowering marginal tax rates across the board, especially on large and small businesses, will foster the mother of all
prosperities -- the one for which middle-class Americans in all those red counties that voted for Trump have been yearning.
Plan drains PC through GOP, public and religious backlash . Congress will try to intervene turns prove
link because fighting is intense on both sides
Sanchez 16
Ray, CNN digital editor/writer/producer, foreign correspondent, author, NYU grad, CNN, 5/16,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/14/politics/transgender-bathrooms-backlash/index.html
Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce backlash The Obama administration's directive on the use of school
bathrooms by transgender students has provoked a torrent of criticism . It also marks a new front in America's long-
running culture wars . The latest battle over trans gender rights and sexual identity comes in response to a joint letter
Friday from the Departments of Education and Justice directing public schools to ensure that "transgender students enjoy a
supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment." Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division,
addressed the issue Saturday in remarks at the University of Minnesota Law School commencement. "Even after the Supreme Court's landmark
gay marriage decision last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed all people 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law,' we see new efforts to
deny LGBTI individuals the respect they deserve and the protection our laws guarantee," she said. "Efforts like House Bill 2 in North Carolina
not only violate the laws that govern our nation, but also the values that define us as a people." A legal standoff between the administration
and North Carolina over
the state's controversial House Bill 2 is part of a broader public debate on transgender rights in
schools and public life. The statewide policy bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex
and restricts cities from passing nondiscrimination laws. The Obama administration directive goes beyond the bathroom issue to touch on privacy
rights, education records and sex-segregated athletics. And that has unleashed a fierce backlash from ministers, parents and
politicians who say the federal government has gone too far. The joint letter, of course, does not carry the force of law. The threat
of a cut in federal funding, however, is abundantly clear. Politicians lead the charge Prominent politicians across the nation are
defiantly standing up against the guidance from Washington. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick accused the Obama administration of
"blackmail" and called the directive "social engineering." "Families in America will not accept it," he told reporters. Texas Gov. Greg
Abbott, on Twitter, promised a fight: "Obama can't rewrite the Civil Rights Act. He's not a king." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who railed against such
laws when he was a Republican presidential candidate, did not hold back. "America has woken up to yet another example of President Barack
Obama doing through executive fiat what he cannot get done through our democratic process," Cruz said. He added, "Having spent many years in
law enforcement, I've handled far too many cases of child molesters, of pedophiles, of people who abused little kids. The threats of predators are
serious, and we should not facilitate allowing grown men or boys to be in bathrooms with little girls." North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory
called on Congress to intervene . " Most Americans , including this governor, believe that government is searching for a
solution to a problem that has yet to be defined," he said in a statement. "Now, both the federal courts and the U.S.
Congress must intercede to stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority." 'It's up to
Congress to write the law' Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reiterated that
the guidance was not federal. "This is the kind of issue that parents, schools boards, communities, students and teachers
should be allowed to work out in a practical way with a maximum amount of respect for the individual rights of all students," the
Tennessee Republican said in a statement. "Insofar as the federal government goes, it's up to Congress to write the law ,
not the executive departments." Justice and Education Department officials have repeatedly made clear that under their interpretation of Title IX,
the federal anti-discrimination law in education, schools receiving federal funds may not discriminate based on a student's sex, including a
student's transgender status. "The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes
of enforcing Title IX," the administration said Thursday. "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including
discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. "This guidance gives administrators,
teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies."
LGBT groups praised the guidelines as a validation of transgender rights and a repudiation of so-called "bathroom bills" that ban
people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. "This is a truly significant moment not only for
transgender young people but for all young people, sending a message that every student deserves to be treated fairly and supported by their
teachers and schools," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said. But in North Carolina, Republican State Rep. Craig
Horn told CNN affiliate WBTV that he received emails from parents worried about the safety of their children. "There
certainly could be a safety issue," he told the station. "I am not ringing the bell of fear, but I have to be concerned. Kids are kids. We do
crazy things." Horn said topics such as "underserved kids, failing schools, violence in schools, making sure kids get a great education" deserve as
much attention from the federal government as the use of bathrooms. 'The conflict has only just begun' Denny Burk, professor of biblical
studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, wrote in his blog: "This radical
directive is a heavy-handed, unconstitutional overreach in order to force Americans to pretend that some boys are girls and some girls are boys. It
is absurd and wrong." Burk predicted that the directive would "cause unrest and conflict all over the country. It is one thing for
an individual to embrace a fictional identity. It is another thing for the federal government to coerce everyone else to embrace it too. This is far
from over. Indeed the conflict has only just begun." Rodney Cavness, superintendent of the Port Neches-Groves public school district
in Texas, told CNN affiliate KFDM-TV that he was throwing the Obama administration directive in the trash. "I don't recognize President
Obama," he told the station. "Nothing he does has any shred of leadership ... This is one of those deals where it's total overreach of the
federal government." A member of the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education in North Carolina this week suggested the use of school
bathrooms by transgender students justified allowing high school students to carry pepper spray to class. "Depending on how the courts rule on
the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in,"
board member Chuck Hughes said of the pepper spray, according to the Salisbury Post. The board voted Monday to change a policy prohibiting
mace or pepper spray in high school, CNN affiliate WSOC-TV reported. But Hughes told the station and he and other board members -- after
weighing the pros and cons -- will vote against the change later this month. "I was not thinking about the LGBT issue," Hughes said. "Perverts
and pedophiles taking advantage of this law in bathrooms was my major concern." A threat to federal funding In Fannin County, Georgia,
hundreds of parents attended a school board meeting Thursday night to voice concerns about bathroom policy, CNN affiliate WSB-
TV reported. Some threatened to remove their children from school. "They will never set foot in a Fannin County school again,"
one mother said, according to the station. "I will stay home every day and homeschool as long as it takes. But that is my belief, and that is my
motherly right, and that is where I stand." Fannin County Schools Superintendent Mark Henson told the station that losing about $3 million in
federal funds was not an option. In a letter to U.S. Education Secretary John King this week, North Carolina's ten Republican
members of Congress said they were " deeply troubled by the threat" to withhold federal funds and demanded
assurances the state would not be punished. King said the directive came in response to requests from schools and parents seeking
guidance. It's a clarification of the federal government's position that gender identity is protected under Title IX.

Court Action is uniquely politicized and rulings are tied to Trump Blocking Garland vote changed the game
Turow, 17
Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant Attorney, member of the U.S. Senate Nominations
Commission, 2/1, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

CAN NEIL GORSUCH DE-POLITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT? Or will he make matters worse? The ultimate consequence of a
court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected, and even disobeyed, by the political majority. The nomination of federal
Appellate Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court is destined to speed up the already
rapid politicization of the court , a process that threatens to rob it of legitimacy and, sooner or later, produce open defiance of its decisions. This has
next to nothing to do with the bona fides of Judge Gorsuch, who appears to have the intellectual qualificationsa doctorate from Oxford, no lessand the judicial
experience that one, in theory, would want in a Supreme Court justice. The
problem, of course, is the way we got here. Even before Barack
Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Scalia last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
refused to allow hearings to
proceed on any name that the president sent forth. Instead, McConnell said, the nomination should belong to the next
president chosen by the American people. There was virtually no precedent for McConnells position: Justice Anthony
Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagans second term by a Democratic Senate. Worse, by essentially proposing that the choice for a Supreme
McConnell was suggesting that the court should be controlled by the
Court justice would be decided as the result of a plebiscite,
voters. McConnells actions were all the more ironic because they concerned the seat of the courts most committed originalist, as those who supposedly
interpret the Constitution according to the intent and understandings of its framers are called. In this case, the intent of the framers was pretty clear on a couple of
matters. First, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint...Judges of the [S]upreme Court... Lawyers, including originalists, love plain language, and the plain language here vests the appointment power solely in
the president, with the Senates role limited to advising and consenting. By withholding any vote in committee or on the Senate floor, McConnell clearly ignored the
constitutional command to offer advice or affirmation. Furthermore, by
awaiting the next presidential election, McConnell was saying that
the voters deserved to decide the direction of the court . Again, this is not what the framers of the constitution wanted. They could have easily
provided for the election of judges. They didnt. The framers envisioned the court as a less political institution on which the justices would
serve for life, so that they were not prisoners of the popular will.

Weak growth causes nuclear war---turns every impact

Kemp 10 Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White
House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for
Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms
Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and
Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong
does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a
major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and
the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to
cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures
different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is
challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan
and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger
of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan,
expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential
for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the
oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like
impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the
planets population.
 Politics Link Federalism-specific links

Our Actor distinction - Federal Decisions on gender identity and bathrooms are uniquely unpopular.
Heriot 16
et al ; Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Since 2007 she has been a member of
the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Gail was also a professor and associate dean at George Mason University School
of Law. She is a former civil rights council to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amicus Brief -
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE
GRIMM, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF
OF AMICI CURIAE GAIL HERIOT AND PETER N. KIRSANOW, MEMBERS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CWIL
RIGHTS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS PRWATE CITIZENS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER September Available at
SCOUTS blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter modified to avoid potentially objectionable language continues to
footnote - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-amicus-heriot.pdf

This Case Has Captured the Public's Attention as a Symbol of the Rule of Law's Decline; Vindicating the Rule of Law in this Case Is
Thus Vital to the Health of the American System of Laws.
For a variety of reasons, many abuses of the administrative state slip by the public unnoticed. Similarly, legitimate governmental actions are
This case is different : It is correctly viewed (considered) by many as an egregious
sometimes unfairly called abusive.
overreach. When the preliminary injunctions in both this case and its opposite, Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:16-
cv-00054-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2016), were issued, they made the news across the country.
It is not hard to see why. First, the statutory interpretation issue can be readily grasped. Few would argue that Title IX's sex discrimination ban
was originally understood to require OCR's conclusions. Indeed, OCR made no such claim. See supra at Section II. As for Price Waterhouse and
Oncale, few have ever heard of them, and if they did hear of them they would be unlikely to believe that such decisions could change a statute's
clear meaning.
Second, fairly or unfairly, the underlying social issue tends to provoke a strong response from many members of the
public. When Target Corporation announced on April 19, 2016, that it would begin inviting transgendered individuals to use
the store restroom that corresponds to their gender identity rather than to their sex (as was clearly Target's legal
right), an online petition began to be circulated. As of this writing (September 4th), it has garnered the signatures of 1,417,548
individuals, all of whom have pledged to boycott Target (as was clearly the legal right of the signatories).8 Google reports that Target's stock
plummeted over 15.7% between April 19th and September 2nd (market closing as of the time of this writing), while its chief
competitor, Wal-Mart, saw its stock increase 3.9%.
Similarly, the issue of toilet, locker room, and shower assignment was thought by some (perhaps correctly in retrospect) to be
embedded in a Houston initiative that prohibited gender identity discrimination . As a result, Houston voters ( a group
that voted heavily for President Obama in 2012) voted it down by a 3 to 1 margin.
Supporters of the Transgender Guidances have argued that male-to-female transgendered persons are no threat to the safety of females.9
Opponents have argued that OCR's (and Target's) policy requires no proof that one psychologically identifies with the opposite sex. The effect is
that ill-motivated individuals can use the intimate facility of their choice without fear of being turned away. In some instances, this has led to
tragic results. See, e.g., Sam Pazzano, Predator Who Claimed to be Transgender Declared Dangerous Offender, Toronto Sun, Feb. 26, 2014.
Even if one regards these cases to be too rare to be significant in setting public policy, they will be discussed in lurid
detail on the radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and blogs and circulated over Face-book and Twitter.
Polls indicate that strong majorities of Americans oppose OCR's policies. FN10 Of course, polls should not drive this Court's
deliberations. But under some circumstances they should have an indirect bearing on which cases receive priority. The judiciary has the primary
responsibilityboth real and symbolicas the guardian of the rule of law. When an administrative action brings the rule of law
into disrepute, the courts should be mindful of the threat it poses to the legal system.

FN10 When the issue is put in terms of who should decide , the majorities are extremely strong. Approximately 70%
agreed that, "Decisions about how to reasonably accommodate transgender students should be made by parents, teachers,
and local districts, not federal bureaucrats." See Mark Schreiber & Elizabeth Fender, Placing Gender Politics over Privacy: How
President Obama's Transgender Policy for Schools Makes Matters Worse (May 2016), available at http://thf-reports.s3.amazo-
naws.com/2016/SOGIGovOnePager.pdf. See also Bradford Richardson, Two-Thirds of Americans Oppose Obama's Transgender Bathroom
Order: Poll Washington Times (July 12, 2016). Amici suspect the opposition might be even greater if the difference between "transgenders"
(those who simply psychologically identify with the opposite sex) and "transsexuals" (those who have surgically altered their bodies) were
explained.

(Note to Students: OCR is the US Dept of Educations Office of Civil Rights. Under the Obama
Administration, the OCR wrote a guidance letter endorsing that students be permitted to use the bathroom that
corresponds with their gender identity.)
 Politics link Aff = controversy

The Aff will be high-profile and controversial

Heriot 16
et al ; Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Since 2007 she has been a member of
the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Gail was also a professor and associate dean at George Mason University School
of Law. She is a former civil rights council to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amicus Brief -
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE
GRIMM, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF
OF AMICI CURIAE GAIL HERIOT AND PETER N. KIRSANOW, MEMBERS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CWIL
RIGHTS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS PRWATE CITIZENS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER September Available at
SCOUTS blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter modified to avoid potentially objectionable language -
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-amicus-heriot.pdf
This Case Has Captured the Public's Attention as a Symbol of the Rule of Law's Decline; Vindicating the Rule of Law in this Case Is
Thus Vital to the Health of the American System of Laws.
For a variety of reasons, many abuses of the administrative state slip by the public unnoticed. Similarly, legitimate governmental actions are
sometimes unfairly called abusive. This case is different : It is correctly viewed (considered) by many as an egregious
overreach. When the preliminary injunctions in both this case and its opposite , Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:16-
cv-00054-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2016), were issued, they made the news across the country.
It is not hard to see why. First, the statutory interpretation issue can be readily grasped. Few would argue that Title IX's sex discrimination ban
was originally understood to require OCR's conclusions. Indeed, OCR made no such claim. See supra at Section II. As for Price Waterhouse and
Oncale, few have ever heard of them, and if they did hear of them they would be unlikely to believe that such decisions could change a statute's
clear meaning.
Second, fairly or unfairly, the underlying social issue tends to provoke a strong response from many members of the
public. When Target Corporation announced on April 19, 2016, that it would begin inviting transgendered individuals to use
the store restroom that corresponds to their gender identity rather than to their sex (as was clearly Target's legal
right), an online petition began to be circulated. As of this writing (September 4th), it has garnered the signatures of 1,417,548
individuals, all of whom have pledged to boycott Target (as was clearly the legal right of the signatories).8 Google reports that Target's stock
plummeted over 15.7% between April 19th and September 2nd (market closing as of the time of this writing), while its chief
competitor, Wal-Mart, saw its stock increase 3.9%.
Similarly, the issue of toilet, locker room, and shower assignment was thought by some (perhaps correctly in retrospect) to be
embedded in a Houston initiative that prohibited gender identity discrimination . As a result, Houston voters ( a group
that voted heavily for President Obama in 2012) voted it down by a 3 to 1 margin.
Supporters of the Transgender Guidances have argued that male-to-female transgendered persons are no threat to the safety of females.9
Opponents have argued that OCR's (and Target's) policy requires no proof that one psychologically identifies with the opposite sex. The effect is
that ill-motivated individuals can use the intimate facility of their choice without fear of being turned away. In some instances, this has led to
tragic results. See, e.g., Sam Pazzano, Predator Who Claimed to be Transgender Declared Dangerous Offender, Toronto Sun, Feb. 26, 2014.
Even if one regards these cases to be too rare to be significant in setting public policy, they will be discussed in lurid detail on the radio,
television, newspapers, magazines, and blogs and circulated over Face-book and Twitter.
Polls indicate that strong majorities of Americans oppose OCR's policies.FN10 Of course, polls should not drive this Court's
deliberations. But under some circumstances they should have an indirect bearing on which cases receive priority. The judiciary has the primary
responsibilityboth real and symbolicas the guardian of the rule of law. When an administrative action brings the rule of law into disrepute,
the courts should be mindful of the threat it poses to the legal system.

(Note to Students: OCR is the US Dept of Educations Office of Civil Rights. Under the Obama
Administration, the OCR wrote a guidance letter endorsing that students be permitted to use the bathroom that
corresponds with their gender identity.)
States Cplan
 1NC

Text All 50 State governments and relevant US territories should require that K-12 students in public
schools be allowed to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

The Cplan solves without being a federal imposition. This avoids our disads.
McCluskey 16
Neal McCluskey is the director of the Cato Institutes Center for Educational Freedom and maintains Catos Public Schooling
Battle Map. Commentary Should the Feds Decide the Transgender Bathroom Issue? - May 17, 2016.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/should-feds-decide-transgender-bathroom-issue

Much of this debate has been framed as conservatives versus liberals, or traditionalists versus social change. But the
root problem is not differing views. It is government especially federal imposition.
Before getting into what the feds should or should not do, lets be clear about something. A couple of weeks ago, U.S. Secretary of Education
John King called hateful North Carolinas law ground zero for all this requiring, among other provisions, that public school restrooms be
restricted by a persons sex at birth. Now, the laws supporters may hate transgendered people. But many perhaps all may also harbor no
such animosity. Neither Secretary King, nor anyone other than those people, knows.
It is not hard to imagine how perfectly decent people might be against opening up school bathrooms. Single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms
have long been the norm, and privacy about our bodies especially from the opposite sex has long been coveted.
Beyond being unfair, King and others may be playing with social fire by branding as hateful all who oppose open bathrooms. They may be
provoking anger from people who before were just concerned. And would supporters of the administrations directive pronounce that President
Obama was hateful until 2012, when he changed to support gay marriage? Probably not.
Of course , transgendered students should must be treated equally by public institutions, and their desire to use the
facilities in which they feel comfortable is utterly understandable.
By fair reckoning, we do not have a competition between good and evil, but what should be equally protected values and rights.
How do we resolve this? Most immediately, not with a federal mandate .
Unlike most of the education governing Washington does think No Child Left Behind the feds may have constitutional authority to act
here. At least Washington is empowered to prohibit discrimination by state and local governments under the Fourteenth Amendment, though the
new directive is technically linked to federal funds.
But just because Washington may do something does not mean it should.
First, it is far from clear that single-gender bathroom rules are discrimination on par with, say, racial segregation. At the very least, it is difficult
to argue that bathroom rules create unequal provision of education tantamount to completely separate schools.
There is also good reason to believe that it is most effective to allow social change to evolve from the ground up, not
be imposed. Seismic change is jarring, and imposition may create otherwise avoidable resentment and anger. Moreover,
changing attitudes may well precede not be driven by changes in law. For instance, white survey responses on racial integration show that
in 1942 only 32 percent of respondents thought black and white children should go to the same schools. By 1956 half said so. By 1963 almost
two-thirds did. The federal Civil Rights Act did not come until 1964.
 A-to 50 State Fiat is bad

50 state fiat is not bad:

Defense:

- Uniformity and real world arguments link to the Aff. They fiat several Federal Actors uniformly
comply. Their inherency ev proves their Affs not realistic in the status quo.

- Doesnt kill ground or topic-education Affs can finds ways to answer uniform State fiat without
resorting to military affs. Federal Signal args are still at the heart of the topic.

- Their topic education args are a farce they choose to frame this as an education topic. But thats
just one word in the resolution. Federal is in the topic as well. The counterplan provides topic
education for that word as well.

- Reject theory, not team no reason we should lose for merely running the counterplan.

- Err Neg on theory. Aff gets to speak first and last and also gets to choose the item we discuss. The
round is structurally tilted in the affs favor and this counterplans a device to re-set the scales.

Offense:

- Functional Limits. Absent the States cplan, this topic is huge and multidirectional. Teams could require
vouchers, ban them, or do them slightly differently. There are thousands of other Affs. States makes the
topic manageable for the neg. This turns their topic-education claim because no States means neg
wont ever be ready and will learn less once theyre forced to defend hyper-generics.

- Teaches us to seek the best policy option which boosts education and critical thinking.

- Forces Aff to research tough Fed Key warrants making their knowledge and inquiry go deeper.
****CASE ANSWERS START HERE
A-to Discrimination Advantage
Frontline
 1NC Frontline vs. Trans- Discrimination Advantage

Social trends emerging now bottom-up change is already transforming the Law to be more protrans- .
Weiss 14
Dr. Jillian T. Weiss has a J.D. and a Ph.D. in Law, Policy & Society. Currently Professor of Law and Society at Ramapo College
of New Jersey, her research area is gender identity and law. She has authored over 50 academic publications, presentations and
other scholarly works, as well as approximately 40 articles an d interviews for media organizations including The New York
Times and Associated Press. Dr. Weiss provides legal representation to transgender employees in cases involving gender identity
and gender expression discrimination. She also consults with private and public organizations regarding gender identity policy
and employee gender transitions, including Harvard University, Boeing and New York City. Her volunteer work includes serving
as a member of the Board of Directors of Lambda Legal, the oldest and la rgest U.S. national legal organization whose mission is
to safeguard and advance the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact
litigation, education and policy work. She is also Chair of the annual Transgender Law Institute, currently held at the National
LGBT Bar Associations annual Conference. The Transgender Tipping Point: An Overview for the Advocate - November 2014
- https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Weiss_-_The_Transgender_Tipping_Point.pdf

There has been a change in the social understanding of sex over the past sixty years, and this has led to transgender people
receiving increased legal protection. Early judicial opinions from the 1970s and 1980s said that transgender people did not receive
protection from sex discrimination because sex discrimination then referred only to discrimination based on being a male or female, which was
distinguished from a change in sex. For example, in Ulane v. Eastern Airlines? the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held, on this
basis, that an airline pilot who alleged that she was fired because of transsexual status had no cause of action under the federal Civil Rights Act of
1964 (often referred to as "Title VII"). However, over time, the meaning of the term sex has been increasingly interpreted to include gender and
gender identity.6
In 1989, in the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that penalizing an individual for
failing to conform to gendered norms of behavior constitutes a form of sex-based discrimination. This development
was first recognized by an appellate court in 2000, in the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Schwenkv.
Hartford There, a transsexual prisoner filed a civil rights suit against a male prison guard, seeking damages as a result of the guard's alleged
attempted rape of the plaintiff under the federal Gender Motivated Violence Act.9 The Court noted that "Ulane has been overtaken by the 'logic
and language of Price Waterhouse' and that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on 'sexual identity,' not just based on biological sex." In its
2008 decision in Schroer v. Billington, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the spurious
distinction between sex and change of sex.10 The Court noted that Title VII also included protection from religious
discrimination, and that "no court would take seriously the notion that 'converts' are not covered by the statute.
Discrimination 'because of religion' easily encompasses discrimination because of a change of religion." This developing understanding
of sex as a term of art has opened the door to transgender people claiming rights based on laws referring to sex. Because the
case law regarding many of the areas discussed below is less developed, the voluminous case law under Title VII should be referenced as
analogous.
II. Substantive Issues
A. Civil Rights
1. Employment
Laws protecting transgender people from employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression have
been passed in 18 states at the time of this writing.11 A few other states have court rulings holding that transgender employees are included
in other protected categories, such as sex or disability.12 Over 140 municipalities have laws prohibiting employment
discrimination based on gender identity. Examples of cities with strong laws include New York City, San Francisco
and D.C.

Grimm case is not key status quo will solve now through equal protection rulings.
Gersen 17
Jeannie Suk Gersen is a contributing writer for newyorker.com, and a professor at Harvard Law School. A New Phase of Chaos
on Transgender Rights New Yorker March 13th - http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-new-phase-of-chaos-on-
transgender-rights
With a one-sentence order last week, the Supreme Court dashed hopes of a big transgender-rights decision this term. The Court was
supposed to review the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender teen-age boy who sued the Gloucester County School
Board for the right to use the boys bathroom and won, in the Fourth Circuit . But the basis of the Fourth Circuits decision was
the Obama Administrations view that Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits schools that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis
of sex, requires schools to treat transgender students in a way consistent with their gender identity. Last month, the Trump Administration
retracted that position. Both Grimm and the school board urged the Supreme Court to review the case as planned, arguing that
the governments shift made it no less urgent for the Court to declare Title IXs meaning. But the Supreme Court decided to
vacate the lower courts decision and send the case back for reconsideration. Grimms victory in the lower court was tethered to the Obama
guidance, and disappeared along with it.
That leaves the Fourth Circuit to directly confront what Title IX means for schools and transgender students. Given that a 1975 federal regulation
implementing Title IX permits separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, can schools keep transgender students out
of facilities that correspond to their gender identity? The losing party in that decision will surely ask the Supreme Court for review, but, in the
meantime, the transgender-rights fight resumes in lower courts and states, in a landscape greatly altered by the governments change of position.
When a divisive social issue plays out in courts, legislatures, and communities, the process is normally messy, and filled with pain and struggle
for the people involvedin this instance, schoolchildren. But the combination of the sharply conflicting Obama and Trump guidances, the
Supreme Courts refusal to review a case it had already agreed to hear, and the elimination of an important lower-court transgender win has
escalated the confusion to an unusual degree.
The Trump Administrations guidance does not require schools to bar transgender students from gender-corresponding bathrooms. But one state
has done so, and gone even further. Last March, North Carolina passed a law mandating that all public schools and public agencies must
require that bathrooms and changing facilities be used based on a persons sex on his or her birth certificate. The Obama Administration issued
its guidance on transgender students in May, and Obamas Justice Department sued North Carolina that month, claiming that the state had
violated federal civil-rights laws. But that suit looks as though it will soon be abandoned by Trumps Justice Department, which indicated in a
motion this month that it needs time to rethink its position on the North Carolina law. If the suit is deserted, any state could follow North
Carolinas lead without facing repercussions from the federal government.
No appellate court has considered the question that is before the Fourth Circuit in Grimms casewhat sex means for transgender students in
the phrase on the basis of sex in Title IX and its regulations. But in a lawsuit filed by thirteen states challenging Obamas transgender guidance,
a Texas federal district court stated last fall that sex unambiguously means sex assigned at birth, not gender identity. That court blocked
enforcement of the guidance nationwide while the suit was ongoing, and the Obama Administration appealed in the Fifth Circuit. But after the
Trump Administration announced that it would not defend the Obama guidance and dropped the appeal, the states agreed to drop the suit
altogether.
While the federal government abandons its positions defending transgender bathroom access, a challenge to North Carolinas bathroom law,
brought on behalf of transgender North Carolinians by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the firm of Jenner & Block, will
proceed in federal district court. Last summer, a North Carolina federal district court temporarily blocked enforcement of the law against student
plaintiffs, adopting the rationale of Grimms Fourth Circuit case, which deferred to Obamas Title IX guidance. Now that the Supreme Court has
vacated the Fourth Circuit case, that injunction could be challenged by North Carolina, too. The district court also said that the plaintiffs were
unlikely to succeed in their constitutional claim: that the North Carolina law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The transgender plaintiffs appeal of that decision will be argued in the Fourth Circuit, in May.
Meanwhile , three transgender high-school students in suburban Pittsburgh (including the sister of Jackie Evancho, who
sang at President Trumps Inauguration) brought a suit challenging their school districts policy excluding transgender students
from gender-corresponding bathrooms. Last month, a Pennsylvania federal district court temporarily enjoined enforcement
of the policy, saying that the students were likely to succeed at trial on their constitutional equal-protection claim . But
the new Trump guidance caused the court also to say that the students Title IX claim was unlikely to succeed. This win on equal
protection, but not on Title IX, represents the reverse of the outcomes of the North Carolina case, indicating that, as the Title IX
arguments grow weaker without the federal governments supporting interpretation, constitutional arguments may well rise up to
accomplish the same protection for transgender people.

Boycotts will solve anti-trans- bathroom policy in the status quo

Gordon 16
Nalani. The author is completing a JD from the University of Miami Law School and is a member of the American Bar
Association. The author holds a BA and MA specifically including a BA in Criminal Justice. The author has served as an
Adjunct Instructor for Palm Beach State College. Injustice Boycott: Civil Rights Activist Says Put Your Money Where your
Mouth Is - RACE & SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW REVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW - Oct 24, 2016 -
http://race-and-social-justice-review.law.miami.edu/injustice-boycott-civil-rights-activist-put-money-mouth/

1. Boycotts have worked in the past.

Let's be clear: the boycott is not a new idea. Civil rights protesters have long used their economic power to provoke social justice reforms.f2]
Buses in Montgomery, Alabama were desegregated after the iconic boycottOJ, and an NAACP-led boycott in Claiborne County. Mississippi
ultimately led the Supreme Court to holdJ4J that nonviolent, politically motivated boycotts are protected under the First Amendment. Money
talks.
2. Boycotts are working right now.
North Carolina (NC) House Bill 2, which affects the rights of lesbian, gay. bisexual, and transgen-der (LGBT) people, has
caused significant backlash for the state: Major companies have halted expansion plans: celebrities refuse to perform: and
the real knockout punch for NC may be the loss of popular sporting events, such as the 2017 NBA all-star game and the
NCAA and ACC championship games.15] Because a large-scale boycott of a state like NC could negatively impact a
state's economy, a state may be inclined to address calls for reform. King states that he and his team will be "building a coalition"
of organizations, businesses, and leaders who will participate in the boycott.6] King's boycott needs the support of companies like Apple,
Wal-Mart, and IBM, which have all denounced several states' legislation regarding anti-discrimination protections for
LGBT people.!!]

Utilitarianism comes first approaches can only be ethical when they consider externalities.
Chandler 14
(David Chandler is Professor of International Relations at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of
Westminster Beyond good and evil: Ethics in a world of complexity International Politics, Vol. 51, No. 4 (2014), pp.441-
457 Available at: http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/International-Politics-Evil-PUBLISHED-2.pdf)

Self-reflexive ethics redistribute responsibility and emphasize the indirect, unintended and relational networks of complex causation. Collective problems are reconceived ontologically: as
constitutive of communities and of political purpose. This is why many radical and critical voices in the West are drawn to the problems of 'side effects', of
'second-order' consequences - of a lack of knowledge of the emergent causality at play in the complex interconnections of the global world. The more these
interconnections are revealed, though the work of self-reflexivity and self-reflection, the more ethical authority can be regained by governments and other

agents of governance. We learn and learn again that we are responsible for the world , not because of our conscious choices or because our actions lacked

the right ethical intent ion, but because the world's complexity is beyond our capacity to know and understand in advance. The unknowability of the outcomes
of our action does not remove our ethical responsibility for our actions, it, in fact , heightens our responsibility for these
second-order consequences or side effects. In a complex and interconnected world, few events or problems evade appropriation within this framing, providing an
opportunity for recasting responsibility in these ways. The new ethics of indirect responsibility for market consequences can be seen (observed)
clearly in the idea of environmental taxation, both state-enforced through interventions in the market and as taken up by both firms and individuals. The idea that we should pay a carbon tax on
air travel is a leading example of this, in terms of governmental intervention, passing the burden of such problems on to 'unethical' consumers who are not reflexive enough to consider the impact
of package holidays on the environment. At a broader level, the personalized ethico-political understanding that individuals should be responsible for and measure their own 'carbon footprint'
shifts the emphasis from an understanding of broader inter-relations between modernity, the market and the environment to a much narrower understanding of personal indirect responsibility,
linking all aspects of everyday decision making to the problems of global warming (see, for example, Marres, 2012). The shared responsibility for the Breivik murders is not different -
our actions and inactions we collectively
ontologically - from the societally shared responsibility for global warming or other problematic appearances in the world. Through

constitute the frameworks in which others act and make decisions -failing to raise our voice against 'borderline racism' or extremism in a bar makes us indirectly
responsible for acts of racism or extremism in the same way that failing to save water or minimize air travel makes us indirectly
responsible for the melting polar ice caps.

History proves Anti-Discrimination laws will fail. Scope is too narrow and few can afford to sue anyway.

***note to students - the next two card also appear in the 1NC shell for the Trans- Pessimism
watch for overlap.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

As the concept of trans rights has gained more currency in the last two decades, a seeming consensus has emerged about
which law reforms should be sought to better the lives of trans people. ' Advocates of trans equality have primarily
pursued two law reform interventions: anti-discrimination laws that list gender identity and/or expression as a category of
non-discrimination, and hate crime laws that include crimes motivated by the gender identity and/or expression of the victim as triggering
the application of a jurisdiction's hate crime statute. Organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have supported state
and local organizations around the country in legislative campaigns to pass such laws. Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia currently
have laws that include gender identity and/or expression as a category of anti-discrimination, and 108 counties and
cities have such laws. NGLTF estimates that 39 percent of people in the United States live in a jurisdiction where such
laws are on the books.'' Seven states now have hate crime laws that include gender identity and/or expression.'1' In 2009 a federal law, the
Matthew Shepard and Tames Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, added gender identity and/or expression to federal hate crime law. An
ongoing battle regarding if and how gender identity and/or expression will be included in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a
federal law that would prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation, continues to be fought between the conservative national gay and
lesbian organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), legislators, and a variety of organizations and activists seeking to push an inclusive
bill through Congress. These two legal reforms, anti-discrimination bills and hate crime laws, have come to define the idea of "trans rights" in the
United States and are presently the most visible efforts made by nonprofit organizations and activists working under this rubric.
The logic behind this law reform strategy is not mysterious. Proponents argue that passing these laws does a number of important
things. First, the passage of antidiscrimination laws can create a basis for legal claims against discriminating employers,
housing providers, restaurants, hotels, stores, and the like. Trans people's legal claims when facing exclusion in such contexts have often failed
in the past, with courts saying that the exclusion is a legitimate preference on the part of the employer, landlord, or business owner.iv Laws that
make gender identity/expression-based exclusion illegal have the potential to influence courts to punish discriminators and provide certain
remedies (e.g., back pay or damages) to injured trans people. There is also a hope that such laws, and their enforcement by courts,
would send a preventative message to potential discriminators, letting them know that such exclusions will not be tolerated; these laws
would ultimately increase access to jobs, housing, and other necessities for trans people.
Hate crime laws are promoted under a related logic. Proponents point out that trans people have a very high murder rate and are subject to a great
deal of violences In many instances, trans people's lives are so devalued by police and prosecutors that trans murders are not investigated or trans
people's murderers are given less punishment than is typical in murder sentencing. Proponents believe that hate crime laws will intervene in these
situations, making law enforcement take this violence seriously. There is also a symbolic element to the passage of these laws: a statement that
trans lives are meaningful, often described by proponents as an assertion that trans people are human. Additionally, both proponents of anti-
discrimination laws and hate crime laws argue that the processes of advocating the passage of such laws, including media advocacy representing
the lives and concerns of trans people and meetings with legislators to tell them about trans people's experiences, increases positive trans visibility
and advances the struggle for trans equality. The data-collection element of hate crime statutes, through which certain government agencies keep
count of crimes that fall into this category, is touted by proponents as a chance to make the quantity and severity of trans people's struggles more
visible.
The logic of visibility and inclusion surrounding anti-discrimination and hate crime laws campaigns is very popular, yet there are many
troubling limitations to the idea that these two reforms comprise a proper approach to problems trans people face in
both criminal and civil law contexts. One concern is whether these laws actually improve the life chances of those who are
purportedly protected by them. Looking at categories of identity that have been included in these kinds of laws over the last
several decades indicates
that these kinds of reforms have not eliminated bias , exclusion, or marginalization. Discrimination
and violence against people of color have persisted despite law changes that declared it illegal. The persistent and growing racial
wealth divide in the United States suggests that these law changes have not had their promised effects, and that the structure of systemic racism is
not addressed by the work of these laws." Similarly, the twenty-year history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demonstrates
disappointing results. Courts have limited the enforcement potential of this law with narrow interpretations of its impact, and people with
disabilities remain economically and politically marginalized by systemic ableism. Similar arguments can be made about the persistence of
national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and other forms of pervasive discrimination despite decades of official prohibitions of such
behavior. The persistence of wage gaps, illegal terminations, hostile work environments, hiring/firing disparities, and bias-motivated violence for
groups whose struggles have supposedly been addressed by antidiscrimination and hate crime laws invites caution when assuming the
effectiveness of these measures.
Hate crime laws do not have a deterrent effect. They focus on punishment and cannot be argued to actually prevent bias-motivated violence. In
addition to their failure to prevent harm, they must be considered in the context of the failures of our legal systems and, specifically, the violence
of our criminal punishment system. Anti-discrimination laws are not adequately enforced. Most people who experience discrimination
cannot afford to access legal help, so their experiences never make it to court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has severely
narrowed the enforceability of these laws over the last 30 years, making it extremely difficult to prove discrimination short of a signed letter from
a boss or landlord stating, "I am taking this negative action against you because of your [insert characteristic]." Even in cases that seem as
obvious as that, people experiencing discrimination often lose. Proving discriminatory intent has become central, making it almost
impossible to win these cases when they are brought to court. Theselaws also have such narrow scopes that they often do not
include action taken by some of the most common discriminators against marginalized people: prison guards , welfare bureaucrats,
workfare supervisors, immigration officers , child welfare workers, and others who have significant control over the lives of
marginalized people in the United States. In a neoliberal era characterized by abandonment (reduction of social safety net and infrastructure,
especially in poor and people of color communities) and imprisonment (increased immigration and criminal law enforcement), anti-
discrimination laws provide little relief to the most vulnerable people.

Anti-Discrimination Laws are worse than nothing. They boost oppression by obscuring structural factors that
create ongoing disparate outcomes.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke Modified for language that may offend -The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

Critical race theorists have developed analyses about the limitations of antidiscrimination law that are useful in
understanding the ways these law reforms have and will continue to fail to deliver meaningful change to trans people .
Alan Freeman's critique of what he terms the "perpetrator perspective" in discrimination law is particularly helpful in conceptualizing the limits
of the common trans rights strategies.xi Freeman's work looks at laws that prohibit discrimination based on race. He exposes how and why
antidiscrimination and hate crime statutes do not achieve their promises of equality and freedom for people targeted by discrimination and
violence. Freeman argues that discrimination law misunderstands how racism works, which makes it fail to effectively address it.
Discrimination law primarily conceptualizes the harm of racism through the perpetrator/victim dyad , imagining that the
fundamental scene is that of a perpetrator who irrationally hates people on the basis of their race and fires or denies service to or beats or kills the
victim based on that hatred. The law's adoption of this conception of racism does several things that make it ineffective at
and help it contribute to obscuring the actual operations of racism . First, it individualizes racism. It
eradicating racism
says that racism is about bad individuals who intentionally make discriminatory choices and must be punished. In this
(mis)understanding, structural or systemic racism is rendered invisible (less apparent). Through this function, the law can only
attend to disparities that come from the behavior of a perpetrator who intentionally considered the category that must not be considered (e.g.,
race, gender, disability) in the decision she was making (e.g., hiring, firing, admission, expulsion). Conditions like living in a district
with underfunded schools that "happens to be" 96 percent students of color,xii or having to take an admissions test that has been proven to
predict race better than academic success*11' or any of a number of disparities in life conditions (access to adequate food,
healthcare, employment, housing, clean air and water ) that we know stem from and reflect long-term patterns of exclusion and
exploitation cannot be understood as "violations" under the discrimination principle , and thus remedies cannot be won. This
narrow reading of what constitutes a violation and can be recognized as discrimination serves to naturalize and affirm the status quo of
maldistribution. Anti-discrimination law seeks out aberrant individuals with overtly biased intentions.xlv Meanwhile, all the daily disparities
in life chances that shape our world along lines of race, class, indigeneity, disability, national origin, sex, and gender remain untouchable and
affirmed as non-discriminatory or even as fair.
The perpetrator perspective also obscures the historical context of racism. Discrimination is understood as the act of taking into
account the identity that discrimination law forbids us to take into account (e.g., race, sex, disability) when making a decision, and it does not
regard whether the decision-maker is favoring or harming a traditionally excluded group. In this way, the discrimination principle has been used
to eviscerate affirmative action and desegregation programs.^' This erroneously conceptualized "colorblindness" undermines the
possibility of remedying the severe racial disparities in the United States that are rooted in slavery, genocide, land theft,
internment, and immigration exclusion, as well as racially explicit policies that historically and presently exclude people of color from
the benefits of wealth-building programs for US citizens like Social Security, land grants, and credit and other homeownership support.' The
conditions that created and continue to reproduce such immense disparities are made invisible by the perpetrator perspective's insistence that any
consideration of the prohibited category is equally damaging. This model pretends the playing field is equal, and thus any loss or gain in
opportunity based on the category is harmful and creates inequality, again serving to declare the racial status quo neutral. This justification for
systemic racism masquerading as a logic of equal opportunity gives rise to the myth of "reverse racism," a concept that misunderstands racism to
suggest parallel meanings when white people lose opportunities or access through programs aiming to ameliorate impacts of racism and when
people of color lose opportunities due to racism.
Discrimination laws reliance on the perpetrator perspective also creates the false impression that the previously excluded or marginalized group
is now equal, that fairness has been imposed, and the legitimacy of the distribution of life chances restored. This declaration of equality and
fairness papers over the inequalities and disparities that constitute business as usual and allows them to continue.
Narrowing political resistance strategies to seeking inclusion in anti-discrimination law makes the mistaken assumption
that gaining recognition and inclusion in this way will equalize our life chances and allow us to compete in the (assumed fair)
system. This often constitutes a forfeiture of other critiques, as if the economic system is fair but for the fact that bad discriminators
are sometimes allowed to fire trans people for being trans.3" Constituting the problem of oppression so narrowly that an anti-
discrimination law could solve it erases the complexity and breadth of the systemic, life-threatening harm that trans
resistance seeks to end. Not surprisingly, the rhetoric accompanying these quests for inclusion often casts "deserving workers" people
whose other characteristics (race, ability, education, class) would have entitled them to a good chance in the workforce were it not for the
illegitimate exclusion that happened.xviii Using as examples the least marginalized of the marginalized, so to speak, becomes necessary when
issues are framed so narrowly that a person who faces intersecting vectors of harm would be unlikely to benefit from anti-discrimination law.
This framing permitsand even necessitatesthat efforts for inclusion in the discrimination regime rely on rhetoric that affirms the legitimacy
and fairness of the status quo. The inclusion-focus of anti-discrimination law and hate crime law campaigns relies on a strategy of simile,
essentially arguing "we are just like you; we do not deserve this different treatment because of this one characteristic." To make that argument,
advocates cling to the imagined norms of the US social body and choose poster people who are symbolic of US standards of normalcy, whose
lives are easily framed by sound bites that resound in shared notions of injustice. "Perfect plaintiffs" for these cases are white people with high-
level jobs and lawful immigration status. The thorny issues facing undocumented immigrants, people experiencing simultaneous discrimination
through, for example, race, disability and gender identity, or people in low-wage jobs where it is particularly hard to prove discrimination, are not
addressed by anti-discrimination law. Laws created from such strategies, not surprisingly, routinely fail to protect people
with more complicated relationships to marginality. These people, who face the worst economic vulnerability, are not lifted up as the "deserving
workers" that anti-discrimination law advocates rally to protect.

Target proves no solvency for social norms. Aff solvencys overstated culture shifting is difficult and fraught
with backlash.
Chung 17
Frank Chung is a finance reporter for news.com.au. He previously worked for media publication AdNews and has also written for
The Canberra Times, The Courier-Mail, The Queensland Times and the Ipswich Advertiser. - Transgender bathroom policy still
hurting Target The News (Australia) news.com.au April 8th - http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/transgender-
bathroom-policy-still-hurting-target/news-story/1bcaf62ebd5d8ea9a0f01677b239d877
Last year, the
company sparked a massive boycott after publishing a seemingly innocuous blog post welcoming transgender
shoppers to use bathrooms and fitting rooms corresponding with their gender identities.
Nearly a year later , and Target is still feeling the effects of the backlash.
The irony for Target is that many retailers and businesses have similar policies they just dont advertise them
publicly . Transgender-inclusive policies are not a safety risk, the National Center for Transgender Equality writes. If they were, we would
know by now, as transgender people have been using public bathrooms and locker rooms for decades.
It came amid a heated debate over a move by the state of North Carolina to introduce legislation requiring people to use bathrooms corresponding
with the sex on their birth certificates, one of a number of so-called bathroom bills fuelling debates about equal rights and privacy.
Recent debate around proposed laws in several states has reignited a national conversation around inclusivity, the blog post on April 19 read.
So earlier this week, we reiterated with our team members where Target stands and how our beliefs are brought to life in how we serve our
guests.
Inclusivity is a core belief at Target. Its something we celebrate. We stand for equality and equity, and strive to make our guests and team
members feel accepted, respected and welcomed in our stores and workplaces every day.
We believe that everyone every team member, every guest, and every community deserves to be protected from discrimination, and
treated equally. Consistent with this belief, Target supports the federal Equality Act, which provides protections to LGBT individuals, and
opposes action that enables discrimination.
In our stores, we demonstrate our commitment to an inclusive experience in many ways. Most relevant for the conversations currently
underway, we welcome transgender team members and guests to use the rest room or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender
identity.
We regularly assess issues and consider many factors such as impact to our business, guests and team members. Given the specific questions
these legislative proposals raised about how we manage our fitting rooms and rest rooms, we felt it was important to state our position. Everyone
deserves to feel like they belong. And youll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the post was sparked after a number of staff requested their bosses to clarify the companys stance. After
an internal memo to managers reiterated the policy, some in the company sent an email to executives informing them of a plan to announce it
publicly.
Targets chief executive, Brian Cornell, reportedly did not receive that email, and so never approved the blog post which, within hours,
prompted a customer backlash and condemnation from Christian groups.
A petition to boycott the retailer, launched by the American Family Association, has attracted more than one million signatures.
Foot traffic to a number of stores, particularly in the conservative southern states , declined considerably.
Target didnt adequately assess the risk, and the ensuing backlash [AFA boycott] was self-inflicted, Mr Cornell told staff,
according to the Journal.
While Target has said on a number of occasions the boycott had no material impact on the business, one analyst said it
seemed to matter. In February, the company reported falling sales for three quarters in a row.
Since the boycott started, Targets stock has lost 35 per cent of its value, and [it has] shuttered plans for major expansion
projects, said AFA senior vice president Buddy Smith.
Extensions
 Extensions - Social trends emerging now/bottom-up change

Status quo solves now. Trans- movement does change institutions but by working outside the Law through
bottom-up efforts.
Katyal 17
Sonia K. Katyal - Chancellor's Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. The author also serves as the
Co-Director for The Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. The author holds a BA from Brown Univ and a JD from the Univ
of Chicago School of Law. The Numerus Clausus of Sex - University of Chicago Law Review - Winter, 2017 lawrev; allrev

There is a fundamental revolution under way regarding the relationship between gender and the state, both domestically and
internationally. Across the world, the rise and visibility of transgender rights movements have forced a persistent rethinking of
the legal presumptions associated with science, sex, and gender. For years, the law has largely maintained a steadfast commitment
to the idea that one's assigned sex - referring to the binary polarities of male and female - operated as a relatively stable fixture, capable of
being mapped onto one's gender identity [*391] and self-perception. This expectation of stability translated into a basic presumption within law
and policy that gender identity and assigned sex almost always align with one another - that the binary formation of sex operated as a basic
organizing principle to formalize and reify gender expression, sexuality, and so forth. In turn, antidiscrimination jurisprudence reflects these
principles and, with the exception of a minority of cases, has historically labored under the perception that gender identity and assigned sex rarely
conflict with one another. The myriad of legal regulations that deploy sex classifications rest on this presumption; everything from the
procurement of passports to access to social services to the gathering of data relies on the presumption of the binary, fixed nature of assigned sex.
Today, these perceptions are increasingly confronted with the reality that the relationship between gender and sex is
far more complicated than the law currently recognizes. Our global culture and legal landscape are replete with examples
that continually demonstrate the discontinuity of the relationship between gender and sex, calling for a more complex
representation of reality. n1 In 2014, Facebook decided to offer its users more than fifty terms for gender self-identification,
recognizing that many people use a multiplicity of terms other than male or female to describe themselves. n2 As of 2017, at least three people
in the United States have been able to obtain "nonbinary" or "intersex" as their legally designated gender . n3 Indeed,
the transgender [*392] rights movement is - and has always been - global in scope; many courts, countries, and municipalities throughout the
world have faced similar pushes toward pluralism, leading some nations to offer a third category for those who identify as something other
than male or female. n4
Popular culture, too, has begun to reflect these identities. n5 Even before Caitlyn Jenner and Laverne Cox captured the
mainstream's attention with a particular representation of transgender identity, there were rapidly increasing numbers of people
who identified as neither male nor female, in addition to agender, bigender, nonbinary, or genderqueer individuals, and those relying
upon other categories of gender nonconformity. n6 Many view gender as fluid, as transitory, or as something that does not
necessarily need to be assigned at all. n7

Bottom-up change is happening now a cultural-led Trans- Tipping Point is coming now.
Penny 14
Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books - From the article: What the
Transgender Tipping Point Really Means New Republic - June 27, 2014 Modified for Language that may offend -
https://newrepublic.com/article/118451/what-transgender-tipping-point-really-means

This month, Time magazine publisheda cover story titled "The Transgender Tipping Point." The trend-hungry American press
is toppling over with spurious tipping points, but this one is real , and its important. Centuries of marginalization mean that the
statistics are still shaky, but it is estimated that between 0.1 and 5 percent of the population of earth is trans, genderqueer, or intersex. Whichever
way you slice it, thats millions of human beings. As a species, we have come up with space travel, antibiotics, so it seems rather archaic that so
much of our culture, from money and fashion, love and family is still ordered around the idea that people come in two kinds based roughly on the
contents of their underpants.
Something enormous is happening in our culture. In the past three years, and especially in the past twelve months, a great many
transsexual celebrities, actors and activists have exploded into the public sphere. Some of have taken the brave step of disclosing their trans status
after they were already household names, like American presenter Janet Mock, rockstar Laura Jane Grace, athlete Fallon Fox, Oscar-winning
director Lana Wachowski or activist and former soldier Chelsea Manning. Others have simply become successful without hiding or apologising
for their trans status, like sassy British columnist Paris Lees, or actress Laverne Cox, star of "Orange Is The New Black," who graced the Time
cover as one of a new generation of breakout trans stars.
At the same time, the internet is making it easier for members of a previously isolated section of the population to find
and support one another. Until recently, the threat of violence, coupled with the relatively small visible number of trans people, meant that
coming out was a fraught, complicated process. It often meant moving away from your hometown, finding a community in a city, changing your
job, your school. Transgender people in isolated or rural areas found it very difficult to make connections with others who might be able to
understand their situation and offer advice. A great many trans people waited decades before deciding to transition in publicand some
attempted to keep that part of their lives secret forever, at great personal cost.
The network changed all that. Partly because of the internet, and partly because of a new wave of transgender role models,
more and more people are coming out as trans, and they are doing so younger, and their friends and families now have the language to
understand what that means. As celebrated trans author Julia Serano told me over email, The truth is that trans people exist and our lives are
fairly mundane. In the U.S., the number of transsexuals is roughly equivalent to the number of Certified Public Accountants. Nobody views
accountants as exotic or scandalous!
Not everyone is born a boy or a girl and stays that way. A significant minority of the population is born intersex, meaning that they are not clearly
assigned as biologically male or female when they are born, and many more are transgender, meaning that they do not identify with the sex they
were assigned at birth, and sometimes choose to change their physical appearance with hormones or surgery.
If gender identity is no longer a fixed commodity, that affects everybody. Not just those who are transsexual, their friends, families and
colleagues, but everybody else, too. If gender identity is fluidif anyone can change their gender identity, decide to live as a man, a woman, or
something else entirely, as it suits themthen we have to question every assumption about gender and sex role we've had drummed into us since
the moment the doctors handed us to our panting mothers and declared us a boy or a girl. That's an enormous prospect to consider, and some
people find it scary.
I'm crossing my fingers that in ten years' time, most of this article is going to look dated. I won't have to waste words explaining to you, for
example, that "cissexual" or "cis" simply means "not transsexual," in the way that "heterosexual" means "not homosexual or bisexual."
Changing words changes the world. The word "cis" is both necessary and challenging, because previously, people who weren't transsexual were
used to thinking of themselves simply as "normal." If being cis, in Dorothy Parker's terminology, isn't normal but merely common, that changes
everyone's understanding of how gender shapes our lives, individually and collectively.
Of course, "cis" covers a lot of bases. A great many cis people experience gender dysphoria to some degree, and a great many women, in
particular, experience the socially-imposed category of "womanhood" as oppressive. I'm one of them, and that's why I believe trans rights are so
important to feminismand why it's so dispiriting that some feminists have been actively fighting the inclusion of trans people in anti-patriarchal
and LGBT politics. The notion that biology is not destiny has always been at the heart of radical feminism. Trans activists and feminists should
be natural allies.
It is increasingly clear that gender is not a binary. Unfortunately, were living in society which has organized itself for centuries on the principle
that it is, and that everyone who disagrees should be shouted down, beaten up or locked away.
For centuries, it was standard practice was to compel anyone who didnt conform to the rigid roles set out for their sexfrom gay and
transgender people to women who were too promiscuous, angry or "mannish"to do so by force and medical intervention. Generations of
activism have fought this type of gender policing, but for the transgender and transsexual community, that sort of bullying is still an everyday
reality. Trans people are more likely to be victims of murder and assault than any other minority grouprecent studies suggest that 25 percent of
trans people have been physically attacked because of their gender status, and hundreds of trans people are murdered every year. Up to 50 percent
of transgender teenagers attempt suicide. That of course, is what violence and prejudice are designed to do. They're designed to make people hate
and hurt themselves, to frighten them out of being "different," to bully and brutalize any perceived threat to the social order out of existence.
Explaining why this is so significant is hard for me, because Im about as close as you can get to the trans rights movement without being trans
yourself. Ive been associated with trans activism for years, and while I dont know what its like to be harassed, threatened or abandoned for
being transsexual, most of my close friends do. Right now, Im watching the rest of the world begin to understand the community that has
become my home, and it is incredibly excitingbut its frightening, too, because the backlash is on.
Even as reports come in that the Southern Baptist Convention, an influential American religious lobby, has made it official policy to oppose trans
rights, even as the anti-trans opinion pieces mount up, Im watching my trans friends and colleagues attacked and harassed online, made to fear
for their jobs and their safety. With greater visibility, the stakes are even higherand sadly, some sections of the left, including feminists like
Sheila Jeffreys and Janice Raymond, have allied with social conservatives to attack trans people as deranged.
Time magazine is correct to call this the "new civil rights frontier." The cultural Right has largely lost the argument on homosexuality. Those
who argue against gay marriage and gay adoption are increasingly at odds with social norms, and the type of popular pseudo-religious
homophobia that was common in the days of Section 28 sounds more and more frothingly bigoted. But gender and sexuality still need to be
policedand if you can no longer call gay people sinful and expect to be taken seriously, someone else has to be the scapegoat, the "other"
against which "normality" is defined.
The time is coming when everyone who believes in equality and social justice must decide where they stand on the issue of trans rightswhether
that be the right to equal opportunities at work, or simply the right to walk down the street dressed in a way that makes you comfortable. Those
are rights that the feminist and gay liberation movements have fought for for generations, and those who have made gains have a
responsibility to stand up for (support) those who have yet to be accepted. If we believe in social justice, we must support the
trans community as it makes its way proudly into the mainstream.
 Extensions Squo solves, Grimm case not key

Grimm immediate case may not win but similar trans- legal victories are inevitable.
Lang 17
Nico Lang is a journalist and contributor for the L.A. Times, Huffington Post and Salon.com. Dont panic over Neil Gorsuch:
The courts are the last hope for LGBT rights under Trump Salon - Apr 12, 2017 - http://www.salon.com/2017/04/12/do-not-
panic-over-neil-gorsuch-the-courts-are-the-last-hope-for-lgbt-rights-under-trump/
Even a major setback in Gavin Grimms impending U.S. Supreme Court case offered unexpected hope for the
transgender students fight to be treated with dignity and respect.
After the Supreme Court, which was set to hear arguments in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board this term, turned the case back to the
lower courts, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the 17-year-olds case on an expedited basis. As Chase Strangio of the
American Civil Liberties Union noted in a post for Medium, it would be customary for the federal court to offer a short, one-
line update on the case to its docket. Instead, Senior Judge Henry Floyd penned a stirring ode to Grimms years-long
struggle which will now be decided after the Virginia student graduates.
G.G.s case is about much more than bathrooms, Floyd wrote. Its about a boy asking his school to treat him just like any other boy. Its about
protecting the rights of transgender people in public spaces and not forcing them to exist on the margins. Its about governmental validation of the
existence and experiences of transgender people, as well as the simple recognition of their humanity.
Justice for Gavin Grimm will be delayed, but if the recent direction of the courts on LGBT rights is any indication, its
coming sooner rather than later . The LGBT community may no longer have a friend in the Oval Office, but justice is on our side.

Grimm case is not key status quo will solve on Equal Protection Grounds. Evancho case proves the trend.
Dunlap 17
Bridgette Dunlap is a lawyer and a scholar whose work centers on public understanding of and access to legal systems. Bridgette
is a fellow and adjunct professor at the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School. From the
article: Gavin Grimm: What Supreme Court Announcement Means for Trans Rights Rolling Stone - March 7, 2017
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/gavin-grimm-what-supreme-court-announcement-means-w470772

What are Grimm's legal claims?

Grimm's team argued that the school board violated his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law, as well as his rights under Title
IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded institutions. Yet while Title IX generally bars classifications on the basis of sex, the
1975 regulations implementing it specifically allow restrooms segregated by gender. The Gloucester school board argued that regulation
unambiguously allows it to ban Grimm from the boys' room. The district court denied Grimm an injunction which would have allowed him to
use the bathroom of his choice and dismissed his Title IX claim.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit reversed that ruling. That decision depended heavily on a guidance letter issued by
the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights in 2015 interpreting Title IX to require that, in the limited circumstances when
schools may separate and treat students differently based on sex, they "generally must treat transgender students consistent with their
gender identity." The letter was consistent with existing DOE policy, the policies of other government agencies and many court decisions that
have held discrimination based on gender is a form of sex discrimination.
The Fourth Circuit determined that the regulation says nothing about how to decide whether a transgender student is a male or female for the
purpose of access to sex segregated restrooms. Even if the court were persuaded that "sex" should be read to mean what the school board called
"biological gender," that would not answer how the regulation should apply in all instances: "For example, which restroom would a transgender
individual who had undergone sex reassignment surgery use?" the court wrote in its decision. "What about an intersex individual? What about an
individual born with X-X-Y sex chromosomes? What about an individual who lost external genitalia in an accident?" The court found that the
DOE's interpretation resolved the ambiguity and was entitled to deference.
Why did the Trump Administration decide to rescind the guidance letter?
The school board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was set to answer, one, the nerdy administrative law question of whether an agency
guidance letter is indeed entitled to deference from the courts and two, whether the DOE's interpretation of Title IX in the 2015 letter should be
given effect. So the Supreme Court was going to answer questions focused on the 2015 guidance letter, not just the best interpretation of the law.
But the Trump Administration rescinded that guidance letter before the court heard the case. The Trump letter claimed the 2015
guidance lacked sufficient legal analysis and should have gone through the formal rule-making process required for new regulations. It also
references the role of states in education policy in a seeming allusion to "states' rights" which is concerning, given the role that justification has
historically played when states claimed freedom to discriminate based on race.
What does that mean for the Supreme Court case?
After Trump's Department of Justice informed the Supreme Court it had revoked the guidance at issue in the case, the parties argued to the court
that it should decide the case anyway. But on Monday, the court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case
for further proceedings. It's disappointing given the bathroom litigation all over the country, and the harm that further delay in resolving it will
have on transgender students. However, it isn't unusual for the court to decline to hear a case that hasn't been fully considered by the lower courts.
And because the lower courts in this case focused on whether the DOE's guidance was binding, they didn't address whether irrespective of the
government's position Title IX and/or the 14th Amendment bar the school board from forcing Grimm to use a separate and stigmatizing
bathroom.
What will this mean for trans gender student rights?
The argument that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination isn't anywhere near as novel
as Jeff Sessions would have you believe, so we can hope the Supreme Court will rule that Title IX prohibits it once this case or a
similar one is before it again. However , if the court wasn't ready to rule that all discrimination against transgender people is
sex discrimination, it could still rule more narrowly that bathroom bans are . As a friend of the court brief filed by a group of
law professors in Grimm's case explains, rules like Gloucester's prevent students from choosing the restroom appropriate to their gender identities
as other students are permitted to on the basis of their genitals and that is sex discrimination.
We can also expect courts to find that the Equal Protection clause protects trans gender people from government
discrimination, as a federal court in Pennsylvania did recently. What it takes for a law that classifies people based on particular
characteristics to pass constitutional muster depends on whether the law targets a "suspect class." Laws that classify people based on race get the
highest level of scrutiny and therefore rarely survive review. Sex-based classifications get "intermediate scrutiny," which means they will be
struck down unless the government has an "exceedingly persuasive" justification.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether transgender people are a suspect class, but the
Pennsylvania district court did in
Evancho et al. v. Pine-Richland School District. There, the court found that laws affecting transgender people as a class meet the
test for heightened scrutiny because transgender people have historically been discriminated against, have defining characteristics with
little relation to their ability to contribute to society, and are a minority with relatively little political power.
 Extensions Boycotts will solve in the status quo

Boycotts solving anti-trans- laws in the status quo

Wechsler 17
Internally quoting Lawrence Glickman, an American studies professor at Cornell University. Pat Wechsler is a veteran journalist
who has held senior editing and writing positions at Businessweek, Bloomberg, Newsday and New York magazine. Most
recently, she served as a senior vice president at FleishmanHillard, where she created and ran an award-winning online thought-
leadership magazine focused on the intersection of communications, marketing and media The Boycott Business
Researcher May 1st - http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1863-102636-2779297/20170501/the-boycott

Some of the most effective boycotts have been against states over laws or policies, says Lawrence Glickman, an
American studies professor at Cornell University. The National Football League has twice threatened to move the
Super Bowl from Arizona: in 1993, when the state did lose the game because it refused to recognize Martin Luther King Jr.s birthday as a
state as well as a national holiday, and again in 2015 when the state legislature passed a measure to allow businesses to refuse
to serve gay and transgender customers for religious reasons. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer avoided a second loss of the
big game by vetoing the bill.
The NCAA, the organization that governs college athletics, boycotted North Carolina, saying it would not play any championships
there, after the state in 2016 enacted a law that forced transgender people to use bathrooms aligned with their birth
gender.21 After the state in March repealed the law and replaced it with a less stringent version, the NCAA ended its boycott
reluctantly, warning that it could change its mind if the new law ends up allowing discrimination.
Boycotts by any sports league and by business in general can be even more potent than consumer boycotts. An Associated
Press analysis found that North Carolinas bathroom bill would have cost the state more than $3.76 billion in lost business
over the next 12 years.23 These kinds of boycotts have made legislatures think twice before passing discriminatory
laws, Glickman says.

Boycotts solving now North Carolina experience proves.

Jenkins 17
(et al; Colleen Jenkins - Editor in Charge, U.S. Southeast, Reuters - Seeking end to boycott, North Carolina rescinds
transgender bathroom law - Reuters - Mar 30, 2017 - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-carolina-lgbt-idUSKBN1711V4)
The new measure rescinds House Bill 2, the so-called bathroom bill also popularly known as HB 2, which required transgender
people to use the bathrooms, changing rooms and showers in state-run buildings that correspond to the sex on their birth
certificate rather than their gender identity.
HB 2's enactment a year ago prompted boycotts that cost the state economy hundreds of millions of dollars . Deutsche
Bank AG and PayPal Holdings Inc reversed expansion plans in the state. Entertainers such as Bruce Springsteen and Itzhak
Perlman canceled concerts.
In basketball-crazed North Carolina, the
withdrawal of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) tournament games and the
National Basketball Association All-Star game, which had been awarded to Charlotte, reverberated throughout the state.
Under the new law, transgender people are once again free to use the bathroom of their choice, but they lack any recourse
should a person, business or state entity eject or harass them.

Boycotts exert huge leverage - Bathroom bill would cost Texas billions of dollars
Jones 17
Mark P. Jones is the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policys political science fellow at Rice University. Texass
Bathroom Bill Could Mean Economic Disaster Fortune May 25th - http://fortune.com/2017/05/25/texas-transgender-
bathroom-bill-6-vote-passes-legislature/

The Texas legislature is currently debating different bills that would require either all Texans or just public school
students to use restrooms that correspond with the gender on their birth certificates . If both houses can agree on a single
policy before the clock strikes midnight Sunday, the bill would head to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who intends to sign it into law.
Some Republicans hope that the watered-down House version of the billwhich has opaque language and narrower scope than the Senates
will spare Texas the major economic consequences and boycotts North Carolina experienced after passing its own bathroom bill last year. GOP
legislators are banking on the reaction to their legislation to be like the response to North Carolinas milder replacement bill, which passed in
March and eased political and economic pressure on the state.
But this is wishful thinking, ignoring that North Carolinas amended legislation demonstrated the states movement in what many considered the
right direction, especially under a new Democratic governor. Instead, opponents of the Texas legislation view the pending legislation as a slap in
the LGBTQ communitys face, and a move in the wrong direction. As a result, Texas is likely to see the cancelation of major
sporting events and conventionsand possibly even a major boycottif it passes its bathroom bill.
Major sports leagues are awar e of the fact that holding events in Texas in the future could be construed as condoning
discrimination, which could lead other states to be more comfortable adopting similar legislation. To avoid appearing complicit in this,
the NCAA could very well cancel the 2018 Final Four tournament in San Antonio, which would be a massive
economic blow to Texas. The loss of the Final Four alone would cost San Antonio an estimated $ 234 million in
foregone economic impact and $14 million in lost tax revenue . The bathroom bill could also make it difficult for
Texas to secure major sporting events like the Super Bowl and NBA All-Star Game in the future.
Even more consequential than the loss of sporting events would be the notable decrease in convention business in the
states major destinations of Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antoniowhich regularly rank among the countrys top 20
convention destinationsas well as in secondary convention markets like Amarillo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, and Galveston. Conventions and
smaller meetings represent a significant economic engine in these locales and help sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs in Texass vibrant
hospitality industry. They also provide the state and local governments with a significant source of revenue via sales tax receipts, as
well as hotel and rental car taxes targeted at visitors.
Most organizations have a diverse membership and strive to not select convention sites that may cause controversy. If the bathroom bill is
enacted, many of those tasked with arranging their organizations conventions will be pressured to cancel existing commitments and to not book
future conventions in the Lone Star State.
 Extensions Anti-Discrimination Law Fails/Counter-productive

Bathroom policy alone is woefully insufficient to solve for trans- oppression

Francois 17
et al; Aderson B. Francois currently serves as the Director for Institute for Public Representation Civil Rights Law Clinic as well
as a Professor of Law at The Georgetown Law School. Prior to joining the Georgetown faculty, Professor Francois directed the
Civil Rights Clinic at Howard University School of Law, where he also taught Constitutional Law, Federal Civil Rights, and
Supreme Court Jurisprudence. Professor Francois received his J.D. and B.A. from New York University. While the author serves
as the Counsel of Record for this Amicus Brief. it is important to note that this Amicus Brief is submitted on behalf of REAGAN
GREENBERG, ACHIM HOWARD, ALEXA RODRIGUEZ, JEYMEE SEMITI, AVATARA SMITH-CARRINGTON,
SAVANNA WANZER, & SAM WILLIAMSON who, identity as transgender people and individuals whose gender identity
may not fit the rigid categorization of male or female. Amicus Brief - Gloucester County School Board, Petitioner, v. G.G., by his
next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit - BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE REAGAN GREENBERG, ACHIM HOWARD, ALEXA RODRIGUEZ, JEYMEE
SEMITI, AVATARA SMITH-CARRINGTON, SAVANNA WANZER, & SAM WILLIAMSON IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONDENT - Available at SCOUTS blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter- March modified for language that
may offend http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-273-resp-amicus-greenberg.pdf
Although it seems obvious that every human being should be treated with dignity, this has not been a reality for the
transgender community. Rampant discrimination still exists against the transgender community36 with regards to
education , employment , health , family life and public accommodation , and the ability to use the bathroom just
touches the surface of the myriad of hardship faced on a daily basis .3' Further, despite the diversity of gender expression that
has existed for centuries in the United States, transgender people have historically faced a unique set of challenges in accessing institutions and
public accommodations. Shortly after the Civil Rights Movement in 1969, riots at the Stonewall Inn began where the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender) community "as a group forcefully and vocally assei'ted their rights."38 However, largely left out of the gay rights
narrative are the voices of those who spearheaded the riot: transgender women of color such as Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera.39 Even
historic LGBTQ establishments such as The Stonewall Inn had exclusionary practices regarding transgender individuals, rendering them with no
sanctuary to express their gender safely.40

The Law is woefully insufficient to resolve broader anti-trans- discrimination. History goes neg.
Delaye 17
et al ;Jaime Huling Delaye - Deputy City Attorney, Complex and Affirmative Litigation San Francisco City Attorney's Office.
The author also holds a J.D. from Stanford University Law School Amicus Brief - Gloucester County School Board, Petitioner, v.
G.G., by his next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm, Respondent.On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit - BRIEF FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND 29
OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND MAYORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT - Available at SCOUTS
blog along with all amicus briefs on this matter- March - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/16-
273_bsac_san_francisco.pdf
As important as they are,laws barring discrimination in public accommodations address only one aspect of the exclusion
and harassment that transgender members of our communities face on a daily basis. Unfortunately, many of the findings
that motivated San Francisco to adopt its equal-access laws remain true today: "persons who are perceived to be transgender! 1
are considered by some as less than human and therefore assumed to be fair game for objec-tification, violence, and discrimination. Hate
violence is perpetrated against transgender I ] persons as much as, if not more than, any other group." S.F. Human Rights
Comm'n, Investigation into Discrimination Against Transgendered People at 44. The tens of thousands of transgender and gender-
nonconforming individuals who live in our cities are among our most vulnerable residents. Crime statistics show that
transgender individuals are disproportionately more likely to fall victim to violence in public facilities such as bathrooms.
Transgender people also face staggeringly high rates of poverty, harassment, violence, and poor health, as well as discrimination in housing and
employment.

Plan is a trap Trans- populations will not find liberation through the Affs conventional legal approach.
Haddad 17
et al - Mark E. Haddad is an attorney with Sidley Austin LLP and served as Counsel of Record for this Amicus Brief. Mark has
argued cases in the United States Supreme Court and clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. The author holds a
J.D. from Yale Law School; an M.A. from Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar); and an A.B. from Stanford University. Amicus
Brief - Gloucester County School Board, Petitioner, v. G.G., by his next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm, Respondent. On Writ
of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF SCHOLARS WHO
STUDY THE TRANSGENDER POPULATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT- Available at SCOUTS blog along with all
amicus briefs on this matter- March modified for language that may offend http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/16-273bsacscholarswhostudythetransgenderpopulation.pdf

As a minority comprisingjust 0.6% of the total adult population, transgender people lack political power to protect
themselves in the political process against a hostile majority. Bd. of Educ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131474, at *59-60 (finding
transgender community politically powerless "as a tiny minority of the population, whose members are stigmatized for their gender non-
conformity in a variety of settings"); see also Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 989-90 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (citing "small population
size" as factor establishing powerlessness of gays and lesbians), rev'd sub nom. DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014), rev'd sub nom.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
Further evidence that transgender people lack political power is reflected by the lack of openly transgender elected or
appointed political officials. In Adkins, the court recognized the absence of openly transgender members of the United
States Congress or federal judiciary. 143 F. Supp. 3d at 140. A recent study found only three openly transgender elected officials serving
nationwide, all at local levels, and that very few transgender people have ever even been candidates.65
Although there are no conclusive answers as to why transgender individuals are underrepresented in elected and appointed office, research
suggests that an enormous hurdle is getting transgender candidates - who may have to overcome fears of violence, discrimination, or backlash - to
run.66 Transgender individuals also may lack the support needed to get elected if political parties and influential donors
do not believe transgender candidates can win elections or are otherwise reluctant to give their support to transgender
candidates.
Transgender people's political power is also undermined by laws requiring voters to have a certain form of
identification in order to vote. These laws risk disenfranchising many transgender individuals, who face administrative
obstacles to obtaining identification that reflects their correct gender identity. According to one recent study, the strictest of
these voter-identification laws may have disenfranchised over 34,000 transgender people in eight states in the November 2016 general election.67
 Extensions Target proves no solvency

Extend that the company Target proves the Aff cant solve for social norms.

They announced a policy similar to the Aff and experienced an unexpected backlash.

Heres more proof that the more publicized the Target policy became, the harder it was to change norms.
Executives under-estimated how difficult solvency would be.
Safdar 17
Khadeeja Safdar holds an M.A. in Business from Columbia University and is a reporter covering the retail industry for The Wall
Street Journal. Target's Pricey Social Lesson --- Retailer's bathroom-policy post sparked backlash, exposing problems it is
spending billions to fix Wall Street Journal April 6th obtained via Pro-Quest.

In April last year, Target Corp. published

a blog post welcoming transgender employees and shoppers to use restrooms and fitting rooms
corresponding with their gender identities. "Everyone deserves to feel like they belong," read the post, which turned half of Target's red bullseye
logo into a gay-pride rainbow.
Other retailers have similar policies. But for Target, the posting of what was its long-held practice quickly became
an expensive and distracting lesson about the perils of combining the web's megaphone with touchy social issues.
Target Chief Executive Brian Cornell hadn't approved the April 19 post, which responded to a move by North Carolina to legislate bathroom use,
said people familiar with the episode and its aftermath at Target. He didn't see an email notifying executives of the post, and was surprised to
learn about it.
The next day, a conservative Christian nonprofit, American Family Association, called for a boycott of Target, saying the policy "is exactly how
sexual predators get access to their victims." Protesters picketed stores from Clovis, Calif., to Mount Dora, Fla.
At Target's Minneapolis headquarters, executives scrambled to control the damage , according to the people familiar with the
aftermath, perplexed that they were pilloried for a policy common to retailers. Sales started to decline and have now in every quarter
since.
After an internal review, executives determined the negative publicity was the tipping point for some stores, especially in the
South , that were already not inviting or competitive enough to give shoppers a reason to come back. Target has now embarked on a
multibillion-dollar revamp.
Mr. Cornell, 58 years old, expressed frustration about how the bathroom policy was publicized, and told colleagues he wouldn't have approved
the decision to flaunt it, these people said. Target didn't adequately assess the risk, and the ensuing backlash was self-inflicted, he told staff. Now,
it was too late to reverse course.
"You can't take it back," said one of these people, adding that Mr. Cornell "felt very stuck."
Many gay-advocacy groups defended Target and dismissed arguments that gender-inclusive policies enable criminals. Some started campaigns
urging supporters to shop there. Transgender people "have been going to the bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity for decades," said
Jay Wu, a media-relations manager for the National Center for Transgender Equality, "and it's never been an issue."
Mr. Cornell declined to be interviewed for this article. "We strive to make our guests and team members feel accepted, respected and welcomed,"
Target spokeswoman Dustee Jenkins said. "We know our guests have many different points of view on this topic and we respect that."
A few weeks after the post, Mr. Cornell defended the policy in a television interview, saying Target had a "long history of embracing diversity."
He said Target's bathroom policy was similar to rivals'.
The post came in response to the 2016 North Carolina law, which required transgender people to use bathrooms in government buildings
according to the sex on their birth certificates. It also disallowed laws that prohibited businesses from asking for proof of sex before people used
facilities.
Many national retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., let people use bathrooms corresponding with their gender
identities. "We value the privacy of our associates and customers," said a Wal-Mart spokesman, "and we strive to make accommodations like
family bathrooms in some stores."
Most retailers, though, don't publicize their policies. Chains such as Target have customers with perspectives from across the
spectrum. In a February online survey by consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates of 2,500 people, nearly two-thirds of respondents said
businesses should stay out of politics.
"Target picked a side and pretty much said to the rest of us that we don't matter," said Mary McCandless, a shopper in Winston-Salem, N.C.
"They should have just left it as, 'don't ask, don't show, don't tell.' "
The 56-year-old financial analyst said she quit using her Target credit card and shifted most shopping online. "At least I don't have to worry about
using the bathroom on Amazon.com."
Target had publicly waded into social issues before. In 2010, employees and customers protested a $150,000 Target donation to a group that ran
ads supporting a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who opposed gay marriage. Target's then-CEO emailed staff: "Target's support of the GLBT
community is unwavering."
The 2016 bathroom backlash has defined the tenure of Mr. Cornell, a former Sam's Club and PepsiCo Inc. executive who was credited with
helping Target regain footing after taking over in 2014 in the aftermath of a major credit-card breach.
After North Carolina enacted its legislation, the NCAA pulled tournament games from the state. Companies including Alphabet Inc.'s Google and
American Airlines Group Inc. decried the law.
Target store workers began asking their bosses to clarify how to apply company policy, said the people familiar with the episode, who gave an
account of the internal chain of events that followed.
Headquarters sent an internal memo to store managers reiterating its official stance, these people said. On April 15, a group Target calls its "risk
committee" emailed executives informing them of a plan to post that message publicly and requesting approval to do so. Mr. Cornell, said one of
the people, wasn't among the recipients of that email.
At least two of Mr. Cornell's lieutenants approved the post, including Target's chief risk officer, Jackie Rice, and its chief external-engagement
officer, Laysha Ward. Both executives declined to comment.
The six paragraphs went live on the company blog, reading in part: "Given the specific questions these legislative proposals raised about how we
manage our fitting rooms and restrooms, we felt it was important to state our position."
Several media outlets covered the news. People began clogging Target's Facebook, Twitter and Instagram pages and flooded Mr. Cornell's
mailbox with messages of discontent. Shoppers protested by filling carts inside Target stores and abandoning them.
Mr. Cornell, who was out of the office addressing vendors the day the post was published, returned to assess the damage. Retracting the
statement wasn't an option, he decided -- that might have worse consequences than standing by it. Left-leaning areas such as Los Angeles are
among Target's fastest-growing markets.
Inside the company, executives predicted the backlash would die down. It didn't, and foot traffic in several markets,
particularly in the South, declined considerably in the months following the announcement.
A-to the Excess State Flexibility
Advantage
 Frontlines
Note: there are different frontlines depending on the impacts your opponent read. If your opponent reads multiple
impacts to the excess flex advantage, check for overlap between the various Neg frontlines.
 Frontline vs. Version 1.0 (Morality)

No roll-back - Federal Anti-Discrimination protections wont vanish in the status quo. Such laws will also fail
if theyre top-down.
Anderson 16
Internally quoting Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy
group focused on free speech in academia. Melinda D. Anderson is a contributing writer for The Atlantic - From the article:
What Is the Future of the Office for Civil Rights? - The Atlantic - December 2nd -
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/12/what-is-the-future-of-the-education-office-for-civil-rights/509348/

fundamental work of the current OCRwhether focused on sexual harassment

Melinda D. Anderson: It would seem that the
racial bullying , trans gender discrimination , or other efforts is providing equitable learning
and violence,
environments. Could this work look (be) different in the new administration and a DeVos-led Department of
Education? If so, how?
Thomas J. Gentzel, the executive director of the National School Boards Association
[Though] the fundamental work of OCR is enforcing civil-rights laws in education, it is the job of school districts to provide equitable learning
environments and, ultimately, to balance all of the competing interests so that all students have safe environments in which to learn. NSBA has
been concerned about executive overreach through the issuance of guidance [and] will continue to urge the incoming administration to exercise
restraint in such an approach to achieving its educational objectives.
Dan Losen, the director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLAs Civil Rights Project
A major question is to what extent a Trump [administration] will seek to unleash the forces of the far right and yield OCR [and the Department of
Justice] as hammers for its agenda, versus dramatically diminishing the federal role in education by substantially cutting OCR's budget and
reducing OCR's footprint. The latter entails allowing those [far right] forces to go unchecked at the state and local levels [where] they clearly
have power and influence [its] like the difference between aggressive and passive aggressive, but [both] mean a big difference in the lives of
children. I predict a lot more bullying, much less sensitivity, and blatant bigotry being tolerated [at schools and campuses.]
Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy group focused on free speech in
academia, and the author of Twisting Title IX
The fundamental work of OCR is to enforce the anti-discrimination laws over which it has been given jurisdiction by Congress,
as well as duly enacted regulations based on those laws. I suspect that most of OCRs work will remain largely unchanged , but an
agencys interpretation of laws and regulations is bound to change somewhat with a change of political control. Consensus wont be possible on
OCRs efforts to fight discrimination are severely hobbled from the start if stakeholders
every controversial issue, but
dont even have the sense that they have been given a fair hearing , as they werent with the April 4, 2011 [letter to colleges,
universities, and schools] mandating that institutions use the preponderance of the evidence standard in sexual-misconduct hearings.

Trump wont broadly roll-back civil rights.

Sheffield 17
Matthew Sheffield is editor and publisher of Praxis, an online journal of politics and technology. Matthew is a contributor to
Salon.com and is also president of Dialog New Media, a consultancy firm providing technology, management, and media
solutions to businesses, non-profits, and individuals. Sheffield has a bachelors degree in political science from Virginia
Commonwealth University. On LGBT rights, Trump seems willing to anger Christian right but activists arent convinced -
Salon Posted on February 2, 2017 available at: http://www.eqca.org/salon-trump/
The jurys still out on Donald Trump and LGBT issues, but so far he has defied Republican anti-gay orthodoxy
Donald Trump hasnt yet been president for two weeks, but already he has taken numerous actions to fulfill promises he made as a presidential
candidate. He has set the repeal of Obamacare in motion, implemented a travel ban for immigrants and visitors from certain Muslim-majority
countries and worked closely with a conservative legal affairs group to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
While Trumps swift actions in his early presidency have thrilled his voter base and many Republicans, there is one right-wing
constituency that surely must be disappointed: conservatives who hope to roll back the expansion of LGBT rights.
Its far too soon to write off the religious right as a political force. But it has become apparent by now that the Trumps administration
has departed from traditional Republican politics when it comes to his partys unease with gays and lesbians, who overwhelmingly
vote Democratic.
There were indications of this during his presidential campaign, as Trump played both sides of the fence in an unconventional fashion. He met
with strongly anti-gay Christian nationalists and courted religious conservatives, yet also expressed openness to LGBT rights advocates.
In February of last year, early in the GOP primary season, the former reality-TV star assured viewers of Pat Robertsons Christian Broadcasting
Network that he would find a way to repeal the Supreme Courts shocking Obergefell v. Hodges decision that gave same-sex couples the right
to marry nationwide. In August Trump spoke before a gathering of an avowedly Christian supremacist organization that seeks to have members
of its faith in complete control of the government.
At the same time, however, Trump sought the votes of lesbians and gays, particularly after the June 12 mass shooting at a gay nightclub called
Pulse in Orlando. Since that day, Trump has tried to argue that his anti-terrorism policies would protect sexual minorities. His campaign even
opened a field office across the street from Pulse.
He even adopted that message in his prime-time Republican National Convention speech. As your president I will do everything in my power to
protect LGBTQ citizens, he said, before congratulating the crowd for offering some modest applause. Trump also allowed prominent gay
Republican Peter Thiel to proclaim, Im proud to be gay from the stage, something that would have been unthinkable at any prior GOP
convention.
Since winning the presidential election, Trump has made it clear that despite his campaign promises to Christian
nationalists, he largely intends to ignore their wishes, at least when it comes to LGBT issues. In a November interview
with CBS, Trump called the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples irrelevant and already settled by the Obergefell
v. Hodges decision. Its law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, its done, he told 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl.
And Im fine with that.

Utilitarianism comes first approaches can only be ethical when they consider externalities.
Chandler 14
(David Chandler is Professor of International Relations at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of
Westminster Beyond good and evil: Ethics in a world of complexity International Politics, Vol. 51, No. 4 (2014), pp.441-
457 Available at: http://www.davidchandler.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/International-Politics-Evil-PUBLISHED-2.pdf)

Self-reflexive ethics redistribute responsibility and emphasize the indirect, unintended and relational networks of complex causation. Collective problems are reconceived ontologically: as
constitutive of communities and of political purpose. This is why many radical and critical voices in the West are drawn to the problems of 'side effects', of
'second-order' consequences - of a lack of knowledge of the emergent causality at play in the complex interconnections of the global world. The more these
interconnections are revealed, though the work of self-reflexivity and self-reflection, the more ethical authority can be regained by governments and other

agents of governance. We learn and learn again that we are responsible for the world , not because of our conscious choices or because our actions lacked

the right ethical intent ion, but because the world's complexity is beyond our capacity to know and understand in advance. The unknowability of the outcomes
of our action does not remove our ethical responsibility for our actions, it, in fact , heightens our responsibility for these
second-order consequences or side effects. In a complex and interconnected world, few events or problems evade appropriation within this framing, providing an
opportunity for recasting responsibility in these ways. The new ethics of indirect responsibility for market consequences can be seen (observed)
clearly in the idea of environmental taxation, both state-enforced through interventions in the market and as taken up by both firms and individuals. The idea that we should pay a carbon tax on
air travel is a leading example of this, in terms of governmental intervention, passing the burden of such problems on to 'unethical' consumers who are not reflexive enough to consider the impact
of package holidays on the environment. At a broader level, the personalized ethico-political understanding that individuals should be responsible for and measure their own 'carbon footprint'
shifts the emphasis from an understanding of broader inter-relations between modernity, the market and the environment to a much narrower understanding of personal indirect responsibility,
linking all aspects of everyday decision making to the problems of global warming (see, for example, Marres, 2012). The shared responsibility for the Breivik murders is not different -
our actions and inactions we collectively
ontologically - from the societally shared responsibility for global warming or other problematic appearances in the world. Through

constitute the frameworks in which others act and make decisions -failing to raise our voice against 'borderline racism' or extremism in a bar makes us indirectly
responsible for acts of racism or extremism in the same way that failing to save water or minimize air travel makes us indirectly
responsible for the melting polar ice caps.

History proves Anti-Discrimination laws will fail. Scope is too narrow and few can afford to sue anyway.

***note to students - the next two card also appear in the 1NC shell for the Trans- Pessimism
watch for overlap.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

As the concept of trans rights has gained more currency in the last two decades, a seeming consensus has emerged about
which law reforms should be sought to better the lives of trans people. ' Advocates of trans equality have primarily
pursued two law reform interventions: anti-discrimination laws that list gender identity and/or expression as a category of
non-discrimination, and hate crime laws that include crimes motivated by the gender identity and/or expression of the victim as triggering
the application of a jurisdiction's hate crime statute. Organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have supported state
and local organizations around the country in legislative campaigns to pass such laws. Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia currently
have laws that include gender identity and/or expression as a category of anti-discrimination, and 108 counties and
cities have such laws. NGLTF estimates that 39 percent of people in the United States live in a jurisdiction where such
laws are on the books.'' Seven states now have hate crime laws that include gender identity and/or expression.'1' In 2009 a federal law, the
Matthew Shepard and Tames Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, added gender identity and/or expression to federal hate crime law. An
ongoing battle regarding if and how gender identity and/or expression will be included in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a
federal law that would prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation, continues to be fought between the conservative national gay and
lesbian organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), legislators, and a variety of organizations and activists seeking to push an inclusive
bill through Congress. These two legal reforms, anti-discrimination bills and hate crime laws, have come to define the idea of "trans rights" in the
United States and are presently the most visible efforts made by nonprofit organizations and activists working under this rubric.
The logic behind this law reform strategy is not mysterious. Proponents argue that passing these laws does a number of important
things. First, the passage of antidiscrimination laws can create a basis for legal claims against discriminating employers,
housing providers, restaurants, hotels, stores, and the like. Trans people's legal claims when facing exclusion in such contexts have often failed
in the past, with courts saying that the exclusion is a legitimate preference on the part of the employer, landlord, or business owner.iv Laws that
make gender identity/expression-based exclusion illegal have the potential to influence courts to punish discriminators and provide certain
remedies (e.g., back pay or damages) to injured trans people. There is also a hope that such laws, and their enforcement by courts,
would send a preventative message to potential discriminators, letting them know that such exclusions will not be tolerated; these laws
would ultimately increase access to jobs, housing, and other necessities for trans people.
Hate crime laws are promoted under a related logic. Proponents point out that trans people have a very high murder rate and are subject to a great
deal of violences In many instances, trans people's lives are so devalued by police and prosecutors that trans murders are not investigated or trans
people's murderers are given less punishment than is typical in murder sentencing. Proponents believe that hate crime laws will intervene in these
situations, making law enforcement take this violence seriously. There is also a symbolic element to the passage of these laws: a statement that
trans lives are meaningful, often described by proponents as an assertion that trans people are human. Additionally, both proponents of anti-
discrimination laws and hate crime laws argue that the processes of advocating the passage of such laws, including media advocacy representing
the lives and concerns of trans people and meetings with legislators to tell them about trans people's experiences, increases positive trans visibility
and advances the struggle for trans equality. The data-collection element of hate crime statutes, through which certain government agencies keep
count of crimes that fall into this category, is touted by proponents as a chance to make the quantity and severity of trans people's struggles more
visible.
The logic of visibility and inclusion surrounding anti-discrimination and hate crime laws campaigns is very popular, yet there are many
troubling limitations to the idea that these two reforms comprise a proper approach to problems trans people face in
both criminal and civil law contexts. One concern is whether these laws actually improve the life chances of those who are
purportedly protected by them. Looking at categories of identity that have been included in these kinds of laws over the last
several decades indicates
that these kinds of reforms have not eliminated bias , exclusion, or marginalization. Discrimination
and violence against people of color have persisted despite law changes that declared it illegal. The persistent and growing racial
wealth divide in the United States suggests that these law changes have not had their promised effects, and that the structure of systemic racism is
not addressed by the work of these laws." Similarly, the twenty-year history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demonstrates
disappointing results. Courts have limited the enforcement potential of this law with narrow interpretations of its impact, and people with
disabilities remain economically and politically marginalized by systemic ableism. Similar arguments can be made about the persistence of
national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and other forms of pervasive discrimination despite decades of official prohibitions of such
behavior. The persistence of wage gaps, illegal terminations, hostile work environments, hiring/firing disparities, and bias-motivated violence for
groups whose struggles have supposedly been addressed by antidiscrimination and hate crime laws invites caution when assuming the
effectiveness of these measures.
Hate crime laws do not have a deterrent effect. They focus on punishment and cannot be argued to actually prevent bias-motivated violence. In
addition to their failure to prevent harm, they must be considered in the context of the failures of our legal systems and, specifically, the violence
of our criminal punishment system. Anti-discrimination laws are not adequately enforced. Most people who experience discrimination
cannot afford to access legal help, so their experiences never make it to court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has severely
narrowed the enforceability of these laws over the last 30 years, making it extremely difficult to prove discrimination short of a signed letter from
a boss or landlord stating, "I am taking this negative action against you because of your [insert characteristic ]." Even in cases that seem as
obvious as that, people experiencing discrimination often lose. Proving discriminatory intent has become central, making it almost
impossible to win these cases when they are brought to court. Theselaws also have such narrow scopes that they often do not
include action taken by some of the most common discriminators against marginalized people: prison guards , welfare bureaucrats,
workfare supervisors, immigration officers , child welfare workers, and others who have significant control over the lives of
marginalized people in the United States. In a neoliberal era characterized by abandonment (reduction of social safety net and infrastructure,
especially in poor and people of color communities) and imprisonment (increased immigration and criminal law enforcement), anti-
discrimination laws provide little relief to the most vulnerable people.

Anti-Discrimination Laws are worse than nothing. They boost oppression by obscuring structural factors that
create ongoing disparate outcomes.
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke Modified for language that may offend -The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf
Critical race theorists have developed analyses about the limitations of antidiscrimination law that are useful in
understanding the ways these law reforms have and will continue to fail to deliver meaningful change to trans people .
Alan Freeman's critique of what he terms the "perpetrator perspective" in discrimination law is particularly helpful in conceptualizing the limits
of the common trans rights strategies.xi Freeman's work looks at laws that prohibit discrimination based on race. He exposes how and why
antidiscrimination and hate crime statutes do not achieve their promises of equality and freedom for people targeted by discrimination and
violence. Freeman argues that discrimination law misunderstands how racism works, which makes it fail to effectively address it.
Discrimination law primarily conceptualizes the harm of racism through the perpetrator/victim dyad , imagining that the
fundamental scene is that of a perpetrator who irrationally hates people on the basis of their race and fires or denies service to or beats or kills the
victim based on that hatred. The law's adoption of this conception of racism does several things that make it ineffective at
and help it contribute to obscuring the actual operations of racism . First, it individualizes racism. It
eradicating racism
says that racism is about bad individuals who intentionally make discriminatory choices and must be punished. In this
(mis)understanding, structural or systemic racism is rendered invisible (less apparent). Through this function, the law can only
attend to disparities that come from the behavior of a perpetrator who intentionally considered the category that must not be considered (e.g.,
race, gender, disability) in the decision she was making (e.g., hiring, firing, admission, expulsion). Conditions like living in a district
with underfunded schools that "happens to be" 96 percent students of color,xii or having to take an admissions test that has been proven to
predict race better than academic success*11' or any of a number of disparities in life conditions (access to adequate food,
healthcare, employment, housing, clean air and water ) that we know stem from and reflect long-term patterns of exclusion and
exploitation cannot be understood as "violations" under the discrimination principle , and thus remedies cannot be won. This
narrow reading of what constitutes a violation and can be recognized as discrimination serves to naturalize and affirm the status quo of
maldistribution. Anti-discrimination law seeks out aberrant individuals with overtly biased intentions.xlv Meanwhile, all the daily disparities
in life chances that shape our world along lines of race, class, indigeneity, disability, national origin, sex, and gender remain untouchable and
affirmed as non-discriminatory or even as fair.
The perpetrator perspective also obscures the historical context of racism. Discrimination is understood as the act of taking into
account the identity that discrimination law forbids us to take into account (e.g., race, sex, disability) when making a decision, and it does not
regard whether the decision-maker is favoring or harming a traditionally excluded group. In this way, the discrimination principle has been used
to eviscerate affirmative action and desegregation programs.^' This erroneously conceptualized "colorblindness" undermines the
possibility of remedying the severe racial disparities in the United States that are rooted in slavery, genocide, land theft,
internment, and immigration exclusion, as well as racially explicit policies that historically and presently exclude people of color from
the benefits of wealth-building programs for US citizens like Social Security, land grants, and credit and other homeownership support.' The
conditions that created and continue to reproduce such immense disparities are made invisible by the perpetrator perspective's insistence that any
consideration of the prohibited category is equally damaging. This model pretends the playing field is equal, and thus any loss or gain in
opportunity based on the category is harmful and creates inequality, again serving to declare the racial status quo neutral. This justification for
systemic racism masquerading as a logic of equal opportunity gives rise to the myth of "reverse racism," a concept that misunderstands racism to
suggest parallel meanings when white people lose opportunities or access through programs aiming to ameliorate impacts of racism and when
people of color lose opportunities due to racism.
Discrimination laws reliance on the perpetrator perspective also creates the false impression that the previously excluded or marginalized group
is now equal, that fairness has been imposed, and the legitimacy of the distribution of life chances restored. This declaration of equality and
fairness papers over the inequalities and disparities that constitute business as usual and allows them to continue.
Narrowing political resistance strategies to seeking inclusion in anti-discrimination law makes the mistaken assumption
that gaining recognition and inclusion in this way will equalize our life chances and allow us to compete in the (assumed fair)
system. This often constitutes a forfeiture of other critiques, as if the economic system is fair but for the fact that bad discriminators
are sometimes allowed to fire trans people for being trans.3" Constituting the problem of oppression so narrowly that an anti-
discrimination law could solve it erases the complexity and breadth of the systemic, life-threatening harm that trans
resistance seeks to end. Not surprisingly, the rhetoric accompanying these quests for inclusion often casts "deserving workers" people
whose other characteristics (race, ability, education, class) would have entitled them to a good chance in the workforce were it not for the
illegitimate exclusion that happened.xviii Using as examples the least marginalized of the marginalized, so to speak, becomes necessary when
issues are framed so narrowly that a person who faces intersecting vectors of harm would be unlikely to benefit from anti-discrimination law.
This framing permitsand even necessitatesthat efforts for inclusion in the discrimination regime rely on rhetoric that affirms the legitimacy
and fairness of the status quo. The inclusion-focus of anti-discrimination law and hate crime law campaigns relies on a strategy of simile,
essentially arguing "we are just like you; we do not deserve this different treatment because of this one characteristic." To make that argument,
advocates cling to the imagined norms of the US social body and choose poster people who are symbolic of US standards of normalcy, whose
lives are easily framed by sound bites that resound in shared notions of injustice. "Perfect plaintiffs" for these cases are white people with high-
level jobs and lawful immigration status. The thorny issues facing undocumented immigrants, people experiencing simultaneous discrimination
through, for example, race, disability and gender identity, or people in low-wage jobs where it is particularly hard to prove discrimination, are not
addressed by anti-discrimination law. Laws created from such strategies, not surprisingly, routinely fail to protect people
with more complicated relationships to marginality. These people, who face the worst economic vulnerability, are not lifted up as the "deserving
workers" that anti-discrimination law advocates rally to protect.
 Frontline vs. Version 2.0 (Economy)

No roll-back - Federal Anti-Discrimination protections wont vanish in the status quo. Such laws will also fail
if theyre top-down.
Anderson 16
Internally quoting Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy
group focused on free speech in academia. Melinda D. Anderson is a contributing writer for The Atlantic - From the article:
What Is the Future of the Office for Civil Rights? - The Atlantic - December 2nd -
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/12/what-is-the-future-of-the-education-office-for-civil-rights/509348/

fundamental work of the current OCRwhether focused on sexual harassment

Melinda D. Anderson: It would seem that the
racial bullying , trans gender discrimination , or other efforts is providing equitable learning
and violence,
environments. Could this work look (be) different in the new administration and a DeVos-led Department of
Education? If so, how?
Thomas J. Gentzel, the executive director of the National School Boards Association
[Though] the fundamental work of OCR is enforcing civil-rights laws in education, it is the job of school districts to provide equitable learning
environments and, ultimately, to balance all of the competing interests so that all students have safe environments in which to learn. NSBA has
been concerned about executive overreach through the issuance of guidance [and] will continue to urge the incoming administration to exercise
restraint in such an approach to achieving its educational objectives.
Dan Losen, the director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLAs Civil Rights Project
A major question is to what extent a Trump [administration] will seek to unleash the forces of the far right and yield OCR [and the Department of
Justice] as hammers for its agenda, versus dramatically diminishing the federal role in education by substantially cutting OCR's budget and
reducing OCR's footprint. The latter entails allowing those [far right] forces to go unchecked at the state and local levels [where] they clearly
have power and influence [its] like the difference between aggressive and passive aggressive, but [both] mean a big difference in the lives of
children. I predict a lot more bullying, much less sensitivity, and blatant bigotry being tolerated [at schools and campuses.]
Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy group focused on free speech in
academia, and the author of Twisting Title IX
The fundamental work of OCR is to enforce the anti-discrimination laws over which it has been given jurisdiction by Congress,
as well as duly enacted regulations based on those laws. I suspect that most of OCRs work will remain largely unchanged , but an
agencys interpretation of laws and regulations is bound to change somewhat with a change of political control. Consensus wont be possible on
OCRs efforts to fight discrimination are severely hobbled from the start if stakeholders
every controversial issue, but
dont even have the sense that they have been given a fair hearing , as they werent with the April 4, 2011 [letter to colleges,
universities, and schools] mandating that institutions use the preponderance of the evidence standard in sexual-misconduct hearings.

Trump wont broadly roll-back civil rights.

Sheffield 17
Matthew Sheffield is editor and publisher of Praxis, an online journal of politics and technology. Matthew is a contributor to
Salon.com and is also president of Dialog New Media, a consultancy firm providing technology, management, and media
solutions to businesses, non-profits, and individuals. Sheffield has a bachelors degree in political science from Virginia
Commonwealth University. On LGBT rights, Trump seems willing to anger Christian right but activists arent convinced -
Salon Posted on February 2, 2017 available at: http://www.eqca.org/salon-trump/
The jurys still out on Donald Trump and LGBT issues, but so far he has defied Republican anti-gay orthodoxy
Donald Trump hasnt yet been president for two weeks, but already he has taken numerous actions to fulfill promises he made as a presidential
candidate. He has set the repeal of Obamacare in motion, implemented a travel ban for immigrants and visitors from certain Muslim-majority
countries and worked closely with a conservative legal affairs group to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
While Trumps swift actions in his early presidency have thrilled his voter base and many Republicans, there is one right-wing
constituency that surely must be disappointed: conservatives who hope to roll back the expansion of LGBT rights.
Its far too soon to write off the religious right as a political force. But it has become apparent by now that the Trumps administration
has departed from traditional Republican politics when it comes to his partys unease with gays and lesbians, who overwhelmingly
vote Democratic.
There were indications of this during his presidential campaign, as Trump played both sides of the fence in an unconventional fashion. He met
with strongly anti-gay Christian nationalists and courted religious conservatives, yet also expressed openness to LGBT rights advocates.
In February of last year, early in the GOP primary season, the former reality-TV star assured viewers of Pat Robertsons Christian Broadcasting
Network that he would find a way to repeal the Supreme Courts shocking Obergefell v. Hodges decision that gave same-sex couples the right
to marry nationwide. In August Trump spoke before a gathering of an avowedly Christian supremacist organization that seeks to have members
of its faith in complete control of the government.
At the same time, however, Trump sought the votes of lesbians and gays, particularly after the June 12 mass shooting at a gay nightclub called
Pulse in Orlando. Since that day, Trump has tried to argue that his anti-terrorism policies would protect sexual minorities. His campaign even
opened a field office across the street from Pulse.
He even adopted that message in his prime-time Republican National Convention speech. As your president I will do everything in my power to
protect LGBTQ citizens, he said, before congratulating the crowd for offering some modest applause. Trump also allowed prominent gay
Republican Peter Thiel to proclaim, Im proud to be gay from the stage, something that would have been unthinkable at any prior GOP
convention.
Since winning the presidential election, Trump has made it clear that despite his campaign promises to Christian
nationalists, he largely intends to ignore their wishes, at least when it comes to LGBT issues. In a November interview
with CBS, Trump called the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples irrelevant and already settled by the Obergefell
v. Hodges decision. Its law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, its done, he told 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl.
And Im fine with that.

Alt Cause STEM education must improve in order for the US to lead in innovation.
Engler 12
John Engler is the former Governor of Michigan and serves as the President of The National Association of Manufacturers
STEM Education Is the Key to the U.S.'s Economic Future US News and World Report June 15th
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/15/stem-education-is-the-key-to-the-uss-economic-future
STEM-related skills are not just a source of jobs, they are a source of jobs that pay very well. A report last October from the Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce found that 65 percent of those with Bachelors' degrees in STEM fields
earn more than Master's degrees in non-STEM occupations. In fact, 47 percent of Bachelor's degrees in STEM occupations earn more
than PhDs in non-STEM occupations.
But despite the lucrative potential, many young people are reluctant to enter into fields that require a background in
s cience, t echnology, e ngineering, or m athematics. In a recent study by the Lemselson-MIT Invention Index, which gauges
innovation aptitude among young adults, 60 percent of young adults (ages 16 to 25) named at least one factor that prevented
them from pursuing further education or work in the STEM fields. Thirty-four percent said they don't know much about the fields, a
third said they were too challenging, and 28 percent said they were not well-prepared at school to seek further education in
these areas.
This is a problemfor young people and for our country. We need STEM-related talent to compete globally , and we will
need even more in the future . It is not a matter of choice : For the United States to remain the global innovation leader,
we must make the most of all of the potential STEM talent this country has to offer.

History proves Anti-Discrimination laws will fail. Scope is too narrow and few can afford to sue anyway.

***note to students - this card also appears in the 1NC shell for the Trans- Pessimism
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

As the concept of trans rights has gained more currency in the last two decades, a seeming consensus has emerged about
which law reforms should be sought to better the lives of trans people. ' Advocates of trans equality have primarily
pursued two law reform interventions: anti-discrimination laws that list gender identity and/or expression as a category of
non-discrimination, and hate crime laws that include crimes motivated by the gender identity and/or expression of the victim as triggering
the application of a jurisdiction's hate crime statute. Organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have supported state
and local organizations around the country in legislative campaigns to pass such laws. Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia currently
have laws that include gender identity and/or expression as a category of anti-discrimination, and 108 counties and
cities have such laws. NGLTF estimates that 39 percent of people in the United States live in a jurisdiction where such
laws are on the books.'' Seven states now have hate crime laws that include gender identity and/or expression.'1' In 2009 a federal law, the
Matthew Shepard and Tames Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, added gender identity and/or expression to federal hate crime law. An
ongoing battle regarding if and how gender identity and/or expression will be included in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a
federal law that would prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation, continues to be fought between the conservative national gay and
lesbian organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), legislators, and a variety of organizations and activists seeking to push an inclusive
bill through Congress. These two legal reforms, anti-discrimination bills and hate crime laws, have come to define the idea of "trans rights" in the
United States and are presently the most visible efforts made by nonprofit organizations and activists working under this rubric.
The logic behind this law reform strategy is not mysterious. Proponents argue that passing these laws does a number of important
things. First, the passage of antidiscrimination laws can create a basis for legal claims against discriminating employers,
housing providers, restaurants, hotels, stores, and the like. Trans people's legal claims when facing exclusion in such contexts have often failed
in the past, with courts saying that the exclusion is a legitimate preference on the part of the employer, landlord, or business owner.iv Laws that
make gender identity/expression-based exclusion illegal have the potential to influence courts to punish discriminators and provide certain
remedies (e.g., back pay or damages) to injured trans people. There is also a hope that such laws, and their enforcement by courts,
would send a preventative message to potential discriminators, letting them know that such exclusions will not be tolerated; these laws
would ultimately increase access to jobs, housing, and other necessities for trans people.
Hate crime laws are promoted under a related logic. Proponents point out that trans people have a very high murder rate and are subject to a great
deal of violences In many instances, trans people's lives are so devalued by police and prosecutors that trans murders are not investigated or trans
people's murderers are given less punishment than is typical in murder sentencing. Proponents believe that hate crime laws will intervene in these
situations, making law enforcement take this violence seriously. There is also a symbolic element to the passage of these laws: a statement that
trans lives are meaningful, often described by proponents as an assertion that trans people are human. Additionally, both proponents of anti-
discrimination laws and hate crime laws argue that the processes of advocating the passage of such laws, including media advocacy representing
the lives and concerns of trans people and meetings with legislators to tell them about trans people's experiences, increases positive trans visibility
and advances the struggle for trans equality. The data-collection element of hate crime statutes, through which certain government agencies keep
count of crimes that fall into this category, is touted by proponents as a chance to make the quantity and severity of trans people's struggles more
visible.
The logic of visibility and inclusion surrounding anti-discrimination and hate crime laws campaigns is very popular, yet there are many
troubling limitations to the idea that these two reforms comprise a proper approach to problems trans people face in
both criminal and civil law contexts. One concern is whether these laws actually improve the life chances of those who are
purportedly protected by them. Looking at categories of identity that have been included in these kinds of laws over the last
several decades indicates
that these kinds of reforms have not eliminated bias , exclusion, or marginalization. Discrimination
and violence against people of color have persisted despite law changes that declared it illegal. The persistent and growing racial
wealth divide in the United States suggests that these law changes have not had their promised effects, and that the structure of systemic racism is
not addressed by the work of these laws." Similarly, the twenty-year history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demonstrates
disappointing results. Courts have limited the enforcement potential of this law with narrow interpretations of its impact, and people with
disabilities remain economically and politically marginalized by systemic ableism. Similar arguments can be made about the persistence of
national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and other forms of pervasive discrimination despite decades of official prohibitions of such
behavior. The persistence of wage gaps, illegal terminations, hostile work environments, hiring/firing disparities, and bias-motivated violence for
groups whose struggles have supposedly been addressed by antidiscrimination and hate crime laws invites caution when assuming the
effectiveness of these measures.
Hate crime laws do not have a deterrent effect. They focus on punishment and cannot be argued to actually prevent bias-motivated violence. In
addition to their failure to prevent harm, they must be considered in the context of the failures of our legal systems and, specifically, the violence
of our criminal punishment system. Anti-discrimination laws are not adequately enforced. Most people who experience discrimination
cannot afford to access legal help, so their experiences never make it to court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has severely
narrowed the enforceability of these laws over the last 30 years, making it extremely difficult to prove discrimination short of a signed letter from
a boss or landlord stating, "I am taking this negative action against you because of your [insert characteristic]." Even in cases that seem as
obvious as that, people experiencing discrimination often lose. Proving discriminatory intent has become central, making it almost
impossible to win these cases when they are brought to court. Theselaws also have such narrow scopes that they often do not
include action taken by some of the most common discriminators against marginalized people: prison guards , welfare bureaucrats,
workfare supervisors, immigration officers , child welfare workers, and others who have significant control over the lives of
marginalized people in the United States. In a neoliberal era characterized by abandonment (reduction of social safety net and infrastructure,
especially in poor and people of color communities) and imprisonment (increased immigration and criminal law enforcement), anti-
discrimination laws provide little relief to the most vulnerable people.

Global econs resilient and shocks dont spill over

Posen 16
Adam S. Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and external voting member of the Bank of
Englands rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee, Chapter 1: Why We Need a Reality Check, REALITY CHECK FOR THE
GLOBAL ECONOMY, Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-3, March 2016
A combination of public policies and decentralized private-sector responses to the crisis have increased our economic
resilience, diminished the systemic spillovers between economies, and even created some room for additional
stimulus if needed. Large parts of the global financial system are better capitalized, monitored, and frankly more risk
averse than they were a decade ago, with less leverage. The riskier parts of todays global economy are less directly linked to
the centers growth and financing than when the troubles were within the United States and most of Europe in 2008. Trade imbalances
of many key economies are smaller, though growing, and thus accumulations of foreign debt vulnerabilities are also smaller than a decade
ago. Most central banks are now so committed to stabilization that they are attacked for being too loose or
supportive of markets, making them at least unlikely to repeat some policy errors from 200710 of delaying loosening or even excessive
tightening. Finally, corporate and household balance sheets are far more solid in the US and some other major
economies than they were a decade ago (though not universally), and even in China the perceptions of balance sheet weakness exceed
the reality in scope and scale.

US not key to global econ - Global resiliency checks spillover

Woods 3/3/16
Ngaire Woods is Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and Director of the Global Economic Governance
Program at the University of Oxford, Project Syndicate, March 3, 2016, The Global Economys Stealth
Resilience, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/g-20-shanghai-meeting-distributed-governance-by-
ngaire-woods-2016-03

In fact, despite widespread uncertainty volatile capital flows, plummeting commodity prices, escalating
geopolitical tensions, the shock of a potential British exit from the European Union, and a massive refugee crisis
the stalling of global cooperation may be less risky today than it was even a decade ago. The key factor in this
context has been widespread recognition of the risks inherent in economic globalization, and concerted efforts to
build up the needed resilience on a national, bilateral, or regional basis.
Consider finance. Twenty years ago, a catastrophic financial crisis began in Thailand and quickly spread across East
Asia. Since then, those economies, and others in the emerging world, have self-insured against crisis by building
up huge stockpiles of foreign-exchange reserves. Partly as a result of this, the volume of reserves has risen from
some 5% of world GDP in 1995 to around 15% today.
Emerging economies are also holding less sovereign debt, and they have created bilateral and regional currency-
swap arrangements. In addition, more than 40 countries have deployed macro-prudential measures since the 2008
global financial crisis.
Countries also benefit from greater access to more diversified sources of finance. Some emerging and developing
countries now access global bond markets individually. And the role of regional development banks including the
African, Asian, and Inter-American Development Banks, as well as the newly created Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank and the New Development Bank has grown.
The final manifestation of this new pattern of cooperation which might be called distributed governance
appears in trade. While the Doha Round of negotiations has staggered and fallen, liberalization is proceeding apace,
owing to the proliferation of bilateral, regional, and super-regional deals.
These new governance arrangements have important resilience-enhancing effects; but they may not offer a more
efficient alternative to multilateralism, and they do not eliminate the need for traditional multilateral institutions. On
the contrary, bodies like the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization should be responsible for
analyzing and transmitting vital information to the array of institutions that are filling their traditional role.

No impact to economic decline

Drezner 14
Daniel W. Drezner, IR Professor at Tufts University, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great
Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the
initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of
force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflictwhether
through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the
Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The
aggregate data suggest otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of
peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined
since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the
Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict , as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is
one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the
Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist
nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43
 Frontline vs. Version 3.0 (Hegemony)

No roll-back - Federal Anti-Discrimination protections wont vanish in the status quo. Such laws will also fail
if theyre top-down.
Anderson 16
Internally quoting Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy
group focused on free speech in academia. Melinda D. Anderson is a contributing writer for The Atlantic - From the article:
What Is the Future of the Office for Civil Rights? - The Atlantic - December 2nd -
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/12/what-is-the-future-of-the-education-office-for-civil-rights/509348/

fundamental work of the current OCRwhether focused on sexual harassment

Melinda D. Anderson: It would seem that the
racial bullying , trans gender discrimination , or other efforts is providing equitable learning
and violence,
environments. Could this work look (be) different in the new administration and a DeVos-led Department of
Education? If so, how?
Thomas J. Gentzel, the executive director of the National School Boards Association
[Though] the fundamental work of OCR is enforcing civil-rights laws in education, it is the job of school districts to provide equitable learning
environments and, ultimately, to balance all of the competing interests so that all students have safe environments in which to learn. NSBA has
been concerned about executive overreach through the issuance of guidance [and] will continue to urge the incoming administration to exercise
restraint in such an approach to achieving its educational objectives.
Dan Losen, the director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLAs Civil Rights Project
A major question is to what extent a Trump [administration] will seek to unleash the forces of the far right and yield OCR [and the Department of
Justice] as hammers for its agenda, versus dramatically diminishing the federal role in education by substantially cutting OCR's budget and
reducing OCR's footprint. The latter entails allowing those [far right] forces to go unchecked at the state and local levels [where] they clearly
have power and influence [its] like the difference between aggressive and passive aggressive, but [both] mean a big difference in the lives of
children. I predict a lot more bullying, much less sensitivity, and blatant bigotry being tolerated [at schools and campuses.]
Robert Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy group focused on free speech in
academia, and the author of Twisting Title IX
The fundamental work of OCR is to enforce the anti-discrimination laws over which it has been given jurisdiction by Congress,
as well as duly enacted regulations based on those laws. I suspect that most of OCRs work will remain largely unchanged , but an
agencys interpretation of laws and regulations is bound to change somewhat with a change of political control. Consensus wont be possible on
OCRs efforts to fight discrimination are severely hobbled from the start if stakeholders
every controversial issue, but
dont even have the sense that they have been given a fair hearing , as they werent with the April 4, 2011 [letter to colleges,
universities, and schools] mandating that institutions use the preponderance of the evidence standard in sexual-misconduct hearings.

Trump wont broadly roll-back civil rights.

Sheffield 17
Matthew Sheffield is editor and publisher of Praxis, an online journal of politics and technology. Matthew is a contributor to
Salon.com and is also president of Dialog New Media, a consultancy firm providing technology, management, and media
solutions to businesses, non-profits, and individuals. Sheffield has a bachelors degree in political science from Virginia
Commonwealth University. On LGBT rights, Trump seems willing to anger Christian right but activists arent convinced -
Salon Posted on February 2, 2017 available at: http://www.eqca.org/salon-trump/
The jurys still out on Donald Trump and LGBT issues, but so far he has defied Republican anti-gay orthodoxy
Donald Trump hasnt yet been president for two weeks, but already he has taken numerous actions to fulfill promises he made as a presidential
candidate. He has set the repeal of Obamacare in motion, implemented a travel ban for immigrants and visitors from certain Muslim-majority
countries and worked closely with a conservative legal affairs group to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
While Trumps swift actions in his early presidency have thrilled his voter base and many Republicans, there is one right-wing
constituency that surely must be disappointed: conservatives who hope to roll back the expansion of LGBT rights.
Its far too soon to write off the religious right as a political force. But it has become apparent by now that the Trumps administration
has departed from traditional Republican politics when it comes to his partys unease with gays and lesbians, who overwhelmingly
vote Democratic.
There were indications of this during his presidential campaign, as Trump played both sides of the fence in an unconventional fashion. He met
with strongly anti-gay Christian nationalists and courted religious conservatives, yet also expressed openness to LGBT rights advocates.
In February of last year, early in the GOP primary season, the former reality-TV star assured viewers of Pat Robertsons Christian Broadcasting
Network that he would find a way to repeal the Supreme Courts shocking Obergefell v. Hodges decision that gave same-sex couples the right
to marry nationwide. In August Trump spoke before a gathering of an avowedly Christian supremacist organization that seeks to have members
of its faith in complete control of the government.
At the same time, however, Trump sought the votes of lesbians and gays, particularly after the June 12 mass shooting at a gay nightclub called
Pulse in Orlando. Since that day, Trump has tried to argue that his anti-terrorism policies would protect sexual minorities. His campaign even
opened a field office across the street from Pulse.
He even adopted that message in his prime-time Republican National Convention speech. As your president I will do everything in my power to
protect LGBTQ citizens, he said, before congratulating the crowd for offering some modest applause. Trump also allowed prominent gay
Republican Peter Thiel to proclaim, Im proud to be gay from the stage, something that would have been unthinkable at any prior GOP
convention.
Since winning the presidential election, Trump has made it clear that despite his campaign promises to Christian
nationalists, he largely intends to ignore their wishes, at least when it comes to LGBT issues. In a November interview
with CBS, Trump called the issue of marriage rights for same-sex couples irrelevant and already settled by the Obergefell
v. Hodges decision. Its law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, its done, he told 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl.
And Im fine with that.

Alt Cause STEM education must improve in order for the US to lead in innovation.
Engler 12
John Engler is the former Governor of Michigan and serves as the President of The National Association of Manufacturers
STEM Education Is the Key to the U.S.'s Economic Future US News and World Report June 15th
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/15/stem-education-is-the-key-to-the-uss-economic-future
STEM-related skills are not just a source of jobs, they are a source of jobs that pay very well. A report last October from the Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce found that 65 percent of those with Bachelors' degrees in STEM fields
earn more than Master's degrees in non-STEM occupations. In fact, 47 percent of Bachelor's degrees in STEM occupations earn more
than PhDs in non-STEM occupations.
But despite the lucrative potential, many young people are reluctant to enter into fields that require a background in
s cience, t echnology, e ngineering, or m athematics. In a recent study by the Lemselson-MIT Invention Index, which gauges
innovation aptitude among young adults, 60 percent of young adults (ages 16 to 25) named at least one factor that prevented
them from pursuing further education or work in the STEM fields. Thirty-four percent said they don't know much about the fields, a
third said they were too challenging, and 28 percent said they were not well-prepared at school to seek further education in
these areas.
This is a problemfor young people and for our country. We need STEM-related talent to compete globally , and we will
need even more in the future . It is not a matter of choice : For the United States to remain the global innovation leader,
we must make the most of all of the potential STEM talent this country has to offer.

History proves Anti-Discrimination laws will fail. Scope is too narrow and few can afford to sue anyway.

***note to students - this card also appears in the 1NC shell for the Trans- Pessimism
Spade 12
Dean Spade is a lawyer, writer, and Associate Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law This article is originally
from a book chapter of the same title called :"What's Wrong with Trans Rights?" It originally appeared in the book:
Transfeminist Perspectives: In and Beyond Transgender and Gender Studies (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2012)
edited by Anne Enke The chapter was made available at:
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/Justice_for_All/CLE_Professor_Dean_Spade.pdf

As the concept of trans rights has gained more currency in the last two decades, a seeming consensus has emerged about
which law reforms should be sought to better the lives of trans people. ' Advocates of trans equality have primarily
pursued two law reform interventions: anti-discrimination laws that list gender identity and/or expression as a category of
non-discrimination, and hate crime laws that include crimes motivated by the gender identity and/or expression of the victim as triggering
the application of a jurisdiction's hate crime statute. Organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) have supported state
and local organizations around the country in legislative campaigns to pass such laws. Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia currently
have laws that include gender identity and/or expression as a category of anti-discrimination, and 108 counties and
cities have such laws. NGLTF estimates that 39 percent of people in the United States live in a jurisdiction where such
laws are on the books.'' Seven states now have hate crime laws that include gender identity and/or expression.'1' In 2009 a federal law, the
Matthew Shepard and Tames Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, added gender identity and/or expression to federal hate crime law. An
ongoing battle regarding if and how gender identity and/or expression will be included in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a
federal law that would prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation, continues to be fought between the conservative national gay and
lesbian organization, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), legislators, and a variety of organizations and activists seeking to push an inclusive
bill through Congress. These two legal reforms, anti-discrimination bills and hate crime laws, have come to define the idea of "trans rights" in the
United States and are presently the most visible efforts made by nonprofit organizations and activists working under this rubric.
The logic behind this law reform strategy is not mysterious. Proponents argue that passing these laws does a number of important
things. First, the passage of antidiscrimination laws can create a basis for legal claims against discriminating employers,
housing providers, restaurants, hotels, stores, and the like. Trans people's legal claims when facing exclusion in such contexts have often failed
in the past, with courts saying that the exclusion is a legitimate preference on the part of the employer, landlord, or business owner.iv Laws that
make gender identity/expression-based exclusion illegal have the potential to influence courts to punish discriminators and provide certain
remedies (e.g., back pay or damages) to injured trans people. There is also a hope that such laws, and their enforcement by courts,
would send a preventative message to potential discriminators, letting them know that such exclusions will not be tolerated; these laws
would ultimately increase access to jobs, housing, and other necessities for trans people.
Hate crime laws are promoted under a related logic. Proponents point out that trans people have a very high murder rate and are subject to a great
deal of violences In many instances, trans people's lives are so devalued by police and prosecutors that trans murders are not investigated or trans
people's murderers are given less punishment than is typical in murder sentencing. Proponents believe that hate crime laws will intervene in these
situations, making law enforcement take this violence seriously. There is also a symbolic element to the passage of these laws: a statement that
trans lives are meaningful, often described by proponents as an assertion that trans people are human. Additionally, both proponents of anti-
discrimination laws and hate crime laws argue that the processes of advocating the passage of such laws, including media advocacy representing
the lives and concerns of trans people and meetings with legislators to tell them about trans people's experiences, increases positive trans visibility
and advances the struggle for trans equality. The data-collection element of hate crime statutes, through which certain government agencies keep
count of crimes that fall into this category, is touted by proponents as a chance to make the quantity and severity of trans people's struggles more
visible.
The logic of visibility and inclusion surrounding anti-discrimination and hate crime laws campaigns is very popular, yet there are many
troubling limitations to the idea that these two reforms comprise a proper approach to problems trans people face in
both criminal and civil law contexts. One concern is whether these laws actually improve the life chances of those who are
purportedly protected by them. Looking at categories of identity that have been included in these kinds of laws over the last
several decades indicates
that these kinds of reforms have not eliminated bias , exclusion, or marginalization. Discrimination
and violence against people of color have persisted despite law changes that declared it illegal. The persistent and growing racial
wealth divide in the United States suggests that these law changes have not had their promised effects, and that the structure of systemic racism is
not addressed by the work of these laws." Similarly, the twenty-year history of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) demonstrates
disappointing results. Courts have limited the enforcement potential of this law with narrow interpretations of its impact, and people with
disabilities remain economically and politically marginalized by systemic ableism. Similar arguments can be made about the persistence of
national origin discrimination, sex discrimination, and other forms of pervasive discrimination despite decades of official prohibitions of such
behavior. The persistence of wage gaps, illegal terminations, hostile work environments, hiring/firing disparities, and bias-motivated violence for
groups whose struggles have supposedly been addressed by antidiscrimination and hate crime laws invites caution when assuming the
effectiveness of these measures.
Hate crime laws do not have a deterrent effect. They focus on punishment and cannot be argued to actually prevent bias-motivated violence. In
addition to their failure to prevent harm, they must be considered in the context of the failures of our legal systems and, specifically, the violence
of our criminal punishment system. Anti-discrimination laws are not adequately enforced. Most people who experience discrimination
cannot afford to access legal help, so their experiences never make it to court. Additionally, the Supreme Court has severely
narrowed the enforceability of these laws over the last 30 years, making it extremely difficult to prove discrimination short of a signed letter from
a boss or landlord stating, "I am taking this negative action against you because of your [insert characteristic ]." Even in cases that seem as
obvious as that, people experiencing discrimination often lose. Proving discriminatory intent has become central, making it almost
impossible to win these cases when they are brought to court. Theselaws also have such narrow scopes that they often do not
include action taken by some of the most common discriminators against marginalized people: prison guards , welfare bureaucrats,
workfare supervisors, immigration officers , child welfare workers, and others who have significant control over the lives of
marginalized people in the United States. In a neoliberal era characterized by abandonment (reduction of social safety net and infrastructure,
especially in poor and people of color communities) and imprisonment (increased immigration and criminal law enforcement), anti-
discrimination laws provide little relief to the most vulnerable people.

Hegemony isnt key to peace

Fettweis 11
Christopher Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining
European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316332, EBSCO
there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and
It is perhaps worth noting that

international stability . In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the
United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less
on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible peace dividend
endangered both national and global security. No serious analyst of American military capabilities, argued Kristol and Kagan, doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far
if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a
to meet Americas responsibilities to itself and to world peace.52 On the other hand,
strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and
violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its
forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least
none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums,
no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the
stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern,
despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict

declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the
spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to
disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of
hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have
been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on
its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at
the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that
there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on
engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the
United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many
believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth
noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would
. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of
surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled
internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it
stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests
that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite
effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith
alone.
Extensions
 Extensions No roll-back of Federal Anti-Discrimination

Status quo precedent is narrow It wont broadly spillover to all civil liberty protections.
Grossman 17
Joanna L. Grossman is the Ellen K. Solender Endowed Chair in Women and Law at SMU Dedman School of Law. Another
Senseless Act of Destruction: The Trump Administration Undermines Protections for Transgender Students Verdict Feb 28th
- https://verdict.justia.com/2017/02/28/another-senseless-act-destruction-trump-administration-undermines-protections-
transgender-students

On February 22, 2017, the Trump administration issued another Dear Colleague letter, this time withdrawing the 2016 Dear
Colleague letter and OCRs Ferg-Cadima letter. The new letter is short, contains no analysis or citations, and gives only vague hints as to the
reason for the action. It claims that the original guidance documents do not, however, contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the
position is consistent with the express language of Title IX and did not undergo any formal public process. Moreover, the new letter notes, the
interpretation has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms. The original letters did contain careful
analysis and citation to relevant legal authority, whereas the new letter cites nothingit does not even give case names or citations for the cases
to which it expressly refers.
The most surprising part of the new letter is this comment: In addition, the Departments believe that, in this context, there
must be due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy. This is a
preposterous line of reasoning, given that the question is about the proper interpretation of a federal statute. States have no role to play in figuring
that out, nor any discretion to provide their students with fewer protections than those guaranteed by federal law. Federal anti-
discrimination law has a long history of protecting equality of opportunity where states have fallen short. There is no
reason now to throw transgender students and them alone to the states that have exhibited nothing but overt
hostility to them.
 Extensions Trump wont roll-back

Trump wont succeed in roll-back. And if he tries private lawsuits will step-in to fill the gap.
Cooper 16
Perry Cooper is a Senior Legal Editor and covers class procedure and consumer law for the Class Action Litigation Report. The
author formerly served as a Law Clerk for Congressional Research Service and holds a J.D. from The College of William and
Mary Internally quoting JOCELYN D. LARKIN, who is the Executive Director of the Impact Fund.The Impact Fund in a legal
practice that focuses on complex employment discrimination and class action practice on behalf of plaintiffs. Ms. Larkin has
served as class counsel in many major class action lawsuits. Will Civil Rights Class Actions Multiply Under Trump? Class
Action Litigation Report - December 2nd available at: https://www.bna.com/civil-rights-class-n73014447996/

Frivolous cases overshadow the important work being done by class action attorneys and create a skepticism towards
important cases, plaintiffs advocate Jocelyn Larkin said.
Social justice cases need better press to counter negative views of class actions, Larkin, executive director of the pro-plaintiff Impact
Fund in Berkeley, Calif., said.
And civil rights class actionswhich helped spark the modern version of the class action device more than 50 years agocould
increase if President-elect Donald Trumps Department of Justice deprioritizes civil rights enforcement, attorneys told Bloomberg
BNA.
Government as Ocean Liner
Trumps campaign rhetoric about creating a Muslim registry, building a wall with Mexico, bringing back law and order and limiting protesters
rights have raised the hackles of civil rights advocates.
But any predictions on what Trumps administration will follow through with are little better than guesses.
Bruce Adelson, who worked in the voting section at the DOJ during the Clinton-Bush transition, stressed that initially,
not much changes.
As President Barack Obama said recently, the federal government is like an ocean liner: its big and difficult to move quickly, Adelson told
Bloomberg BNA.
Im figuring that by the middle of next year we should start to see indications of new priorities or new directions, he said. Adelson is the CEO
of Federal Compliance Consulting LLC in Washington, which advises clients on compliance with civil rights laws.
Some say theday-to-day enforcement of bread and butter federal statutes isnt likely to change.
Career attorneys will continue the work theyve been doing in prior administrations , Gerald Maatman, who defends
companies in employment discrimination and other civil rights actions, told Bloomberg BNA. Maatman is at partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP in
Chicago.
He said it rare that a policymaker will reach to the heartland and diddle around or command government attorneys to do a certain thing with
respect to a lawsuit.
Stretch-the-envelope type cases are a different story, Maatman said. He gave the example of the current Justice Departments active support for
transgender rights. He expects a retreat on those cases, enforcing the law as writtenas he sees itrather than stretching it to establish new
precedent.
Trumps pick of conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to head the DOJ could be an indication of the direction the department will take.
My initial reaction [to Sessionss nomination] is Im not optimistic that there will be vigorous enforcement in the civil rights area, Michael
Foreman told Bloomberg BNA. Foreman directs the civil rights appellate clinic at Pennsylvania State University law school in University Park,
Pa.
But he reiterated that the DOJ doesnt move in big steps.
The attorney general can set a theme, he can set a direction, but there are laws in place that need to be enforced, he said.
Private Bar Fills Enforcement Void
Any void left open in the administrations civil rights enforcement will be filled by the private class action bar, as it has
done during past Republican administrations, Larkin, the plaintiffs' lawyer, told Bloomberg BNA.
Its always somewhat easier when you have the backing of the administration on enforcement, but when we dont weve
forged ahead , she said.
The new administration could pick areas where it decides it isnt interested in enforcing civil rights statutes, Foreman said. He
gave the example of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
They could either trim the budget or pick leadership that is not interested in pursuing systemic types of relief, he said. It will fall
back to the private counsel to pick up those cases that the EEOC doesnt do.
But thats part of how civil rights enforcement is designed to work, Suzette Malveaux, professor of complex litigation and civil
rights law at Catholic University Law School in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA. Private cases are an important piece of the
enforcement puzzle, she said.
For example, for Title VII employment discrimination cases, there has always been an understanding by Congress that the class action
mechanism is a critical piece of that enforcement, she said. Federal agencies and the private bar are both key players.
Foreman said the private bar does an extremely effective job, especially with wage-and-hour and employment discrimination class actions.
Theyve actually been the driving force behind those suits.
Protecting the Device
Another important job for the civil rights bar is protecting the class action device, Larkin said. A big part of our mission is ensuring that there
arent procedural obstacles that are thrown up to prevent the use of class actions to ensure civil rights.
She had hoped that restrictions on mandatory arbitration would improve conditions for plaintiffs, but those Obama administration initiatives are
unlikely to survive under the new leadership. She doesnt expect to see any changes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the federal rule that governs class
actions, however.
Trump will also get to appoint a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was viewed as hostile to class actions during Justice Antonin
Scalia's tenure.
But Larkin stressed that while the Supreme Court matters to civil rights litigation, the bread and butter civil rights class actions are
being heard by district court judges and appellate court judges who for the most part are practical and not particularly
politically driven .
Thats where we will be litigating most of our cases and ensuring that the values underlying the civil rights laws are
preserved, Larkin said.

Trump wont roll-back civil rights thats an exaggeration.

Scott 17
et al; Eugene Scott is a reporter for CNN Politics, covering Washington, national politics and identity politics. He received his
master's in public administration from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government where he was senior editor
of the Harvard Journal on African-American Policy. Scott received his bachelor's in journalism and mass communication from
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Internally quoting Gregory T. Angelo, president of Log Cabin Republicans, a
conservative LGBT group. LGBT community prepares for a march -- and a fight CNN June 11th modified for language
that may offend. http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/lgbt-policies-march-pride/index.html

Conservative gay Americans, for their part, view the march as a partisan event emphasizing "division far more than equality," said Gregory T.
Angelo, president of Log Cabin Republicans, a conservative LGBT group.
"For months now we've heard (it has been conveyed) that Trump is going to 'roll back' advances made by the LGBT
community, and time and again those rumors were proven to be unfounded," he told CNN. "All of this chicken-littling
has turned the self-styled 'Resistance' into little more than a hollow cliche."
 Extensions - STEM Education = Alt Cause

Alt Cause STEM Education is key to innovation.

Kelly 14
et al; Brian Kelly is editor and chief content officer of U.S. News & World Report. Kelly attended Georgetown University and
graduated with a bachelor's degree in economics. Kelly is on the board of the World Affairs Council of Washington and a
member of the Economic Club of Washington. - STEM Proficiency: A Key Driver of Innovation, Economic Growth and
National Security US News and World Report - April 23rd - https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-
index/articles/2014/04/23/stem-proficiency-a-key-driver-of-innovation-economic-growth-and-national-security

STEM: what a terrible acronym. Its one of those awkward labels that become accepted shorthand for a wonky policy topic because no one can
figure out a better way to say it. But dont let clunkiness obscure significance. STEM is also an under appreciated, and troubling, component of
the U.S. economy. The real meaning behind STEM is the mismatch between supply and demand in a key part of the countrys labor pipeline.
The demand for the many jobs requiring STEM skills science, technology, engineering and mathis outstripping
the supply, and the problem will only get worse.
Thats what we found when we crunched the numbers in the first-ever STEM Index, a basket of data measuring the state of
STEM jobs and education since 2000. We wanted to impose some metrics on a much-discussed but ill-defined subject that
has become a concern for most major industries in the U.S. STEM proficiency is a key driver of innovation , economic growth
and ultimately national security. For instance, some of the most coveted and scarce skills today are in the fields of cybersecurity.
But STEM is not just about tech companies. Its not just about people who wear lab coats. STEM skills are needed in the many
millions of jobs that will have to be filled in sectors such as energy, manufacturing, food production and perhaps
most significantly, health care. What industry does not need more workers with science and math know-how? And not just at the high
end. Having STEM skills could mean making it into the middle class, or not.
Going back to studies like the seminal Rising Above the Gathering Storm report of 2005, the problem has been a focus of much attention. But
we wanted to add some new rigor by creating a unique set of data that looked at how the U.S. has fared in tackling this supply-demand challenge.
We plotted dozens of statistics that measured student test performance, aptitude, and interest against job demand (read the full methodology). The
result is a 14-year average that tells an important part of the STEM story, with limits. Our new benchmark, the U.S. News/Raytheon STEM
Index, is a starting point thats meant to lead to deeper discussions, and ultimately solutions. And of course any broad-based graph can only tell
you so much; the analyses behind the component parts are ultimately the most revealing.
What the numbers tell us is that the country has made little progress on a problem weve seen coming for a long time. Despite
growing job demand, the pipeline of talent is weak and will remain that way for at least a decade if nothing changes.
There are some recent glimmers of hope, reflected in an uptick over the past two years, but they are coming from a select part of the population.
Our top-line data, supported by other studies, shows that some portion of white males, along with Americans of Asian descent, are increasingly
drawn to STEM subjects, while those who represent the bulk of the future labor poolwomen, Latinos and African-Americansare showing
disproportionately little interest.
A-to the Agency Deference Advantage
Frontline
 Financial Deregulation---1nc
Deference not key financial deregulation inevitable personnel is policy staffing will mean
underenforcement
Pozen 2-6 [Robert C. Pozen is currently a Senior Lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management and a Senior Fellow
at the Brookings Institution.2-6-2017 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/02/06/what-will-happen-to-
dodd-frank-under-trumps-executive-order/]
Agency Revisions of Dodd-Frank Rules
The Trump Administration will be able to replace most financial regulators within the next year. The Chairs of the SEC and
the CFTC have already resigned, while the terms of the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC will end by the fall. The Fed
Chairmanship of Janet Yellen expires in early 2018, and the Obama Administration never appointed a Fed Vice Chairman for regulation.
Under a recent court ruling, currently stayed on appeal, President Trump may remove the head of the Bureau without cause
Of course, Trump officials will have to go through the notice and comment process to revise substantially or eliminate major
rules adopted under Dodd-Frank. However, financial regulators can more easily relax these rules by flexible interpretations
or minimal enforcement. As the new head of the Presidents National Economic Council remarked on Friday, repeating a prior comment
from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass): Personnel is policy.
Large financial institutions will definitely benefit from this turnover in regulatory personnel. For example, although
legislation would be needed to repeal the Volcker Rules restrictions on proprietary trading by banks, their regulators are likely to
add exemptions and interpret existing regulations liberally. Similarly, the new members of the Financial Stability Council will probably back
away from labeling large insurers as systemically risky a label now subject to a judicial challenge.

Constraints solve Trump lash-out

Goldsmith 17 (Jack, Henry L. Shattuck Professor at Harvard Law School, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover
Institution, and co-founder of Lawfare. He teaches and writes about national security law, presidential power, cyber
security, international law, internet law, foreign relations law, and conflict of laws. He served as Assistant Attorney
General at the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from
2002-2003. Checks on Presidential Power Are Stronger Than You Think 1-20-17
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/checks-presidential-power-are-stronger-you-think-1091)
TCB: Which are the most resilient currently existing checks on his power, and which need to be bolstered?
JG: There are many, both inside and outside the Executive branch. On the inside, a bevy of lawyers, ethics monitors,
inspectors general, and bureaucrats in the intelligence and defense communities have expertise, interests and values,
and infighting skills that enable them to check and narrow the options for even the most aggressive presidents . On the
outside, the press, which did such an extraordinary job of holding Bush, and to a lesser extent Obama, to account, is more
motivated than ever to hold Trump accountable. The same goes for civil society groups like the ACLU, which have used
lawsuits, reports, and F reedom of I nformation A ct requests to expose government operations and misdeeds since 9/11,
and whose coffers have ballooned since Trumps election. Spurred on by the press and civil society, the judiciary, which often stood up to
Bush, will stand up even more to Trump if he engages in excessive behavior. Finally, Congress has been more consequential in
constraining the national security president since 9/11 than people realize. And as we have already seen in some pushback from
Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Rand Paul (R-KY), it will stand up to Trump on many issues, even though his party
nominally controls Congress.
None of these institutions are perfect. They are especially ill-suited to prevent the President from using military force as he sees fit, which is why
the Obama Administrations precedents in this context are so troubling. But the institutions do a much better job in other national
security contexts than they have been given credit for, and they will be watching president Trump with a very skeptical
eye and an array of powers to push back.

No diversionary war
Bershidsky 17 Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View Columnist, Founding Editor of the Russian business daily
Vedomosti and Founded Slon.ru, Trump's Forever War of Diversion, Bloomberg News, 1-25,
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-25/trump-s-forever-war-of-diversion
There's even a term for the tactic: "diversionary conflict." Faced with economic difficulties or other problems
potentially threatening to its survival, the regime starts a war somewhere or sharpens domestic ethnic divisions.
Since the oil price plummeted in late 2014, the Putin regime has kept Russians on a steady diet of war news from
eastern Ukraine and Syria (Russia and its allies have been winning). With the Syrian operation, Putin sharply raised
his international standing, but a big reduction in protests against worsening economic conditions has probably been
more important to him.
In neighboring Ukraine, every time a government finds itself in trouble and particularly unpopular, the matter of the
country's linguistic division surfaces, with various groups trying to promote or ban the Russian language. Former
President Viktor Yanukovych used the language matter as cover for passing other unpopular legislation. Now, with
president Petro Poroshenko's popularity at a nadir, reforms stalled and the cost of living rising sharply, Ukrainians
are distracted by the discussion of a new language law that would make Ukrainian obligatory in public life, under
threat of fines.
Trump doesn't need to start wars : He and his team know how emotional many Americans are about him. He
can choose what he wants to be hated for -- preferably for something silly and unrelated to his actual priorities at the
moment. He used this to his advantage during the campaign: His alleged sexual misconduct took up so much media
time and public attention than issues like his business history, his tax returns and his proposals.
As the inauguration attendance argument played, Trump has been busy. Apart from starting the Obamacare rollback
and withdrawing from the TPP, he has frozen a reduction of mortgage insurance premiums, allowed the Keystone
Pipeline to go ahead and prepared to sign an executive order to begin construction of a border wall. Well aware that
some of these important actions might cause indignation and targeted protest, Trump has tossed out another
meaningless football for the media and the public to fixate on.
"I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD , including those registered to vote in two states,
those who are illegal and even those registered to vote who are dead," he tweeted. Sure enough, at the time of this
writing, the CNN story about this was the most shared in the last 24 hours, with news about the border wall order
coming a distant second.
Just as it was unimportant how many people attended the inauguration, it doesn't matter at all at this point whether
undocumented immigrants actually voted last November and whether any votes were cast for dead people. No one is
challenging the results of the election. The wall and the Keystone Pipeline matter, yet are much smaller stories in
terms of readership. Trump and his team are already showing a flair for diversion. Is it enough to discourage the
kinds of mass protests that such aggressive moves on lightning-rod issues might spark? We'll know in the coming
days and weeks, though protesters' energy was certainly sapped by the massive women's march, which took place
before Trump actually did anything damaging to women's rights.
Trump's and his team's communications look awkward, inept, gallingly primitive. It's time to wise up: These people
know what they're doing. They want their political opponents to be confused, to flail at windmills, to expend
emotions on meaningless scandals to distract them from any targeted, coordinated action against specific threats.
There are going to be many of these: Trump appears intent on keeping his promises. Calm concentration is needed
to counteract dangerous policies.

Deregulation is better for growth and competitiveness

Ehrlich 1-28 [Bob Ehrlich and J.C. Boggs Mr. Ehrlich is a former Maryland governor. Mr. Boggs is former counsel
to Sen. William Roth, Jr. Both are now at King & Spalding. 1-28-2017
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/01/28/the-next-repeal-and-replace-dodd-frank/#31e2d90c6978]
The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, better known as Dodd-Frank, was constructed hastily and upon poor
foundations that will require significant structural alterations . Fortunately, help is on the way. President Trump supports
dismantling Dodd-Frank for the simple reason that banks arent lending money to people who need it.
Not only has Dodd-Frank restricted overall loan making by banks , it has made it more difficult for marginally credit-
worthy smaller businesses and consumers to secure favorably priced loans. A recent University of Maryland study found that because of
Dodd-Frank, lenders reduced credit to middle-class households by 15%, and increased credit to wealthy households
by 21%.
Under Dodd-Frank, all bank holding companies with consolidated assets of more than $50 billion were automatically designated as too big to fail. The irony is that
Dodd-Franks focus on too big to fail created a new problem too small to succeed as complex and costly
regulations required small banks to hire compliance officers instead of lending officers.
Today, the five biggest banks control 44% of all U.S. banking assets more than before Dodd-Frank was enacted. At the same time, more
than 1,700 small and community banks - nearly one quarter of the industry - have been forced to merge or shut down.
With Dodd-Frank, Congress rewrote 140 years of banking law, going back to the National Bank Act of 1864, in just 14 months.
During our respective tenures as a Member of Congress and Senate Banking Committee counsel, we have never witnessed such audacity. But that was just the tip of
the iceberg.
In an unprecedented delegation of authority to federal regulators, the legislation resulted in the promulgation of approximately 24,000 pages of new regulation. Six
years after enactment, only 70% of the nearly 400 regulations required by the Act have been finalized, 10% are pending, and 20% have yet to be proposed.
Nowhere is such regulatory abuse more obvious than the so-called Volcker rule prohibiting banks and their affiliates from trading securities for their own account,
although Democratic bill drafters could produce no evidence that proprietary trading contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. To make matters worse, a recent
Federal Reserve staff working paper concluded that the net effect of the Volcker Rule is a less liquid corporate bond
market.
Equally problematic, the new Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) was given the extraordinary power to designate nonbank financial firms as systemically
important financial institutions. While traditional insurance activities played no role in the financial crisis and pose no risk to the financial system, these nonbank
SIFIs are now subject to increased capital and regulatory requirements, which costs are ultimately being borne by the consumer.
Dodd-Frank also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a $600 million annual behemoth generating more than $5
billion in fines since its inception. The CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve, evading our constitutional structure in which Congress appropriates
funds for executive-branch operations. Its rulemaking is equally out of control with one regulation on mortgage lending exceeding 1,000 pages.
While Dodd-Frank is the primary villain here, associated legal risk remains a factor. Banks
hit with legal settlements in the billions because of subprime
mortgages also were forced by government agencies to repurchase loans. The end result the slow recovery and one of the lowest
growth periods in our nations history.
Innovation is another casualty. Smaller banks, in particular, complain that new rules and regulations limit the types of
products and services they can offer . The result has been to drive much of todays financial innovation to non-bank companies outside
of the regulated rails, and often outside the U nited S tates. To compound matters, the FDIC has approved only three new bank charters since 2010, by far the
lowest approval rate in our nations history.
Extensions
 2nc - Congress makes inevitable
Congress makes financial deregulation inevitable already happening and theyll use the budget process to
defund Dodd-Frank
Protess 1-30 [Ben Protess covers the intersection of Wall Street and government for the failing New York Times,
including financial industry lobbying and white-collar crime. 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/dealbook/republicans-unravel-dodd-frank-act.html]
But the president has spoken out against Dodd-Frank, claiming that eliminating it would benefit working people, even as he stocks
his administration with former Goldman executives and billionaires.
His allies in Congress began their legislative assault on Dodd-Frank on Monday, introducing a measure to repeal a
S ecurities and E xchange C ommission regulation that requires oil companies to publicly disclose payments they make to governments when
developing resources around the world. The regulation was tangential to Dodd-Franks mission of reforming Wall Street but was included as a
bipartisan effort intended to shine a light on potential bribes.
Republicans argue that the rule puts American companies at a disadvantage; the House Financial Services Committee has called it a politically
motivated mandate. And the rule has some powerful opponents in the industry, including Exxon Mobil and, according to one account, its former
top executive, Rex W. Tillerson, Mr. Trumps pick for secretary of state.
The legislation to repeal the rule, introduced by Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan and advanced to the House floor by the rules
committee on Monday, has a good shot of becoming law thanks to an obscure parliamentary procedure. Under the
Congressional Review Act, passed in 1996, Congress has a limited window to undo newly finalized regulations using only 51
Senate votes, rather than the normal 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Republicans hold a majority in both chambers, all but
guaranteeing them success.
This effort is just the beginning. House Republicans are also moving bolder legislation that would repeal crucial provisions
of Dodd-Frank, including the so-called Volcker rule, which prevents banks from making risky bets with their own money. And they are
exploring ways to use the budget process to potentially defund some of the laws most contentious provisions .

Theyll include it in budget reconciliation harder to oppose

Protess 1-30 [Ben Protess covers the intersection of Wall Street and government for the failing New York Times,
including financial industry lobbying and white-collar crime. 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/business/dealbook/republicans-unravel-dodd-frank-act.html]
The Budget
If his straightforward legislation stalls, Mr. Hensarling may find comfort in the minutiae of the budget reconciliation
process.
In the next six weeks or so, his committee is required to submit its budget views for 2018 to the House Budget Committee. In this document,
Mr. Hensarling is expected to recommend a number of measures that could rein in some core aspects of Dodd-Frank .
For example, he will most likely recommend replacing regulators authority to wind down troubled banks with a new chapter
of the bankruptcy code. He also could tinker with the funding for two bodies that Republicans love to hate: the C onsumer F inancial
P rotection B ureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a collective of regulators who monitor threats to the financial system.
By subjecting these bodies to the congressional appropriations process, rather than a dedicated funding mechanism, Congress
may be able to cut their funding.
 2nc - No Trump Lashout
International checks reinforce domestic constraints
Burdette 3-1 (Zachary, National Security Intern at the Brookings Institution and M.A. candidate at Georgetown
University's Security Studies Program concentrating in military operations. Americas Counterterrorism Partners as
a Check on Trump 3-1-17 https://www.lawfareblog.com/americas-counterterrorism-partners-check-trump)
President Trump has begun to shift U.S. counterterrorism policies toward an extreme paradigm that departs from both liberal and conservative
orthodoxy. In his first weeks in office, Trump recast the enemy as radical Islam, reconsidered U.S. policy on black sites and torture, and instituted
a travel ban covering seven Muslim-majority countries. The unifying logic of these approaches is one of defining Islam as the problem,
unshackling humanitarian constraints, and adopting extreme tools to combat terrorism. In implementing this vision, Trump inherits an already
formidable counterterrorism architecture and an expansive legal interpretation of executive war powers from the Obama administration.
Ideally, the checks and balances of the U.S. political system will force moderation and curtail executive overreach. The
national security bureaucracy, Congress, the courts, the press, and civil society areindividually and collectively
powerful impediments to illegal and extreme counterterrorism measures. While there are fierce debates over how effectively these
domestic constraints have operated in the past, the early judicial challenges to Trumps counterterrorism policies suggest that domestic
institutions could place meaningful constraints on the new administration.
International dynamics may reinforce these domestic checks and balances. U.S. allies and partners could leverage their
continued cooperation on counterterrorism to pressure the Trump administration to exercise uncharacteristic self-restraint . In
other words, the United States could soon face an uncomfortable dilemma: President Trump must either restrain his most
hawkish impulses or his administration may find itself increasingly going it alone in the war on terror.
The Trump administration may not be concerned about such a possibility, given the Presidents dismissive attitude toward American allies
throughout the campaign, but it should be. Allies provide important assets in international counterterrorism operations, many of which the U.S.
intelligence community would be hard-pressed to replace.
If partners believe the new administrations counterterrorism policies are illegal or excessive, they will likely turn first to diplomatic
condemnation to induce moderation. The collective voice of the international community shapes expectations about what is
acceptable, which raises the political costs of crossing certain legal and political thresholds. Global outcry would
lend weight and legitimacy to those inside the U nited S tates calling for restraint, serving as an external prompt to
jumpstart dialogue and the internal processes of U.S. checks and balances. For example, international naming and
shaming of the Obama administration helped end the U.S. practice of spying on the communications of certain allied heads of
state.
While the Trump administration may prove itself immune to such international condemnation, there is some cause for optimism. In
addition to his uncompromising demand for unconditional praise, one of Trumps few consistencies is his lack of principled commitment to any
particular policy. He flip-flopped on proposed counterterrorism measures when domestic audiences criticized him during the
campaign. A concerted, global effort may have a similar effect during his presidency, especially if it were combined with
fawning praise for his leadership when he moderates.

SecDef vetoes US lashout

Picht 16 James Picht, PhD, teaches economics and Russian at the Louisiana Scholars' College, Senior Editor for
Communities Politics, CDN, 6/14/2016, President Trumps inability to accidentally start a nuclear war,
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/president-trumps-inability-to-accidentally-start-a-nuclear-war-65654/
But we dont want them used too easily. To set your mind at ease, there is no actual button on the presidents desk that can launch

nuclear weapons. We need not worry that in a moment of inattention, the president will accidentally start a nuclear war. The
system by which we launch nuclear weapons cant be so easy that they can be launched by accident or on a whim . It cant be so
difficult that, when we detect Russian missiles flying at our cities and our military installations, the president cant respond quickly and launch our own missiles before theyre reduced to
radioactive slag. Those competing requirements mean that the system will be highly complex. It includes failsafes, backup systems,
redundancies, and verification checks. When the order comes to launch the missiles, we want to be sure that it came from an authorized source that really, really meant
it. The nuclear button isnt real. There is a chain of command, and there are verification codes. The president can order the

release of nuclear weapons, but the order must be confirmed by the secretary of defense. A watch alert is sent to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and after the president reviews the war plans, an aid contacts the National Military
Command Center. Trump seems lackadaisical about nuclear proliferation, speaking casually about the inevitable spread of nuclear weapons and
the desirability of countries like Japan and Germany building nuclear arsenals of their own. His view of the subject seems predicated more on cost
savings than on the history of nuclear non-proliferation or on national security concerns. Thats a real concern.
Trumps thin skin is not . The LBJ campaigns infamous daisy ad against Barry Goldwater was demagoguery at its
worst; it was intended to terrify voters and convince them that Goldwater might really launch an attack on the USSR. The evidence is that Trump is
careless with his words , crude in his treatment of people he considers unimportant, and ignorant of foreign affairs. It is not that he is insane
or looking forward to Armageddon. And unless he managed to fill the Department of Defense with lackeys who
were as insane as he would have to be, he couldnt start a nuclear war for no better reason than an offense to his very
thin skin.

Pence has all the power Trump is a puppet with no strings

Oh 16 Writes for Mother Jones, managing editor of mother jones (INAE OH, Donald Trump Reportedly Plans to
Delegate All Domestic and Foreign Power to his VPhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/donald-trump-
mike-pence-running-mate-domestic-foreign-policy) RMT
A new report from the New York Times Magazine goes behind the scenes of the VP selection process and claims
that Trump's first choice was his former rival, Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Perhaps more interestingly, the report sheds
light on the unprecedented level of power Trump plans to delegate to his vice president if elected. According to the
Times, Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., was responsible for vetting the potential candidates. Here's a scene from
one conservation he had with a Kasich adviser.
Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?
When Kasichs adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his fathers vice
president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.
Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
"Making America great again" was the casual reply.
If true, this means that Trump doesn't plan on doing much governing at all. It may also reveal that he actually agrees
with Hillary Clinton's claim that he is temperamentally unfit to become president of the United States. As for
Kasich, he declined the offer and isn't even showing up to the Republican convention that's taking place in his home
state.
 2nc - No diversionary war
Its unlikely speculation
Foster 16 Dennis M. Foster, Professor of International Studies and Political Science at the Virginia Military
Institute, Would President Trump Go To War To Divert Attention From Problems At Home?, Washington Post,
12-19, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/19/yes-trump-might-well-go-to-war-to-
divert-attention-from-problems-at-home/?utm_term=.bf5bc633b8b7
If the U.S. economy tanks, should we expect Donald Trump to engage in a diversionary war? Since the age of Machiavelli, analysts
have expected world leaders to launch international conflicts to deflect popular attention away from problems at home. By stirring up feelings of patriotism, leaders might escape the political
costs of scandal, unpopularity or a poorly performing economy.
One often-cited example of diversionary war in modern times is Argentinas 1982 invasion of the Falklands, which several (though not all) political scientists attribute to the juntas desire to
divert the peoples attention from a disastrous economy.
In a 2014 article, Jonathan Keller and I argued that whether U.S. presidents engage in diversionary conflicts depends in part on their psychological traits how they frame the world, process
information and develop plans of action. Certain traits predispose leaders to more belligerent behavior.
Do words translate into foreign policy action?
One way to identify these traits is content analyses of leaders rhetoric. The more leaders use certain types of verbal constructs, the more likely they are to possess traits that lead them to use
military force.
For one, conceptually simplistic leaders view the world in black and white terms; they develop unsophisticated solutions to problems and are largely insensitive to risks. Similarly, distrustful
leaders tend to exaggerate threats and rely on aggression to deal with threats. Distrustful leaders typically favor military action and are confident in their ability to wield it effectively.
Thus, when faced with politically damaging problems that are hard to solve such as a faltering economy leaders who are both distrustful and simplistic are less likely to put together
complex, direct responses. Instead, they develop simplistic but risky solutions that divert popular attention from the problem, utilizing the tools with which they are most comfortable and
confident (military force).
Based on our analysis of the rhetoric of previous U.S. presidents, we found that presidents whose language appeared more simplistic and distrustful, such as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower
and George W. Bush, were more likely to use force abroad in times of rising inflation and unemployment. By contrast, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, whose rhetoric pegged them as more
complex and trusting, were less likely to do so.
What about Donald Trump?
Since Donald Trumps election, many commentators have expressed concern about how he will react to new challenges and whether he might make quick recourse to military action. For
example, the Guardians George Monbiot has argued that political realities will stymie Trumps agenda, especially his promises regarding the economy. Then, rather than risk disappointing his
base, Trump might try to rally public opinion to his side via military action.
I sampled Trumps campaign rhetoric, analyzing 71,446 words across 24 events from January 2015 to December 2016. Using a program for measuring leadership traits in rhetoric, I estimated
what Trumps words may tell us about his level of distrust and conceptual complexity. The graph below shows Trumps level of distrust compared to previous presidents.
These results are startling. Nearly 35 percent of Trumps references to outside groups paint them as harmful to himself, his allies and friends, and causes that are important to him a percentage
almost twice the previous high. The data suggest that Americans have elected a leader who, if his campaign rhetoric is any indication, will be historically unparalleled among modern presidents
in his active suspicion of those unlike himself and his inner circle, and those who disagree with his goals.
As a candidate, Trump also scored second-lowest among presidents in conceptual complexity. Compared to earlier presidents, he used more words and phrases that indicate less willingness to see
multiple dimensions or ambiguities in the decision-making environment. These include words and phrases like absolutely, greatest and without a doubt.
A possible implication for military action
I took these data on Trump and plugged them into the statistical model that we developed to predict major uses of force by the United States from 1953 to 2000. For a president of average distrust
and conceptual complexity, an economic downturn only weakly predicts an increase in the use of force.
But the model would predict that a president with Trumps numbers would respond to even a minor economic downturn with an increase in the use of force. For example, were the misery index
(aggregate inflation and unemployment) equal to 12 about where it stood in October 2011 the model predicts a president with Trumps psychological traits would initiate more than one
major conflict per quarter.

Of course, predictions from such a model come with a lot of uncertainty . By necessity, any measures of a
presidents traits are imperfect . And we do not know whether there will be an economic downturn. Moreover, campaigning is not governing, and
the responsibilities of the Oval Office might moderate Donald Trump. The psychologist Philip Tetlock has found that
presidents often become more conceptually complex once they enter office.
 2nc - no spillover
U.S. not key
Molavi 11 Afshin Molavi, Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the World Economic Roundtable at the New
America Foundation, US Economic Power is Part of a Healthier Global Order, The National, 7-4,
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/us-economic-power-is-part-of-a-healthier-global-
order#full
Thus, the world faces the prospect of America slipping quietly into a "lost decade" of sluggish growth - of America sneezing and wheezing and coughing, but not facing a crisis
moment. What will this mean for the world? Japan's growth throughout the 1970s and 1980s bolstered many of their Asian trading partners.
Japan's demand was a boon. But Japan's lost decade in the 1990s did not stop the Asian tigers from rising. In some cases, countries such as South Korea and Taiwan even
benefited from the Japanese slowdown, stealing away market share in key industries. The same may happen with an American "lost decade". A World Bank report in late 2009 noted that
Latin American countries - the most exposed to American contagion - did not feel severe effects from the American crisis. The same
goes for other emerging markets. So, perhaps the world will shrug off a steady American economic decline over the
next five years. This is partly because the global economic pie is not a fixed size. As "the rest" rise, it grows. Thus,
America controlled a quarter of the world's GDP in 1970 - roughly the same as today. But the pie is much bigger.
Global GDP has tripled since 1970 and Asia today accounts for a quarter of global GDP . The pie is not only larger,
but it is more balanced . Will there even be a "lost decade" after all? American corporations are sitting on large piles of cash. The problems with the economy have as much
(perhaps more) to do with business confidence as with fundamentals. That could change. To be sure, the world is better off when America grows and produces and innovates. But if the declinists
the world will be too busy to notice: emerging
prove correct, then the clich of "when American sneezes" will truly be tested once and for all. Or perhaps
markets will be growing their middle classes, oil-rich Middle East states will be bolstering ties to Asia, and Chinese investments will flow
across Africa and Latin America. And that sneezing $14 trillion (Dh51.4 trillion) economy would still be the envy of most countries around the world. We can put the clich
to rest: an American sneeze might not breed a global cold after all .
 Specific answers to hegemony module
(see also the Extensions vs. Hegemony header)
 1nc gridlock
No sweeping legislation Dems want to deny Trump wins
Cottle 1-23-17 (MICHELLE COTTLE is a contributing editor for The Atlantic and a Washington correspondent for
the Daily Beast. How Will Congress Cope With Trump?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-congress/514085/ //LLP)
Democrats are prepping a divide-and-conquer strategy: foot-drag and (yes) gridlock on policies favored by
congressional Republicans (like killing Obamacare and unraveling Wall Street reforms) but extend a hand to Trump on campaign promises he made that mesh with their values.
(Think: infrastructure investment and trade.) We are presenting a choice to the president, said the senior Senate aide. If he pursues issues that align with Democratic priorities, he will find
selective cooperation is not
Democrats eager to work with him. This will, however, require Trump to buck the Republicans in Congress, stressed the aide. Democrats
aimed at finding middle ground with GOP members, the aide clarified, but about Trumps upending decades of
Republican orthodoxy and going around congressional Republicans on particular issues. The goal: deny the
majority legislative wins while positioning Democrats as the party that can work with Trump to get stuff done. Not
that Democrats really expect Trump to follow through on his progressive promises . They tend to see those as just another piece of
the massive con job he perpetrated on the electorate, and exposing the con is central to rallying public sentiment against the president, they say.
We have to confront him on substantive issues in surgical ways: Show reporters and constituents exactly how hes not living up to his impossible promises, said the House Democratic aide.
The white working class tends to be not only less conservative on social issues than the GOPs evangelical base but also significantly less hostile to Big Government. Operationally, this will
mean getting better at the granular stuff, like coordinating news releases, said the House aide. Have every House Dem send something to their local press list and post on social media at the
same time. You may have noticed, House Democrats arent very good at this currently. And all seem to agree that it does not pay to go tweet-to-tweet with Trump. That way lies madness. There
will, of course, be issues on which individual Democratic members need to break ranks in order to keep constituents back home happy. This is as it ever was. Thus, especially on environmental
and energy issues, look for Senate Democratic chief Chuck Schumer to allow his troops (especially those up for reelection in 2018 in states won by Trump) occasional voting flexibility--so long
as the overall count denies Republicans a filibuster-proof supermajority. (At some point, look for restive House Republicans, and perhaps even Trump, to pressure McConnell to go nuclear and
do away with the filibuster. But McConnell is an institutionalist, and Senators on both sides of the aisle tend to be wary of tinkering with the chambers prerogatives. Certainly, many Democrats
now regret the 2013 move by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid to end the filibustering of presidential appointees below the Supreme Court level.) Then there is the oh-so-delicate crusade upon
which both parties will be embarking: wooing--or at least not alienating--the white working-class voters who put Trump in office. This demographic has issues with both congressional teams,
and both acknowledge that the cohort must be handled with care.

Gridlock causes better policy formation

Smith 16 (8-15-16 John R. Smith is chairman of BIZPAC, the Business Political Action Committee of Palm Beach
County, and owner of a financial services company. Pray for gridlock
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/08/15/pray-for-gridlock-379515 //LLP)
Its amusing when people get their shorts in a tangle over gridlock. Some people think that government gridlock is an aint it awful thing, a sign
of failure, a lack of progress. Thats all wrong and backwards. We should pray for gridlock sometimes, because its the telltale
sign that our system is working and that government is not the all-powerful lord over our lives. In our history a divided
government and slow change has produced better long-term results. Some so-called political experts make a great mistake to
believe that progress the clarion call of the political progressives comes from legislation, and an even worse mistake that additional
legislation means more progress. When politicians work to pass insane laws, gridlock is good, because harm gets stymied when
wrong-headed adversaries are bottled up and checkmated. Gridlock often allows time for anger and ill-will to
simmer down, and for reasonable compromise to raise its head. Gridlock is the absence of legislative and executive
action, providing relief from would-be poisonous activities. And, gridlock helps give minorities and the minority
viewpoint a bigger voice. For the business community, when government is not doing us any favors, gridlock is good. When government is
actually hurting us, gridlock is great. When government is causing businesses to fail or stop creating jobs, gridlock becomes essential. But the
progressives complain when Congress doesnt get much done: Congress hasnt been productive, Congressional inaction is a problem, they
lament. This liberal approach to government is that more legislation and more laws is good, and the failure to add laws to the books is something
requiring explanation. The truth is that we need fewer laws. Why the griping over gridlock? It is part of the Constitutional framers
design. The founding fathers, having fought through a revolutionary war, wanted a system cautiously formed and
steadily pursued, as founder John Jay wrote. This meant imposing restraint on the governmental process by
requiring high levels of consensus before government could act. The Constitution was written to make new legislation difficult to
attain and impose. The founders designed a system to assure that most legislative proposals would never become law, and they did it by requiring
two houses of Congress and the president to agree. They made it even tougher to amend the Constitution itself, and a temperate Senate was
designed to decelerate proposed changes. Recently, a leftist journalist said that a Trump presidency would be an awful thing because no
governmental agency will get along with him, Trump will have both houses of Congress in an uproar, and all of Washington trying to thwart his
every move so he wont get anything done. In truth, that is what I hope will happen. The one thing that the business community loves across the
nation, most of the time, is a stymied government. When that happens, it usually means no new regulations and onerous laws are being passed, no
new programs are being created along with their new taxes. We are wallowing in laws in this country already. Gridlock means risks to businesses
are reduced and, often, restraints to our freedom may never come to pass. Gridlock is better than malfunction or oppression. By design, our
system of government should demand broad, durable majorities before it will permit major change. Since
government competence is usually unattainable, gridlock and bickering may well be a good price to pay for opposing
the transformers by tying their hands and stopping them from imposing more laws. Handcuffing Washington is usually a good thing, a big win.
Valuable things are not so easily created but they are easily destroyed.
 2nc xt: gridlock inev
Partisanship
Hale 10-20 Matthew Hale, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Affairs at Seton Hall University,
Gerald Pomper, Board of Governors Professor of Political Science at the Eagleton Institute of Politics of Rutgers
University and Ben Dworkin, Director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, Can
Election End Deadlock in D.C.?, App, http://www.app.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/10/20/congress-
deadlock-election-control/92453138/
Congressional gridlock has plagued Washington in recent years, fueled in large part by Republican desires to resist
President Obamas initiatives at nearly any cost. The inaction carries a heavy burden thats only growing worse, leaving important
measures undone and further damaging public trust in government. We asked several of New Jerseys leading political experts about the overall
impact of a such a dysfunctional Congress and the prospects for a more cooperative future.
Responding were Matthew Hale, an associate professor of political science and public affairs at Seton Hall University; Gerald Pomper, Board of
Governors Professor of Political Science at the Eagleton Institute of Politics of Rutgers University (emeritus); Ben Dworkin, director of the
Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University; and Anne C. Pluta, assistant professor of political science and economics at
Rowan University.
We hear a lot about congressional gridlock these days in part because Republicans have been so openly resistant to cooperating with President
Obama. But has Congress really been as inactive as we think?
Hale: The reason why this Congress seems so dysfunctional is that it cant even agree on things both sides like. Federal aid for
disasters was once a given because disasters dont care about congressional lines. But as we will remember, getting federal aid for
superstorm Sandy took some serious arm-twisting. It eventually happened but it is an example of how difficult it is for this
Congress to agree on things that should be easy .
Pomper: Congress has been active, but not productive. Its hard to even pass appropriations bills, the rock-bottom necessity to
keep the country in operation. It has taken months to deal even with the Zika virus, a clear danger to American health.
Critical legislation recognized by both parties to repair Obamacare, build infrastructure or fill the Supreme Court vacancy
never gets through Congress. Instead Republicans engage, actively to be sure, in fruitless measures to repeal Obamacare or repetitive
committee hearings to combat Hillary Clintons candidacy.
issues, todays Congress has been unable to act . Passing the federal budget once seen by many as a
Dworkin: On several major
critical responsibility of Congress still hasnt been accomplished, even under one-party control. Bills
that have broad, bipartisan
support, such as appropriations for energy and water, are delayed repeatedly because of non-germane amendments
involving foreign policy.

Trump
Hulse 1-31 (Carl Hulse is a congressional correspondent for the New York Times, a position he has held since May
2002. In that role, he provides regular coverage on the legislative and political activities of both the House and
Senate. Previously, he was an editor in the Washington Bureau beginning in February 2001. A Jarring New Level
of Confrontation and Conflict Hits Washington https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/a-jarring-new-
level-of-confrontation-and-conflict-hits-washington.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-
heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news //LLP)
President Trump made clear in his fiery inaugural speech that he was going to challenge the Washington establishment. Now
the establishment is quickly pushing back, creating a palpable air of uncertainty and chaos in the opening days of his
administration. The new president fired an acting attorney general who refused to defend the administrations executive order on immigration.
Democrats on Tuesday boycotted Senate confirmation hearings to prevent votes on cabinet nominees. State Department employees opposed to
the administration were urged to quit if they didnt like Mr. Trumps direction. Even after years of unbreakable gridlock and
unyielding partisanship, it was a jarring new level of confrontation and conflict, and it was contributing to a building
sense of crisis just as the new president was to disclose the identity of a new Supreme Court nominee a selection
certain to further inflame tensions. Republicans, adjusting to the new era, seemed blindsided by the rapid pace of
events and the worrying failure of the new administration to engage in the information-sharing and consultation that
would typically accompany the issuance of a potentially explosive proposal like the freeze on visas for refugees and
immigrants from select countries. Its regrettable that there was some confusion with the rollout, Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters
Tuesday, noting that top Republicans learned of the contents of the order only as it was being issued. That secretive, closely held
approach may be the preferred choice of the president and self-proclaimed disrupters like his senior adviser, Stephen
K. Bannon, who is quickly emerging as the power in the West Wing, but not by more conventional politicians who
definitely dont like to be caught off guard. Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, said similar failings had emerged
in the early days of previous administrations but would not be tolerated for long. You get a brief period youre allowed for a learning curve, but
after that, you have to get your act together, Mr. King said. One veteran of past Republican administrations, acknowledging the Trump White
House was still in its shakedown phase, encouraged the presidents staff to focus more on consultation to avert confusion. Process matters,
said Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. You are dealing with not just senior management, but with a variety
of constituencies and a board of directors of 535 people.
 2nc impact inevitable
China, Iran, North Korea failures
Dorell 17 Oren, USA Today, Tillerson's diplomatic skills confront a world in chaos, 2/1/17,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/02/01/rex-tillerson-state-department-donald-trump/97291434/
Iran Trump has called the Iran nuclear containment deal with the United States and five other world powers horrible , and Vice President

Pence said it should be shredded. But Trumps ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said the deal should
be kept in place. More beneficial at this point is to look at all the aspects of the Iran deal, are they in compliance? Haley said during her confirmation hearing. We need to hold
them accountable. Even if Iran fully complies with the deal, which limits its nuclear capabilities to peaceful purposes, Tehran will likely challenge Trump in other
ways. On Wednesday, national security adviser Michael Flynn said "we are officially putting Iran on notice" for a ballistic missile test Sunday and a separate attack by Iranian-backed Houthi
militants against a Saudi naval vessel. If Trump decides to renegotiate the Iran deal, he'll face certain opposition not only from Iran

but also from the U.N. and other Security Council members who signed the accord. Finding a compromise could be
one of Tillerson's biggest headaches. China Trump has repeatedly antagonized China. He broke U.S. protocol by
taking a congratulatory call from the president of Taiwan , which the Communist government in Beijing considers a renegade province. Trump
announced on Twitter the U.S. would not be bound by the 1979 one China policy, under which the U.S. government has recognized
Beijing as the only legitimate government of China. Trump has criticized China for its military expansion on disputed territory in the
South China Sea. He has threatened to counter Chinas protectionist trade policy with tariffs on Chinese import s,
accused it of undervaluing its currency to boost its exports to the U.S. and faulted China for not doing enough to stop North Koreas nuclear program. All that has prompted
China's military to declare war with the U.S. more likely during a Trump presidency. If Tillerson can't keep the peace,
he'll have to turn the problem over to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. North Korea The only world leader who may be more unpredictable than Trump is North Korean dictator Kim Jong
Un, who has repeatedly threatened the incinerate parts of the U.S. with nuclear weapons if provoked. To back up that
threat, North Korea has conducted a number of tests of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in violation of
international law. Trump has vowed that he won't let North Korea develop a nuclear missile capable of reaching the
U.S. mainland. But he has not said how. He also has raised the possibility of negotiating a deal with North Korea,
which has violated two prior agreements with U.S. presidents. Tillerson may find negotiations with any other world
leader easier than dealing with the mercurial Kim

Taiwan and Mexico

Blake 16 (12-3-16 Aaron Blake is senior political reporter for The Fix. A Minnesota native, he has also written
about politics for the Minneapolis Star Tribune and The Hill newspaper. Donald Trump keeps confirming fears
about his diplomatic skills https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/03/donald-trump-keeps-
confirming-fears-about-his-diplomatic-skills/?utm_term=.d99a718a0bde //LLP)
One of the chief concerns of President-elect Donald Trump's detractors during the presidential campaign was that the brash and notoriously
loose-lipped real estate executive wouldn't be able to handle the delicate balancing act that is diplomacy. It's one
thing to make wild claims domestically; it's another to inflame a fellow world power with a careless word or two.
Today, a fellow world power China is inflamed. And Trump's controversial conversation with Taiwan's leader,
which broke nearly four decades of protocol when it comes to U.S.-China relations, harks back to another
controversial bit of diplomacy: Trump's first big foreign visit as the Republican nominee to Mexico . That visit
erupted into a major political problem for Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto, and by the end of it, the two sides were
offering different versions of what had happened. Similarly, Trump and Taiwan seem to be at-odds about precisely
what just occurred. Back in August, Trump claimed after a meeting with Pea Nieto that the they hadn't discussed Trump's plan to somehow
force Mexico to pay for his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Pea Nieto and his staff quickly differed with that account, saying he
had told Trump that Mexico wouldn't pay for the wall. A week later, Trump doubled down on his version of events and seemed to suggest Pea
Nieto wasn't being truthful, telling ABC News: He didnt say that. He tweeted that long after the meeting was over. He didn't say that. Much as
with Mexico, Trump and Taiwan are now apparently differing about precisely what their call entailed. China considers Taiwan a province, and
the United States has pursued a One China policy since the 1970s. To that end, the leaders of the United States and Taiwan haven't spoken, that
we know of, in decades, given such a dialogue generally symbolizes government recognition. After news broke of the call with Taiwanese
President Tsai Ing-wen and the backlash began, Trump explained that it was Taiwan who initiated the conversation, and he downplayed it as a
congratulatory call. But a spokesman in the Taiwanese president's office clarified to Reuters that the call was agreed to beforehand. Of course
both sides agreed ahead of time before making contact, spokesman Alex Huang said in response to Trump's tweet. Taiwan's government also
said the two sides discussed strengthening bilateral relations and talked about their close economic, political and security ties" -- all words
likely to make China cringe and suggestive of a more in-depth conversation than just a congratulatory call. As with Mexico, we can quibble about
just how at odds the two versions of events are. Perhaps Taiwan did reach out first but there was some coordination before Trump picked up the
phone. And Taiwan certainly has an interest in making the call out to be a big deal. Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and potential Trump
foreign policy adviser Ric Grenell said Friday night that the flap was overblown. It was totally planned, Grenell said. It was a simple courtesy
call. People need to calm down. The One China policy wasnt changed. Washington, D.C.-types need to lighten up. But the situation raises real
questions about who is advising Trump when it comes to diplomacy with Asia, as The Washington Post's Emily Rauhala wrote. It also came just
a day after the New York Times reported on building concerns about Trump's handling of other calls with world leaders and
his preparation level. And the stakes are considerably higher with China than with Mexico and many other
countries. Even if it wasn't meant to be a big deal, it's clearly become a big deal to China. China has now lodged an official
complaint with the United States over the matter, though it appears to be giving Trump the benefit of the doubt and blaming Taiwan.
China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, called it a petty move by Tsai. The One China principle is the foundation for healthy development of Sino-
U. S. relations, Wang said. We dont wish for anything to obstruct or ruin this foundation. So the flap could just as soon blow over. But it's
notable that yet another Trump diplomatic call has turned into a sort of he-said-they-said. And for those concerned that Trump doesn't
have the discipline and knowledge to deal with the intricacies and very sensitive feelings involved in foreign policy
and diplomacy, Trump is yet again proving their point by creating a needless headache over a congratulatory call.
 u.s. standing defense
No runaway Executive authority---abandoning deference is worse
McTiernan 17 Edward F. McTiernan, JD, Environmental Team Leader at Arnold & Porter LLP, Why Reject
Chevron?, American College of Environmental Lawyers, 1-18, http://www.acoel.org/post/2017/01/18/Why-Reject-
Chevron.aspx [abbreviations in brackets]
Although the logic behind Chevron has been questioned by many, including Justice Scalia, overturning Chevron as a
means of restoring the [SOP] separation of powers seems like an odd way of attempting to increase the power of the
peoples elected representatives and restoring accountability. After all, deference favors stakeholders who support
an administrative determination (including decisions to issue a permit or adopt a less stringent emission standard).
In the environmental area, where well-funded non-governmental membership organizations routinely challenge
rules and permits, the benefits of Chevron to the regulated community are easy to overlook.
In any event, one of the key arguments in favor of Chevron deference is that when Congress decides to leave
implementation of legislation to an executive agency, and Congress also leaves gaps or ambiguity in a statute, filling
the gap or resolving the ambiguity necessarily involves policy judgments. Putting aside questions of whether
Congress can ever avoid the problem by eliminating legislative gaps or ambiguity; as a general matter Chevron
deference reflects a decision that such judgments are best left to the executive agency that is most steeped in the
subject matter at issue. There are at least two primary reasons that courts use to explain why Chevron and its
progeny leave these judgments to executive agencies - presumed expertise and greater accountability. Indeed, even
taking into account the newly popular idea that the presumed expertise of experts to solve real-world problems
should be continuously challenged (or at least deeply discounted), many judges may still favor deference on the
theory that policy judgments are generally not for the courts precisely because they are better left to the executive
branch which (unlike our independent judiciary) is, to a degree, answerable to the popular will at election time.
Replacing Chevron with de novo judicial review would very likely result in greater uncertainty as generalist judges
with life-time tenure are called upon to exercise their judgments concerning policy decisions made by specialized
executive agencies directed by an elected representative of the people. Moreover, environmental cases typically
present mixed questions of fact and law. Courts would need time to sort out when and how to integrate de novo
review of legal determinations with the substantial evidence test for formal rules and adjudications and the arbitrary
and capricious standard as applied to agency guidance and informal rules. Replacing Chevron will also probably
lead to more litigation (and forum shopping) as stakeholders perceive greater prospects for success.
Of course, uncertainty and litigation are not necessarily bad - if they result in improved decision-making and they
help restore common-sense outcomes. However, given the inevitability that the Environmental Protection Agency
will be called upon to make policy judgments when Congress intentionally leaves gaps or unintentionally creates
ambiguity, predictability has benefits . This is where the new accountability at the core of Title II of the
Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017 seems to fall short. It is not clear how shifting the review of administrative
actions from the elected executive branch to the insulated judiciary will increase predictability or accountability.
Even taking into account the other parts of this legislative package (including the direction that agencies must select
the lowest cost alternative and increased reliance of the administrative record), it is far from certain that this
proposed legislative fix will increase the power of the peoples elected representatives or provide a net benefit to the
regulated community on environmental issues.

US diplomacy doesnt solve war

Fettweis, 11 (Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or
Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316332, EBSCO)
It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism
and international stability. In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the
United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on
defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible
peace dividend endangered both national and global security. No serious analyst of American military capabilities, argued Kristol and Kagan,
doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet Americas responsibilities to itself and to world peace.52 On the other hand,
if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would
not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The
world grew more peaceful while the U nited S tates cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was
endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No
militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no
regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished . The rest of the world acted as if the
threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of
global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex
statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S.
actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and
security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability
could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relat ive advantage never wavered.
However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very
least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative
for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without
increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and
spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be
made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking
the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever
occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that
if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior,
then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled . If increases in conflict would have been
interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack
thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a
more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending.
Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who
think otherwise base their view on faith alone.
Impact Turns vs. Agency Deference
 Patents Turn -1NC
Narrowing deference collapses the patent system
Wasserman 13 [Melissa F. Wasserman, B.S. in chemical engineering, Ph.D. in chemical engineering from
Princeton. She received her J.D. magna cum laude from New York University School of Law. The Changing Guard
of Patent Law: Chevron Deference for the PTO, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1959 (2013),
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol54/iss6/5
III. NORMATIVE CASE FOR DEFERENCE: COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS
This Article has thus far predominantly focused on the analytical question of how existing administrative law principles should apply to the
judicial review of the PTOs legal interpretations. The previous Part showed first that Congress intended the PTOs postgrant review proceedings
to be effectuated through formal adjudication, and second, that this grant of formal adjudicatory power was accompanied by the ability to speak
with the force of law. Although this descriptive and analytical account is sufficient to guide courts, it does not address the normative question of
how the institutional relationship between the PTO and the Federal Circuit should be structured. This Part begins this normative inquiry, taking as
its baseline the principal goal of the patent systemthe promotion of innovation.203 To guide this analysis, I draw on the large and growing
body of literature on the topic of comparative institutional analysis.204 This Part does not purport to elucidate the ideal institutional arrangement
between courts and agencies. Instead, the following discussion compares the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Federal Circuit and the PTO
with respect to the two canonical institutional design considerations: expertise and avoidance of capture or bias.
A. Expertise
Scholars generally accept that the standards of patentability are fundamentally policy questions that need to be decided
on the basis of sound economic and technological insight .205 For example, consider patentable subject matter, which delineates
the types of inventions that may be subject to patent protection. Section 101 of the Patent Act is quite broad, setting forth the subject matter that
can be patented as process[es], machine[s], manufacture[s], or composition[s] of matter.206 Early on, the Supreme Court carved out abstract
ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature from patent eligible subject matter. As the Supreme Court explained, these principles represent the
basic tools of scientific and technological work,207 and they are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men[,] ... free to all men and
reserved exclusively to none.208 Thus, decisions on whether new inventions, such as genes, which may or may not fall within an exception,
should be patent eligible are largely being driven by policy concerns of whether social welfare is enhanced or decreased by extending patents to
these inventions.
As a result, there
is near-universal agreement that the institution charged with creating sound patent policy needs access
both to economic and to technological data , as well as sufficient expertise to analyze and interpret this
information.209 Although one of the hallmarks of the comparative institutional literature is that agencies possess superior information-
gathering procedures and technical expertise than courts,210 the specialization of the Federal Circuit casts doubt on whether this norm should
extend to the patent system. In fact, a number of scholars have argued that the Federal Circuit is the best institution to develop
patent policy, in part because of the courts expertise.211 Even taking into consideration the Federal Circuits specialization, this
Section concludes thatthe PTO is more likely than the appellate court to possess the prerequisite characteristics necessary to
adjust the patentability standards towards an optimal innovation level.
To begin, the PTO, in general, enjoys superior mechanisms of gathering information necessary to make informed patent
policy decisions. The agency conducts hearings,212 partakes in research studies,213 and works closely with other
expert federal agencies.214 The PTO also engages in rule-making procedures, even when it is not legally obligated to do so, that
are specifically designed to encourage interested parties to communicate relevant viewpoints and information to the
Agency.215 The PTO could expand this host of information-gathering techniques and rely upon them more heavily to collect the technological
and economic data necessary to craft substantive patent law standards that promote innovation.
By contrast, like all appellate courts, the Federal Circuit is largely confined to the record developed by interested
parties.216 While it is true that litigants present expert witnesses that provide courts with scientific and technical
information that may be critical to their decisional process, it is generally thought that these witnesses are biased towards their
retaining party. The result is that in almost every case, the decision maker sees a battle of the experts, which likely
diminishes the value of information garnered from such witnesses.217 Moreover, it seems unlikely that individual
parties, with arguably narrow interests in upholding or invalidating a patent, will even provide the court with the type
of information necessary to make informed policy decisions, such as data on how broader or narrower patentability
standards affect social welfare.218 Although courts have some ad hoc mechanisms to increase their access to information, these
approaches are poor substitutes for the information-gathering powers of agencies.219 For example, while the Federal Circuit routinely
considers amicus curiae briefs, the appellate court is still dependent on the amici submitting the right information necessary to adjust
the standards of patentability to promote innovation. If such information is not submitted, the Federal Circuit cannot, unlike the PTO,
order its own fact findings to make up for the deficiency.220
However, even assuming that the Federal Circuit had the same access to technological and economic data as the PTO, little reason exists to
believe its ability to analyze and understand this information is superior to that of the PTO. Only a handful of the Federal
Circuit judges hold scientific degrees.221 Even considering that the majority of law clerks have a scientific background, the courts
technical expertise is still quite limited. By contrast, the PTO employs close to 7000 patent examiners, all of whom have
been scientifically trained.222 In fact, many of the patent examiners hold advanced scientific degrees in the precise areas in
which they work.223 Although patent examiners may not on a day-to-day basis partici- pate in the development of guidelines or other
documents that represent the PTOs viewpoint on patent policy, they are at the disposal of the Agency when needed.224
The Federal Circuit fares even worse when its economic proficiency is considered. None of the Federal Circuit
judges or their technical personnel are trained in economics.225 Thus, even if economic data was provided to the court through
some means, the judges are highly unlikely to be able to evaluate the merits of such studies. They will not, for example, be able to determine
methodological shortcomings of the empirical investigations, such as selection effects or data-gathering bias. Nor are they likely to be able to
fully appreciate the limitations on the conclusions that can be made from these studiesthat is, whether the study demonstrates only a correlation
or whether casual inferences may be drawn. Further, even though the courts jurisprudence has been routinely criticized for being formalistic and
failing to consider policy,226 the court has shown little interest in developing an innovation policy expertise.227 The appellate
courts hesitancy to embrace an explicit policy-making function is, in some ways, understandable. Unequivocal policy pronouncements are
somewhat antithetical to judicial decision-making norms. Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to understand the courts role, especially when
deciding the meaning of an ambiguous term of the Patent Act, as not involving a policy determination. As noted earlier, the heart of the gene-
patent debate is whether society would be better off with or without patents on genes.
Notably, in contrast to courts, agencies
are expressly charged with making policy and weighing the costs and benefits of competing
outcomes. Such explicit authority enables agencies to more fully embrace a policy-making role of making discretionary
judgments based on a range of competing options. Even with such intellectual freedom, the PTO has historically lacked robust economic expertise that is needed to
make informed policy decisions.228 Unlike other agencies that specialize in technological innovation, the PTO has never employed a large number of policy-oriented
thinkers or economists. Importantly, the Agency has recently made strides to rectify this shortcoming. In 2010 the PTO created an Office of the Chief Economist.229
This Office had an immediate impact on the Agencys decision making.230 Although ample room still exists to improve the PTOs personnel and infrastructure so
that the Agency can make sound economic judgments, the creation of the Office of the Chief Economist represents an important victorya recognition by the PTO
and the executive branch of the import of expertise in innovation policy in patent law decision making.
Moreover, the enactment of the AIA makes future reforms to the PTO considerably more likely.231 Perhaps most significantly, the AIA granted the PTO fee-setting authority, which enables the chronically underfunded Agency to
raise revenue to support a robust innovation policy group.232 Thus, although the PTOs current structure is not optimal for promoting innovation policy by tailoring patentability standards, the Agency has the potential to change into
one that does. In contrast, little hope exists that the Federal Circuit will ever possess the requisite expertise or institutional design needed to achieve the underlying goals of the patent system.
B. Capture and Institutional Bias
Even though expertise may give rise to distinctive advantages with respect to institutional competence, specialization has an associated drawbackthe potential of capture. An institutions repeated interaction with particular groups
holding narrow interests may result in at least two pathologies. First, an institution may develop tunnel vision, pursuing its own technocratic worldview without sufficient regard for larger normative concerns.233 Second, a narrow
set of rights holders may directly capture an institutions viewpoints. The latter concern stems from the logic that concentrated, well-financed groups are more likely than diffuse, less organized entities to influence decision
makers.234 The result in either situation is that the institution will systematically make decisions that favor the interest of a narrow set of constituencies over those of the general public.
The concerns associated with capture theory are most frequently attributed to agencies that have repeated interactions with their regulatory constituents that could lead to distortions in agency decision making. More recently, scholars
astutely observed that the adjudicative process is also susceptible to the influence of interest groups and expanded the applications of the theory to the judiciary as well.235 Of course, beyond capture concerns, other institutional
structures may exist that also systematically bias the organizations decision making. Although these influences may not be directly related to expertise, any bias in an institutions decisional process is concerningwhether the
institution is a court or an agency. Like many agencies, the PTO is not immune from charges of capture or institutional bias. The Agency has traditionally been structured to favor patent grants. My previous work has shown that the
PTOs historical fee structure likely biased the PTO towards issuing patents because the Agency garnered over half of its patent operating budget through fees it could collect only if it granted patents.236
Moreover, widespread agreement among scholars exists that the historical examiner compensation system favored allowance.237 Notably, all that is being asked of the PTO is to grant patents. The patent prosecution process occurs ex
parte; no third party is present to argue that a patent should not be issued. These constant one-way demands to issue patents raise concerns that the Agency may develop tunnel vision. In fact, the Agencys past rhetoric that its mission
includes help[ing] customers get patents reveals a culture that appears to be unduly influenced by the interests of patentees.238 However, the PTO has made strides to overcome this pathology. The Agency recently revamped its
examiner compensation system, among other things, to diminish incentives to grant patents.239 Recent empirical work by Mark Lemley and Bhaven Sampat finds a correlation between the length of patent examiner experience and an
examiners propensity to grant a patent, and suggests that the incentives facing examiners are much more complicated than they were typically perceived.240
The passage of the AIA should further help alleviate some concerns of capture or bias. Because Congress granted the PTO feesetting authority, the Agency has taken steps, at least to some extent, to decrease its reliance on patent
issuance fees.241 The enactment of robust postgrant review proceedings should broaden the Agencys perspective, as the PTO will now routinely interact with constituents that are arguing to narrow the scope of patent law.
Additionally, the low-cost design of the postgrant review proceedings will hopefully enable substantial participation from public interest groups, whose primary focus is the protection of the public domain.242 The result should be
increased awareness, promoting innovation not only by granting patent but also by protecting the public domain. Nevertheless, like all agencies, capture remains a point of concern with the PTO.
Agency capture, however, represents a substantial objection to extending Chevron deference to the PTO only to the extent that the judicial alternative is superior. The specialization of the Federal Circuit has led some commentators to
suggest that the appellate court is prone to the same institutional pathologies of tunnel vision and bias of which they have accused the PTO.243 The Federal Circuit hears disproportionately from the patent bar and has increasingly
begun to draw its technical staffmost notably its clerksfrom patent law firms.244 Although intellectual property law firms represent both plaintiffs and defendants in patent litigation, they are generally likely to benefit from broad
patent rights, especially with respect to patentable subject matter.245 As Arti Rai recently noted, empirical data on amicus briefs supports this contention: patent bar associations file amicus briefs in favor of patentees at a significantly
higher rate than the government or high-tech companies.246 More directly, the courts patent law jurisprudence has exhibited some symptoms that are consistent with bias. Several commentators have noted that Federal Circuit
precedent has trended towards strengthening patent rights.247 Empirical evidence also suggests that the Federal Circuit has propatentee tendencies.248 The Supreme Courts renewed interest in the development of substantive patent
law and its repeated reversal of Federal Circuit jurisprudence is also suggestive of tunnel vision.249 Definitively proving capture of an agency or a court is difficult, if not impossible. Some scholars have certainly taken issue with the
notion that the patent bar has captured the Federal Circuit.250 Nevertheless, the possibility that the Federal Circuits decision-making process is unduly influenced by factions, at the very least, gives pause to dismissing the concept of
the PTO playing a larger role in patent policy based on agency capture alone.251
Beyond concerns of capture or of an institutional bias to allow patents, granting the PTO primary interpretive authority over the core patentability standards may give rise to a fear that the Agencys policy decisions will be overly
influenced by its production functionthat is, its growing backlog of unreviewed patent applications.252 Michael Abramowicz and John Duffy have noted that PTO officials might become too focused on the agencys own workload
problems to fully account for the nuances of the policy issues at stake.253 As a result, Abramowicz and Duffy conclude that the Agency may favor bright line rules that can be quickly applied in an effort to speed up the processing of
patent applications but may also prevent the fine tuning needed to optimize innovation policy.254 Again, however, a concern that the PTO may be overly concerned with the administration of substantive patent law represents a
significant opposition to extending Chevron deference to the Agency only to the extent this pathology is absent in Federal Circuit decision making. The appellate court, however, has also been charged with favoring bright line,
formulistic rules that may be oversimplifying the policy interests at stake in the development of substantive patent law. Numerous scholars have noted the Federal Circuits penchant for easy-to-apply rules.255 Moreover, the Supreme
Courts pattern of repeatedly overturning the Federal Circuits bright line rules, while concurrently emphasizing the need for more flexible standards, provides further evidence that the appellate court may be giving too much weight to
the administration of its pronouncements.256 Thus, concerns that the Agencys substantive law determi nations may be influenced by its production function alone do not appear to represent a significant obstacle to granting the PTO
Chevron deference.

In sum, the PTO possesses superior pathways to acquire technological and economic data , as well as the expertise to
evaluate and analyze this information to craft substantive patent law standards to promote innovation . Even though neither
the Federal Circuit nor the PTO has historically shown strength in policy making, the PTO has recently made significant strides to
correct this deficiency. Moreover, although agencies in general are more likely to be captured by organized interests, the fact that the Federal
Circuit has exhibited symptoms consistent with tunnel vision at times suggests that this concern is not significant
enough to outweigh the PTOs associated benefits of expertise . Thus, this Section ultimately concludes that both expertise and
the avoidance of capture support the Federal Circuit granting Chevron deference to the PTO.
CONCLUSION
This Article has argued that the AIA rejects over two hundred years of court dominance in patent policy by granting the PTO, for the first time,
the power to interpret the core patentability standards with the force of law. While an application of administrative law principles to the AIA has
substantial implications for the roles of patent institutions, it also, as the Article argues, produces a normatively desirable result. Making the
PTO the primary interpreter of the core patentability standards ushers the patent system into the modern administrative
era , which has long recognized the deficiencies associated with judge-driven policy . This Article, however, leaves for future
research whether enabling the PTO to speak with the force of law only through case-by-case adjudication, rather than by robust substantive rule-
making authority, is ideal.
Effective patents stops antibiotic resistance
Laxminarayan 1 [Ramanan Laxminarayan directs the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. He is
also a Senior Research Scholar and Lecturer at Princeton University. - See more at:
http://www.cddep.org/profile/ramanan_laxminarayan#sthash.YqaghohJ.dpuf Spring 2001
http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-Resources-143-antibiotic.pdf]
The Role of Patents
Firms that manufacture antibiotics face conflicting incentives with respect to resistance. On the one hand, bacterial
resistance to a product can reduce the demand for that product. On the other hand, the resistance makes old drugs obsolete
and can therefore encourage investment in new antibiotics. Pharmaceutical firms are driven to maximize profits during the course of
the drugs effective patent lifethe period of time between obtaining regulatory approval for the antibiotic and the expiration of product and
process patents to manufacture the drug. Given the paucity of tools at the policymakers disposal, the
use of patents to influence
antibiotic use may be worth considering. A longer effective patent life could increase incentives for a company to minimize
resistance , since the company would enjoy a longer period of monopoly benefits from its antibiotics effectiveness.
Patent breadth is another critical consideration. When resistance is significant, other things being equal, it may be prudent
to assign broad patents that cover an entire class of antibiotics rather than a single antibiotic. In such a situation, the
benefits of preserving effectiveness could outweigh the cost to society of greater monopoly power associated with broader
patents. Broad patents may prevent many firms from competing inefficiently for the same pool of effectiveness embodied in
a class of antibiotics, while providing an incentive to develop new antibiotics.

Extinction
Plotkin 00 (Mark J., Ph.D., President Amazon Conservation Team and Research Associate Smithsonian
Institutions Museum of Natural History, Trained Ethnobotanist, and Tropical Researcher, Searching for Natures
Medicines, Action Bioscience, October, http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/plotkin.html)
Rain forests and coral reefs have incredible potential for natural medicines.
Plotkin: The hottest regions, in terms of immediate potential, would be rain forests and coral reefs. As I pointed out in my first book
[Tales of a Shamans Apprentice: An Ethnobotanist Searches for New Medicines in the Amazon Rain Forest], the rainforest is one for obvious
reasons. My new book shows that coral reefs are drawing even more attention than the rainforest. Now its interesting that you mention the desert
because the organization that I run is the Amazon Conservation Team but one of our major programs is in the Sonoran desert. It is headed by my
good friend and colleague Gary Nabham. Although this is one of the most difficult and challenging environments on the planet, local and
indigenous people have figured out how to ecolive from it. One of the ways theyve been able to do that is by understanding the resources and
managing them wisely. Now if you were a plant and want to survive in the desert, you have to be tough and be able to protect yourself. These
peoples lives depend on knowing this ecosystem. Why not look to them to not only understand it but also to protect and maybe even use it?
Is it possible to find an organism in nature that will alleviate the threat of antibiotic resistance?
We desperately need to solve the antibiotic resistance crisis and nature may hold the key.
Plotkin: I really do believe were at a crisis point. There is a bug called Staph aureus that you may have heard of and there is a bug that
you may or may not have heard of called Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE). If VRE transfers its Vancomycin resistance to
Staph aureus, we are toast. It is going to melt the human species like a wax museum on fire. Doctors have gone from
concerned to worried to verging on frightened in some cases. These are quotes now; Im not making this up . We
desperately need new drugs for drug-resistant Staph, drug resistant enterococcus, and all these other drug-resistant bacteria that
are out there, gram negative and gram positive.
Its interesting that you mention the word organism to treat this. We tend to think of antibiotics as things that come from microbes. There is an
even more exciting, or at least as exciting, development and that is the use of tiny tiny tiny viruses called bacteriophages. Bacteriophages eat
bacteria. They were developed in France and in Soviet Georgia in the 30s and, guess what, the Russians and Georgians have never stopped using
this stuff. There is, in fact, evidence that Russian troops in Chechnya are still using bacteriophages. Certainly the Soviet soldiers carried them into
World War II so it is clear that these things can be effective. There are several startup companies now in the U.S. and in parts of Europe
investigating bacteriophages as a source of new treatments for drug-resistant bacteria. They are claiming phenomenal rates of success. So its
that mixture of nature and science, which promises so much for the future .
 2nc abr impact
Its likely only new drugs solve
Sample 14 [Ian Sample, science correspondent 1-23-2014
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/23/antibiotic-resistant-diseases-apocalyptic-threat]
HEALTH - Britains most senior medical adviser has warned MPs that the rise in drug-resistant diseases could trigger a national emergency comparable to

a catastrophic terrorist attack, pandemic flu or major coastal flooding. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, said the threat from infections that are resistant

to frontline antibiotics was so serious that the issue should be added to the governments national risk register of civil emergencies.
She described what she called an apocalyptic scenario where people going for simple operations in 20 years time die of routine infections
because we have run out of antibiotics. The register was established in 2008 to advise the public and businesses on national emergencies that Britain could face in the
next five years. The highest priority risks on the latest register include a deadly flu outbreak, catastrophic terrorist attacks, and major flooding on the scale of 1953, the last occasion on which a
national emergency was declared in the UK. Speaking to MPs on the Commons science and technology committee, Davies said she would ask the Cabinet Office to add antibiotic resistance to
the national risk register in the light of an annual report on infectious disease she will publish in March. Davies declined to elaborate on the report, but said its publication would coincide with a
government strategy to promote more responsible use of antibiotics among doctors and the clinical professions. We need to get our act together in this country, she told the committee. She told
the Guardian: There are few public health issues of potentially greater importance
for society . It means we are at than antibiotic resistance
increasing risk of developing infections that cannot be treated but resistance can be managed. That is why we will be publishing a new cross-government strategy and action plan to tackle this
issue in early spring. The issue of drug resistance is as old as antibiotics themselves, and arises when drugs knock out susceptible infections, leaving hardier, resilient strains behind. The
survivors then multiply, and over time can become unstoppable with frontline medicines. Some of the best known are so-called hospital superbugs such as MRSA that are at the root of outbreaks
among patients. In the past, most people havent worried because weve always had new antibiotics to turn to, said Alan Johnson, consultant clinical scientist at the Health Protection Agency.
What has changed is that the development pipeline is running dry. We dont have new antibiotics that we can rely on in the immediate future or in the longer term. Changes in modern medicine
have exacerbated the problem by making patients more susceptible to infections. For example, cancer treatments weaken the immune system, and the use of catheters increases the chances of
We are becoming increasingly reliant on antibiotics in a whole range of areas of medicine. If we dont have new
bugs entering the bloodstream.

antibiotics to deal with the problems of resistance we see, we are going to be in serious trouble , Johnson added. The supply of new antibiotics has
dried up for several reasons, but a major one is that drugs companies see greater profits in medicines that treat chronic conditions, such as heart disease, which patients must take for years or even
decades. There is a broken market model for making new antibiotics, Davies told the MPs. Davies has met senior officials at the World Health Organisation and her counterparts in other
countries to develop a strategy to tackle antibiotic resistance globally. Drug resistance is emerging in diseases across the board. Davies said 80% of gonorrhea was now resistant to the frontline
antibiotic tetracycline, and infections were rising in young and middle-aged people. Multi-drug resistant TB was also a major threat, she said. Another worrying trend is the rise in infections that
Resistant bugs carry a gene variant that allows
are resistant to powerful antibiotics called carbapenems, which doctors rely on to tackle the most serious infections.
them to destroy the drug. What concerns some scientists is that the gene variant can spread freely between different kinds of
bacteria, said Johnson. Bacteria resistant to carbapenems were first detected in the UK in 2003, when three cases were reported. The numbers remained low until 2007, but have since leapt
to 333 in 2010, with 217 cases in the first six months of 2011, according to the latest figures from the HPA.

Drug resistance increasing now causes extinction without new drugs

McKenna 13
{Maryn, syndicated journalist specializing in public and global health, Senior Fellow at the Schuster Institute for
Investigative Journalism (Brandeis University) and the 2013-14 Knight Science Journalism Project Fellow at MIT,
recipient of the 2013 Byron H Waksman Award for Excellence in the Public Communication of Life Sciences and
finalist for a James Beard Foundation Award, cum laude graduate of Georgetown University, has a masters degree
with highest honors from Northwestern, served fellowships at Harvard Medical School, Imagining the Post-
Antibiotics Future, 11/20, https://medium.com/editors-picks/imagining-the-post-antibiotics-future-
892b57499e77#THUR}

Predictions we might sacrifice the antibiotic miracle have been around

that as long as the drugs themselves. almost Penicillin was first

Fleming warned that its benefit

discovered in 1928 and battlefield casualties got the first non-experimental doses in 1943, quickly saving soldiers who had been close to death. But just two years later, the drugs discoverer Sir Alexander

might not last he said: It is not difficult to make microbes resistant

. Accepting the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine, to penicillin in the laboratory by exposing them to concentrations not

There is the danger the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and
sufficient to kill them that make by exposing his microbes to non-lethal quantities of the drug

them resistant. Fleming knew evolution was inevitable

As a biologist, bacteria would develop defenses
that : sooner or later, against the compounds the

what worried him was the possibility misuse would speed the process up
nascent pharmaceutical industry was aiming at them. But that . Every inappropriate prescription and

Bacteria can produce another

insufficient dose given in medicine would kill weak bacteria but let the strong survive. (As would the micro-dose growth promoters given in agriculture, which were invented a few years after Fleming spoke.)

generation in twenty minutes; with tens of thousands of generations a year

as little as organisms would soon working out survival strategies, the

overwhelm the potent new drugs. Flemings prediction was correct . Penicillin-resistant staph emerged in 1940, while the
drug was still being given to only a few patients. Tetracycline was introduced in 1950, and tetracycline-resistant Shigella emerged in 1959; erythromycin came on the market in 1953, and erythromycin-resistant strep appeared in 1968. As antibiotics became more affordable and their use
increased, bacteria developed defenses more quickly. Methicillin arrived in 1960 and methicillin resistance in 1962; levofloxacin in 1996 and the first resistant cases the same year; linezolid in 2000 and resistance to it in 2001; daptomycin in 2003 and the first signs of resistance in 2004.

With antibiotics losing usefulness so quickly the pharmaceutical industry lost a nd thus not making back the estimated $1 billion per drug it costs to create them

enthusiasm for making more. In 2004, there were only five new antibiotics in development, compared to 500 more than

chronic-disease drugs for which resistance is not an issue Since then, resistant bugs have and which, unlike antibiotics, are taken for years, not days.

grown more numerous and by sharing DNA have become even tougher with the few drugs that remain. In with each other, to treat

2009, and again this year researchers sounded the alarm over
, CRE,
in Europe and the United States an ominous form of resistance known as for which only one antibiotic still works. Health

Frieden issued a blunt warning: If were not

authorities have struggled to convince the public that this is a crisis. In September, Dr. Thomas , the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

careful, we will soon be in a post-antibiotic era. For some we are already there patients and some microbes, . The chief medical officer of the United Kingdom, Dame Sally
Davies calls antibiotic resistance as serious a threat as terrorism
who she imagines a r ecently published a book in which what might come next. She sketches

world where infection is so dangerous that anyone with even minor symptoms would be locked in confinement until they

it may actually underplay what the loss of antibiotics would mean

recover or die. It is a dark vision, meant to disturb. But . In 2009, three New York physicians cared for a sixty-seven-year-old
man who had major surgery and then picked up a hospital infection that was pan-resistantthat is, responsive to no antibiotics at all. He died fourteen days later. When his doctors related his case in a medical journal months afterward, they still sounded stunned. It is a rarity for a
physician in the developed world to have a patient die of an overwhelming infection for which there are no therapeutic options, they said, calling the mans death the first instance in our clinical experience in which we had no effective treatment to offer. They are not the only

doctors endure lack of options

to that . Dr. Brad Spellberg of UCLAs David Geffen School of Medicine became so enraged by the ineffectiveness of antibiotics that he wrote a book about it. Sitting with a family, trying to explain that you have
nothing left to treat their dying relativethat leaves an indelible mark on you, he says. This is not cancer; its infectious disease, treatable for decades. As grim as they are, in-hospital deaths from resistant infections are easy to rationalize: perhaps these people were just old, already ill,

different somehow from the rest of us. But deaths like this are changing medicine. To protect their own facilities, hospitals already flag incoming patients who might carry untreatable
bacteria . Most of those patients come from nursing homes and long-term acute care (an intensive-care alternative where someone who needs a ventilator for weeks or months might stay). So many patients in those institutions carry highly resistant bacteria that hospital workers

As infections become yet more dangerous, the healthcare industry will be even less
isolate them when they arrive, and fret about the danger they pose to others.

willing to take such risks Those calculations of risk extend far beyond admitting possibly contaminated patients
. from a

Without the protection offered by antibiotics, entire categories of medical practice would be rethought.
nursing home. Many

treatments require suppressing the immune system That makes people vulnerable , to help destroy cancer or to keep a transplanted organ viable. suppression unusually to

Antibiotics reduce the threat; without them, chemotherapy or radiation

infection. would be as dangerous as the cancers treatment

they seek to cure . Dr. Michael Bell, who leads an infection-prevention division at the CDC, told me: We deal with that risk now by loading people up with broad-spectrum antibiotics, sometimes for weeks at a stretch. But if you cant do that, the decision to treat

severe burns are hugely susceptible units would have a very, very difficult
somebody takes on a different ethical tone. Similarly with transplantation. And to infection. Burn

task Doctors routinely perform procedures that carry an extraordinary infection risk unless antibiotics are
keeping people alive.

used. ventilators, catheters, and

Chief among them: any treatment that requires the construction of portals into the bloodstream and gives bacteria a direct route to the heart or brain. That rules out intensive-care medicine, with its

portsbut also kidney dialysis . Next to go: surgery,

something as prosaic as , which mechanically filters the blood especially on sites that harbor large populations of bacteria such as the intestines and the urinary
tract. Those bacteria are benign in their regular homes in the body, but introduce them into the blood, as surgery can, and infections are practically guaranteed. And then implantable devices, because bacteria can form sticky films of infection on the devices surfaces that can be broken down
only by antibiotics Dr. Donald Fry, a member of the American College of Surgeons who finished medical school in 1972, says: In my professional life, it has been breathtaking to watch what can be done with synthetic prosthetic materials: joints, vessels, heart valves. But in these operations,

British health economists

infection is a catastrophe. calculated with similar concerns recently the costs of antibiotic resistance. To examine how it would affect surgery, they picked hip replacements, a common procedure in once-athletic

without antibiotics, one out of every six recipients of new hip joints would die. Antibiotics are
Baby Boomers. They estimated that

administered prophylactically before open-heart surgery and Caesarean sections Without the
operations as major as as routine as and prostate biopsies.

drugs the likelihood physicians would perform them, will change. In our current malpractice
, the risks posed by those operations, and that

environment , is a doctor going to want to do a bone marrow transplant, knowing theres a very high rate of infection that you wont be a ble to treat? asks Dr. Louis Rice, chair of the department of medicine at Brown Universitys medical school. Plus, right now healthcare
is a reasonably free-market, fee-for-service system; people are interested in doing procedures because they make money. But five or ten years from now, well probably be in an environment where we get a flat sum of money to take care of patients. And we may decide that some of these

procedures arent worth the risk. Medical procedures may involve a high risk of infections, but our everyday lives are pretty risky too. One of the first people to receive penicillin experimentally was a British policeman, Albert

Before
Alexander. He was so riddled with infection that his scalp oozed pus and one eye had to be removed. The source of his illness: scratching his face on a rosebush. (There was so little penicillin available that, though Alexander rallied at first, the drug ran out, and he died.)

antibiotics, five women died out of every 1,000 who gave birth One out of nine people who got a skin infection .

died, even from something as simple as a scrape or an insect bite. Three out of ten people who contracted pneumonia died from it. Ear infections caused deafness; sore throats were followed by heart failure. In a post-

Right now, if you want to be a sharp-looking hipster and get a tattoo,

antibiotic era, would you mess around with power tools? Let your kid climb a tree? Have another child?

youre not putting your life on the line those become possibly life-threatening Even driving to
, says the CDCs Bell. Botox injections, liposuction, .

work infections that resist even powerful antibiotics

: We rely on antibiotics to make a major accident something we can get through, as opposed to a death sentence. Bells prediction is a hypothesis for nowbut

have already entered everyday life. Dozens of college and pro athletes, most recently Lawrence Tynes of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, have lost playing time or entire seasons to infections with drug-resistant staph, MRSA.
Girls who sought permanent-makeup tattoos have lost their eyebrows after getting infections. Last year, three members of a Maryland familyan elderly woman and two adult childrendied of resistant pneumonia that took hold after simple cases of flu. At UCLA, Spellberg treated a
woman with what appeared to be an everyday urinary-tract infectionexcept that it was not quelled by the first round of antibiotics, or the second. By the time he saw her, she was in septic shock, and the infection had destroyed the bones in her spine. A last-ditch course of the only
remaining antibiotic saved her life, but she lost the use of her legs. This is what were in danger of, he says. People who are living normal lives who develop almost untreatable infections. In 2009, Tom Dukesa fifty-four-year-old inline skater and body-builderdeveloped
diverticulosis , a common problem in which pouches develop in the wall of the intestine. He was coping with it, watching his diet and monitoring himself for symptoms, when searing cramps doubled him over and sent him to urgent care. One of the thin-walled pouches had torn open and
dumped gut bacteria into his abdomenbut for reasons no one could explain, what should have been normal E. coli were instead highly drug-resistant. Doctors excised eight inches of his colon in emergency surgery. Over several months, Dukes recovered with the aid of last-resort
antibiotics, delivered intravenously. For years afterward, he was exhausted and in pain. I was living my life, a really healthy life, he says. It never dawned on me that this could happen. Dukes believes, though he has no evidence, that the bacteria in his gut became drug-resistant because

cattle, pigs, chickens

he ate meat from animals raised with routine antibiotic use. That would not be difficult: most meat in the United States is grown that way. To varying degrees depending on their size and age, fish and and, in other countries,

and shrimpreceive regular doses to speed their growth, increase their weight, and protect them from disease. Out of all the antibiotics sold 80 in the United States each year,

percent are used in agriculture

by weight growing scientific research links
, primarily to fatten animals and protect them from the conditions in which they are raised. A body of

antibiotic use in animals to the emergence of antibiotic- resistant bacteria : in the animals own guts, in the manure that farmers use on crops or store on their land, and in human illnesses as well. Resistant bacteria move from
animals to humans in groundwater and dust, on flies, and via the meat those animals get turned into. An annual survey of retail meat conducted by the Food and Drug Administrationpart of a larger project involving the CDC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that examines animals,
meat, and human illnessfinds resistant organisms every year. In its 2011 report, published last February, the FDA found (among many other results) that 65 percent of chicken breasts and 44 percent of grou nd beef carried bacteria resistant to tetracycline, and 11 percent of pork chops
carried bacteria resistant to five classes of drugs. Meat transports those bacteria into your kitchen, if you do not handle it very carefully, and into your body if it is not thoroughly cookedand resistant infections result. Researchers and activists have tried for decades to get the FDA to rein in
farm overuse of antibiotics, mostly without success. The agency attempted in the 1970s to control agricultural use by revoking authorization for penicillin and tetracycline to be used as growth promoters, but that effort never moved forward. Agriculture and the veterinary pharmaceutical

Few have asked what multi-drugresistant bacteria might mean for

industry pushed back, alleging that agricultural antibiotics have no demonstrable effect on human health. , though,

farm animals. Yet a post-antibiotic era imperils agriculture as much as it does medicine . In addition to growth
promoters livestock raising uses antibiotics to treat
, animals, as well as prevention and control that individual in routine dosing called

protects herds. If antibiotics became useless

whole individual illnesses could not be treated, and , then animals would suffer: if the crowded conditions in which

more diseases would spread

most meat animals are raised were not changed, Other methods for . But if the loss of antibiotics change how livestock are raised, then farmers might be the ones to suffer.

protecting animals would be expensive and agricultures

from diseaseenlarging barns, cutting down on crowding, and delaying weaning so that immune systems have more time to develop to implement,

profit margins are already thin . In 2002, economists for the National Pork Producers Council estimated that removing antibiotics from hog raising would force farmers to spend $4.50 more per pig, a cost that would be passed on to consumers. H.
Morgan Scott, a veterinary epidemiologist at Kansas State University, unpacked for me how antibiotics are used to control a major cattle illness, bovine respiratory disease. If a rancher decides to wean their calves right off the cow in the fall and ship them, thats a risky process for the calf,

: If antibiotics werent available, either people would pay a much lower price
and one of the things that permits that to continue is antibiotics, he said, adding those for

, or the rancher might retain them

those same calves while paying extra to feed them. , those farmers face
through the winter That is, without antibiotics would

either lower revenues or higher costs. Livestock raising isnt the only aspect of food production that relies on antibiotics, or that would be threatened if the dru gs no longer worked. The drugs are routinely used in fish and shrimp farming,
particularly in Asia, to protect against bacteria that spread in the pools where seafood is raisedand as a result, the aquaculture industry is struggling with antibiotic-resistant fish diseases and searching for alternatives. In the United States, antibiotics are used to control fruit diseases, but
those protections are breaking down too. Last year, streptomycin-resistant fire blight, which in 2000 nearly destroyed Michigans apple and pear industry, appeared for the first time in orchards in upstate New York, which is (after Michigan) one of the most important apple-growing states.

Our growers have never seen this, and they arent prepared for it, says Herb Aldwinckle, a professor of plant pathology at Cornell University. Our understanding is that there is one useful antibiotic left. Is a post-antibiotic era inevitable ?
Possibly notbut not without change. In countries such as as Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, government regulation of medical and agricultural antibiotic use has helped curb bacterias rapid evolution toward

the U.S. has never been willing to institute controls, and the free-market alternative
untreatability. But such of asking physicians and consumers to use antibiotics
conservatively has been tried for decades without much success . As has the long effort to reduce farm antibiotic use; the FDA will soon issue new rules for agriculture, but they will be contained in a voluntary guidance to industry, not a

regulation with the force of law. What might hold off the apocalypse, for a while, is more antibiotics but first

pharmaceutical companies will have to be lured back into a marketplace they already deemed unrewarding. The need for new compounds could force the federal government to create drug-development incentives: patent extensions, for instance, or changes in the requirements for clinical
trials. But whenever drug research revives, achieving a new compound takes at least 10 years from concept to drugstore shelf. There will be no new drug to solve the problem soonand given the relentlessness of bacterial evolution, none that can solve the problem forever. In the meantime,
the medical industry is reviving the old-fashioned solution of rigorous hospital cleaning, and also trying new ideas: building automatic scrutiny of prescriptions into computerized medical records, and developing rapid tests to ensure the drugs arent prescribed when they are not needed.

The threat of the end of antibiotics might even impel a reconsideration of phages, the individually brewed cocktails of viruses that were a mainstay of Soviet Union

But for any of that to happen, the prospect of a post-

medical care during the Cold War. So far, the FDA has allowed them into the U.S. market only as food-safety preparations, not as treatments for infections.

antibiotic era has to be taken seriously Nobody relates to themselves lying in an ICU bed
, and those staring down the trend say that still seems unlikely.

on a ventilator, says Rice of Brown University. And after it happens, they generally want to forget it.
 2nc no burnout
No burn out
Guterl 12 Fred Guterl, Executive Editor of Scientific American, Former Senior Editor at Newsweek, Professor at
Princeton University, The Fate of the Species: Why the Human Race May Cause Its Own Extinction and How We
Can Stop It, p. 1-2
Over the next few years, the bigger story turned out not to be SARS, which trailed off quickly, bur avian influenza,
or bird flu. It had been making the rounds among birds in Southeast Asia for years. An outbreak in 1997 Hong Kong
and another in 2003 each called for the culling of thousands of birds and put virologists and health workers into a
tizzy. Although the virus wasn't much of a threat to humans, scientists fretted over the possibility of a horrifying
pandemic. Relatively few people caught the virus, but more than half of them died. What would happen if this bird
flu virus made the jump to humans? What if it mutated in a way that allowed it to spread from one person to another,
through tiny droplets of saliva in the air? One bad spin of the genetic roulette wheel and a deadly new human
pathogen would spread across the globe in a matter of days. With a kill rate of 60 percent, such a pandemic would
be devastating, to say the least.
Scientists were worried, all right, but the object of their worry was somewhat theoretical. Nobody knew for certain if
such a supervirus was even possible. To cause that kind of damage to the human population, a flu virus has to
combine two traits: lethality and transmissibility. The more optimistically minded scientists argued that one trait
precluded the other, that if the bird flu acquired the ability to spread like wildfire, it would lose its ability to kill with
terrifying efficiency. The virus would spread, cause some fever and sniffles, and take its place among the pantheon
of ordinary flu viruses that come and go each season.
The optimists, we found out last fall, were wrong. Two groups of scientists working independently managed to
create bird flu viruses in the lab that had that killer combination of lethality and transmissibility among humans.
They did it for the best reasons, of courseto find vaccines and medicines to treat a pandemic should one occur,
and more generally to understand how influenza viruses work. If we're lucky, the scientists will get there before
nature manages to come up with the virus herself, or before someone steals the genetic blueprints and turns this
knowledge against us.
Influenza is a natural killer, but we have made it our own. We have created the conditions for new viruses to
flourishamong pigs in factory farms and live animal markets and a connected world of international trade and
traveland we've gone so far as to fabricate the virus ourselves. Flu is an excellent example of how we have,
through our technologies and our dominant presence on the planet, begun to multiply the risks to our own survival .
 2nc at: cant get deference
Deference applies to patents
Liu 16 [Cory Liu, Law Clerk, Hon. Danny J. Boggs, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; J.D.,
Harvard Law Chevron's Domain And The Rule Of Law, Texas Review of Law & Politics20.2 (Spring 2016): 391-
420]
Another example of a skirmish over Chevron's domain deals with patent law. Courts do not currently give Chevron
deference to the United States Patent and Trademark Office when it examines patents, but a number of scholars have
begun to challenge this thinking. In a 2007 law review article, Professors Stuart Benjamin and Arti Rai argued that
the analysis in Mead suggests that Chevron may be the appropriate standard for patent denials.121 More recently,
Professor Melissa Wasserman set forth a highly detailed argument for why the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
passed in 2011, evinces a congressional intent for courts to follow Chevron when reviewing the Patent and
Trademark Office's decisions.122 On the other hand, Professor Orin Kerr has argued strongly against the application
of Chevron because patent law predates the modern administrative state and operates using different
mechanisms.123 The Federal Circuit--which has near-exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals124--has yet to apply
Chevron in the context of patent law. Nevertheless, the vigorous debate between these professors provides another
example of how the malleable , case-by-case inquiry set forth in Mead, Barnhart, and King can result in increased
litigation and uncertainty over the scope of Chevron's domain
 2nc patents key
Strong patent regime key to the pharmaceutical industry
Abbott, 16 (Alden, Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage
Foundation, Adjunct Professor at George Mason Law School, a member of the Leadership of the American Bar Associations Antitrust Section,
and a Non-Governmental Advisor to the International Competition Network, Legal Threats to Strong Returns on Pharmaceutical Patents Grow,
Threatening Innovation, 1/17, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/01/17/legal-threats-to-strong-returns-on-pharmaceutical-patents-
grow/id=65013/, bgm)

Pharmaceuticals is the industry sector where a strong patent system, promising substantial returns to successful
innovation, is of paramount importance . A large proportion of R&D in pharmaceuticals fails to yield new approved
drugs, so pharmaceutical companies must earn substantial profits on the drugs that are successful to support their
continuing drug development efforts. Legal rules that ratchet down on such profits, in the name of limiting
profiteering, are counterproductive. Whatever static short term price reductions they may achieve are swamped by
the harm they create in softening incentives to invest in R&D a result which reduces pharma innovation, harming
future patients and undermining the long-term vitality of a critically important industry.
 2nc deference key
deference necessary for patent effectiveness and innovation
Wasserman 13 [Melissa F. Wasserman, B.S. in chemical engineering, Ph.D. in chemical engineering from
Princeton. She received her J.D. magna cum laude from New York University School of Law. The Changing Guard
of Patent Law: Chevron Deference for the PTO, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1959 (2013),
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol54/iss6/5
In general, the patent system has historically suffered from a lack of serious engagement with administrative law,15
even though Supreme Court intervention in 1999 made clear that standard administrative law normsincluding the
Administrative Procedure Actapply to the PTO.16 Applying administrative law principles to the AIA provides
that the PTOs legal interpretations of the Patent Act, as announced by its new adjudicatory proceedings, are entitled
to the highly deferential standard of review articulated in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. 17 As this Article argues, this deference is a normatively desirable outcome.18 Making the PTO the
primary interpreter of the core patentability standards ushers the patent system into the modern administrative era,
which has long recognized the deficiencies associated with judge-driven policy.19 This provides the institutional
foundation for infusing economic policy into the patent system, enabling the tailoring of patentability standards to
advance the systems constitutionally mandated goal: the promotion of innovation. Additionally, the incorporation
of administrative law principles into the patent system has substantial implications for administrative law. As this
Article attempts to reconcile the distinctive features of patent administration with existing administrative law
jurisprudence, it tests, and at times, brings into better focus, the contours of this doctrine. This exercise in
reconciliation offers insight into a prolonged circuit split on the proper approach to determining the triggering
provisions of formal adjudication and when a grant of formal adjudicatory authority carries the ability to speak with
the force of law. Even though an agencys eligibility for Chevron deference turns on whether its actions carry the
force of law, in the adjudicatory context the force-of-law concept has been largely undertheorized.20

Less prone to industry capture

Wasserman 13 [Melissa F. Wasserman, B.S. in chemical engineering, Ph.D. in chemical engineering from
Princeton. She received her J.D. magna cum laude from New York University School of Law. The Changing Guard
of Patent Law: Chevron Deference for the PTO, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1959 (2013),
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol54/iss6/
Even though expertise may give rise to distinctive advantages with respect to institutional competence, specialization has an associated drawbackthe potential of
capture. An institutions repeated interaction with particular groups holding narrow interests may result in at least two
pathologies. First, an institution may develop tunnel vision, pursuing its own technocratic worldview without sufficient regard for larger normative
concerns.233 Second, a narrow set of rights holders may directly capture an institutions viewpoints. The latter concern stems from the logic that
concentrated, well-financed groups are more likely than diffuse, less organized entities to influence decision makers.234 The result in either situation is that the
institution will systematically make decisions that favor the interest of a narrow set of constituencies over those of the general
public.
The concerns associated with capture theory are most frequently attributed to agencies that have repeated interactions with their regulatory
constituents that could lead to distortions in agency decision making. More recently, scholars astutely observed that the adjudicative process is
also susceptible to the influence of interest groups and expanded the applications of the theory to the judiciary as well.235 Of course, beyond
capture concerns, other institutional structures may exist that also systematically bias the organizations decision making. Although these
influences may not be directly related to expertise, any bias in an institutions decisional process is concerningwhether the institution is a court
or an agency. Like many agencies, the PTO is not immune from charges of capture or institutional bias. The Agency has traditionally been
structured to favor patent grants. My previous work has shown that the PTOs historical fee structure likely biased the PTO towards issuing
patents because the Agency garnered over half of its patent operating budget through fees it could collect only if it granted patents.236
Moreover, widespread agreement among scholars exists that the historical examiner compensation system favored allowance.237 Notably, all
that is being asked of the PTO is to grant patents. The patent prosecution process occurs ex parte; no third party is present to argue that a patent
should not be issued. These constant one-way demands to issue patents raise concerns that the Agency may develop tunnel vision. In fact, the
Agencys past rhetoric that its mission includes help[ing] customers get patents reveals a culture that appears to be unduly influenced by the
interests of patentees.238 However, the PTO has made strides to overcome this pathology. The Agency recently revamped its examiner
compensation system, among other things, to diminish incentives to grant patents.239 Recent empirical work by Mark Lemley and Bhaven
Sampat finds a correlation between the length of patent examiner experience and an examiners propensity to grant a patent, and suggests that the
incentives facing examiners are much more complicated than they were typically perceived.240
The passage of the AIA should further help alleviate some concerns of capture or bias. Because Congress granted the
PTO fee setting authority, the Agency has taken steps, at least to some extent, to decrease its reliance on patent issuance
fees.241 The enactment of robust postgrant review proceedings should broaden the Agencys perspective, as the PTO will now routinely interact
with constituents that are arguing to narrow the scope of patent law. Additionally, the low-cost design of the postgrant review proceedings will
hopefully enable substantial participation from public interest groups, whose primary focus is the protection of the public domain.242 The result
should be increased awareness, promoting innovation not only by granting patent but also by protecting the public domain. Nevertheless, like all
agencies, capture remains a point of concern with the PTO.
Agency capture, however, represents a substantial objection to extending Chevron deference to the PTO only to the extent that the judicial
alternative is superior. The specialization of the Federal Circuit has led some commentators to suggest that the appellate court is prone to
the same institutional pathologies of tunnel vision and bias of which they have accused the PTO.243 The Federal
Circuit hears disproportionately from the patent bar and has increasingly begun to draw its technical staffmost notably its
clerksfrom patent law firms.244 Although intellectual property law firms represent both plaintiffs and defendants in patent litigation, they
are generally likely to benefit from broad patent rights, especially with respect to patentable subject matter.245 As Arti Rai recently noted,
empirical data on amicus briefs supports this contention: patent bar associations file amicus briefs in favor of patentees at a significantly higher
rate than the government or high-tech companies.246 More directly, the courts patent law jurisprudence has exhibited some
symptoms that are consistent with bias . Several commentators have noted that Federal Circuit precedent has trended towards strengthening
patent rights.247 Empirical evidence also suggests that the Federal Circuit has propatentee tendencies.248 The Supreme Courts renewed interest
in the development of substantive patent law and its repeated reversal of Federal Circuit jurisprudence is also suggestive of tunnel vision.249
Definitively proving capture of an agency or a court is difficult, if not impossible. Some scholars have certainly taken issue with the notion that
the patent bar has captured the Federal Circuit.250 Nevertheless, the possibility that the Federal Circuits decision-making process is unduly
influenced by factions, at the very least, gives pause to dismissing the concept of the PTO playing a larger role in patent policy based on agency
capture alone.251

Deference key to effective regulation

--speed
--expertise
--uniformity
Hao 14 Whitney Ruijuan Hao, City of Arlington v. FCC: Jurisdictional or Nonjurisdictional, Where to Draw the
Line?, Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, Spring, 34 J. Nat'l Ass'n L. Jud. 151,
Lexis
The Chevron two-step inquiry that the Supreme Court established almost two decades ago officially acknowledged
and confirmed the agencies' rule-making power, which mandates the reviewing court to defer to an agency's
interpretation of statutory ambiguities if it is reasonable. n205 Yet in Chevron, as one commentator noted, the Court
did not discuss Marbury or the governing provisions of APA; instead it put forward two "pragmatic" arguments:
"judges lack expertise," and "they are not politically accountable." n206 More specifically, according to the Court,
interpreting statutory ambiguities calls for technical expertise and political accountability, and therefore agencies
have "conspicuous" advantages compared to courts. n207 Furthermore, agencies can act more promptly and
effectively to adapt statutes than courts, as courts are relatively decentralized and the judicial processes are
considerably more cumbersome . n208
Therefore, even though Marbury holds that it is up to the judicial department to say what the law is, the Court has
legitimated the executive's rule-making power in Chevron regarding its interpretations of ambiguous statutory terms.
Borrowing one scholar's words, this "reflects a salutary appreciation of the fact that the law's meaning is not a
"brooding omnipresence in the sky.'" n209 In other words, "the executive, with its comparative expertise and
accountability, is in the best position to make the judgments of policy and principle on which resolution of statutory
ambiguities often depends." n210
The dispute in City of Arlington was over whether courts should defer under Chevron to an agency's interpretation
of its own [*183] scope of authority. n211 Essentially it was a "Chevron Step Zero" issue, which was distinct from
the issue in Chevron where the dispute was over the agency's interpretation of a statutory ambiguity when the
agency was acting within its jurisdictional power. n212 Deciding in favor of applying Chevron deference to the
"Step Zero" inquiry regarding an agency's determination of its own scope of jurisdiction, the majority in City of
Arlington followed the same path of reasoning in Chevron and further expanded agencies' rule-making power. As
one commentator analyzed:
For the majority, as dangerous as giving agencies broad interpretive power under Chevron may be, it is better than
giving judges leeway to pick and choose when to defer to agencies and when not to. Judges are even less politically
accountable than are agencies, and more prone to generating disuniform interpretations of statutes based on ad hoc
judgments. According to the majority: "The excessive agency power that the dissent fears would [absent a strong
Chevron deference doctrine] be replaced by chaos." n213
 Emerging tech impact turn 1NC
Broad agency deference is key to regulate emerging tech
Masur 7 Jonathan Masur, Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law, University of Chicago Law School, Judicial
Deference and the Credibility of Agency Commitments, Vanderbilt Law Review, May, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1021,
Lexis
I. Administrative Flexibility: Temporal Adjustments and Judicial Entrenchment

Administrative agencies cannot function effectively if they do not possess substantial discretion to set agency
policy. Agencies exist in large degree as institutional mechanisms for solving policy questions whose intricacies
and difficulties exceeded the capacities of Congress itself. An agency that lacked the freedom to choose between
competing policy solutions or the flexibility to adjust its regulations in the face of scientific or economic progress
would be little more than a rigid executor of Congress's will, stripped of the expertise that made it an attractive
repository of policy-making authority in the first instance. Consequently, a growing consensus of administrative law
scholars has long favored granting agencies ever-greater authority to enact policy changes in concert with
developments in the relevant markets and technologies . n8
Pursuant to this rationale, the Supreme Court has afforded agencies broad authority to alter extant regulations or
select new policy courses. Under well-established law, an agency may discard a long-standing policy in favor of a novel one, provided that it offers a coherent rationale for its decision. n9 And if an agency's
current interpretation of its empowering statute is not sufficiently capacious to permit the agency to pursue this new policy, the agency may adopt a reasonable new interpretation of an old statute without relinquishing the deference

that it is due under Chevron's famous two-step formulation. n10

Yet, in the two decades after Chevron, one significant obstacle remained to an agency's ability to re-interpret ambiguous statutes and adapt to changing circumstances. Until 2005, the Supreme Court treated its statutory interpretation
precedents - no matter the context and regardless of whether they had involved an agency interpretation and a judicial grant of Chevron deference - as absolute and decisive. Once a court had interpreted a statute, regardless of whether
the agency had already had the opportunity to proffer its own interpretation, stare decisis controlled. An agency could only re-interpret if a court had never passed on the original interpretation, or if the agency could convince the court
that the court had erred in its original interpretation, without reference to Chevron.
In 2005, the Supreme Court eliminated this final impediment. While deciding an otherwise mundane issue of statutory [*1027] interpretation in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, the Court
announced that Chevron henceforth would trump stare decisis: an interpretation of an ambiguous statute that ordinarily would be entitled to deference under Chevron would still receive that deference - and an agency would be
permitted to revise a prior statutory interpretation - irrespective of anything that a court had ever said on the subject. Ambiguous statutes had become forever ambiguous; no court could settle their meaning. n11
A. Temporal Flexibility
Congress delegates power to agencies for a wide variety of reasons. Congress may find it politically infeasible to make some necessary decision because of significant negative political ramifications, and as a result it might seek to
foist responsibility off on some other actor. Alternatively, there may be a faction within Congress that hopes to accomplish via the executive branch what it cannot achieve legislatively. n12

But Congress may also delegate power in order to harness the superior expertise of an agency actor and to bring to bear
on a problem a set of scientific and technological knowledge and a breadth of experience that Congress does not
possess. n13 In order for this delegation to be successful - indeed, in order for it to be meaningfully a "delegation" - it must afford the recipient agency some
degree of "substantive flexibility" : the agency must have the freedom, when analyzing the subject matter at the heart of the delegation, to choose from

among a range of acceptable policies the one that it believes is best. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has granted administrative agencies wide substantive leeway to
select among competing statutory interpretations - and thus among competing policies - via the familiar two-step process set forth in Chevron, pursuant to which courts must defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous
statutes. n14

By shifting policymaking
Moreover, courts and commentators have long realized that agencies possess comparative institutional advantages over Congress that surpass the mere application of expertise.

responsibility outside of the legislative branch, Congress is also able to avail itself of the greater agility of
administrative agencies in responding to changed circumstances or adapting to new [*1028] policy concerns. Legislation is costly
and time-consuming to enact, and Congress cannot always rapidly change course when confronted with novel problems or the imminent obsolescence of old solutions. n15 Agencies are more willing and able than Congress to tweak

their policy agendas. Especially in the high-technology areas, this alacrity is invaluable to agencies' ability to act in the public
interest.
agencies must possess flexibility not only in the substantive sense described above, but also in the "temporal"
In order to act effectively, then,

sense: They must be free to alter policies over time and adapt to changes in relevant technologies and markets. n16 Much like substantive flexibility (deference, really), temporal flexibility (which I will refer
to simply as "flexibility") is the lifeblood of successful agency operation. Even minor changes in technology or markets can obsolete

pre-existing regulatory regimes, and it likely would be prohibitively costly for Congress to respond to every minor
circumstance by amending an agency's authorizing legislation. n17 Agencies need the authority to adjust policies in
order to maintain their currency and efficacy, n18 and unwise judicial doctrines that deny agencies all significant
policy flexibility would undoubtedly lead to regulatory stagnation . n19

Nano and AI are coming and cause global war---U.S. regulation solves
Tate 15 Jitendra S. Tate, Associate Professor of Manufacturing Engineering at the Ingram School of Engineering,
Texas State University, et al., Military And National Security Implications Of Nanotechnology, The Journal of
Technology Studies, Volume 41, Number 1, Spring, https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/v41/v41n1/tate.html
All branches of the U.S. military are currently conducting nanotechnology research, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office ( ARO), and Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The United States is currently

the leader of the development of nanotechnologybased applications for military and national defense . Advancements in
nanotechnology are intended to revolutionize modern warfare with the development of applications such as nano-sensors, artificial intelligence, nanomanufacturing, and nanorobotics. Capabilities of this technology include providing
soldiers with stronger and lighter battle suits, using nano-enabled medicines for curing field wounds, and producing silver-packed foods with decreased spoiling rate ( Tiwari, A., Military Nanotechnology, 2004 ). Although the

improvements in nanotechnology hold great promise, this technology has the potential to pose some risks. This article addresses a few of the more recent, rapidly evolving, and
cutting edge developments for defense purposes. To prevent irreversible damages, regulatory measures must be taken in the advancement of
dangerous technological developments implementing nanotechnology. The article introduces recent efforts in awareness of the societal implications of military and
national security nanotechnology as well as recommendations for national leaders.
Keywords: Nanotechnology, Implications, modern warfare
INTRODUCTION

Advances in nano-science and nanotechnology promise to have major implications for advances in the scientific field as well as peace for the
upcoming decades. This will lead to dramatic changes in the way that material, medicine, surveillance, and sustainable energy technology are understood and created. Significant
breakthroughs are expected in human organ engineering, assembly of atoms and molecules, and the emergence of a
new era of physics and chemistry. Tomorrows soldiers will have many challenges such as carrying self-guided missiles, jumping over large obstacles, monitoring vital signs, and working longer
periods with sleep deprivation. ( Altmann & Gubrud, Anticipating military nanotechnology, 2004 ). This will be achieved by controlling matter at the nanoscale (1-100nm). A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. This article
considers the social impact of nanotechnology (NT) from the point of view of the possible military applications and their implications for national defense and arms control. This technological evolution may become disruptive;
meaning that it will come out of mainstream. Ideas that are coming forth through nanotechnology are becoming very popular and the possibilities will in practice have profound implications for military affairs as well as relations
between nations and thinking about war and national security ( Altmann J. , Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns, 2004 ). In this article some of the potential applicability uses of recent nanotechnology driven

applications within the military are introduced. This article also discusses how the impact of a rapid technological evolution in the military will have
implications on society.
POTENTIAL MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES
Magneto rheological Fluid (MR Fluid)
A magneto-rheological-fluid is a fluid where colloidal ferrofluids experience a body force on the entire material that is proportional to the magnetic field strength ( Ashour, Rogers, & Kordonsky, 1996 ). This allows the status of the fluid to change reversibly from a liquid to solid state. Thus,
the fluid becomes intelligently controllable using the magnetic field. MR fluid consists of a basic fluid, ferromagnetic particles, and stabilizing additives ( Olabi & Grunwald, 2007 ). The ferromagnetic particles are typically 20-50m in diameter whereas in the presence of the magnetic field,
the particles align and form linear chains parallel to the field ( Ahmadian & Norris, 2008 ). Response times 21 that require impressively low voltages are being developed. Recently, ( Ahmadian & Norris, 2008 ) has shown the ability of MR fluids to handle impulse loads and an adaptable
fixing for blast resistant and structural membranes. For military applications, the strength of the armor will depend on the composition of the fluid. Researchers propose wiring the armor with tiny circuits. While current is applied through the wires, the armor would stiffen, and while the
current is turned off, the armor would revert to its liquid, flexible state. Depending on the type of particles used, a variety of armor technology can be developed to adapt for soldiers in different types of battle conditions. Nanotechnology could increase the agility of soldiers. This could be
accomplished by increasing mechanical properties as well as the flexibility for battle suit technology.
Nano Robotics
Nanorobotics is a new emerging field in which machines and robotic components are created at a scale at or close to that of a nanometer. The term has been heavily publicized through science fiction movies, especially the film industry, and has been growing in popularity. In the movie
Spiderman , Peter Parker and Norman Osborn briefly talk about Normans research which involves nanotechnology that is later used in the Green Goblin suit. Nanorobotics specifically refers to the nanotechnology engineering discipline or designing and building nano robots that are
expected to be used in a military and space applications. The terms nanobots, nanoids, nanites, nanomachines or nanomites have been used to describe these devices but do not accurately represent the discipline. Nanorobotics includes a system at or below the micrometer range and is made of
assemblies of nanoscale components with dimensions ranging from 1 to 100nm ( Weir, Sierra, & Jones, 2005 ). Nanorobotics can generally be divided into two fields. The first area deals with the overall design and control of the robots at the nanoscale. Much of the research in this area is
theoretical. The second area deals with the manipulation and/or assembly of nanoscale components with macroscale manipulators ( Weir, Sierra, & Jones, 2005 ). Nanomanipulation and nanoassembly may play a critical role in the development and deployment of artificial robots that could be
used for combat.
According to Mavroidis et al. ( 2013 ), nanorobots should have the following three characteristic abilities at the nano scale and in presence of a large number in a remote environment. First they should have swarm intelligence. Second the ability to self-assemble and replicate at the nanoscale.
Third is the ability to have a nano to macro world interface architecture enabling instant access to the nanorobots with control and maintenance. ( Mavroidis & Ferreira, 2013 ) also states that collaborative efforts between a variety of educational backgrounds will need to work together to
achieve this common objective. Autonomous nanorobots for the battlefield will be able to move in all media such as water, air, and ground using propulsion principles known for larger systems. These systems include wheels, tracks, rotor blades, wings, and jets ( Altmann & Gubrud, Military,
arms control, and security aspects of nanotechnology, 2004 ). These robots will also be designed for specific military tasks such as reconnaissance, communication, target destination, and sensing capabilities. Self-assembling nanorobots could possibly act together in high numbers, blocking
windows, putting abrasives into motors and other machines, and other unique tasks.
Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a vast emerging field that can be very thought provoking. AI has been seen recently in a number of movies and
This intellect could possibly outperform human capabilities in
television shows that have predicted what the possibility of an advanced intelligence could do to our society.

practically every field from scientific research to social interactions. Aspirations to surpass human capabilities include tennis, baseball, and other daily tasks
demanding motion and common sense reasoning (Kurzweil, 2005). Examples where AI could be seen include chess playing, theorem proving, face and speech recognition, and natural language understanding. AI has been

an active and dynamic field of r esearch and d evelopment since its establishment in 1956 at the Dartmouth Conference in the United States ( Cantu-Ortiz, 2014 ). In
past decades, this has led to the development of smart systems, including phones, laptops, medical instruments, and navigation software.
One problem with AI is that people are coming to a conclusion about its capabilities too soon. Thus, people are becoming afraid of the probability that an artificial intelligent system could possibly expand and turn on the human race.
True artificial intelligence is still very far from becoming alive due to our current technology. Nanotechnology might advance AI research and development. In nanotechnology, there is a combination of physics, chemistry and

engineering. AI relies most heavily on biological influence as seen genetic algorithm mutations, rather than chemistry or engineering. Bringing together nanosciences and AI can boost a whole
new generation of information and communication technologies that will impact our society. This could be accomplished by successful convergences
between technology and biology ( Sacha & P., 2013 ). Computational power could be exponentially increased in current successful AI based military decision behavior models as seen in the following
examples.
Expert Systems
Artificial intelligence is currently being used and evolving in expert systems (ES). An ES is an intelligent computer program that uses knowledge and interference procedures to solve problems that are difficult enough to require significant human expertize to their solution ( Mellit &
Kalogirou, 2008 ). Results early on in its development have shown that this technology can play a significant impact in military applications. Weapon systems, surveillance, and complex information have created numerous complications for military personnel. AI and ES can aid commanders
in making decisions faster than before in spite of limitations on manpower and training. The field of expert systems in the military is still a long way from solving the most persistent problems, but early on research demonstrated that this technology could offer great hope and promise (
Franklin, Carmody, Keller, Levitt, & Buteau, 1988 ). Mellit et al. argues that an ES is not a program but a system. This is because the program contains a variety of different components such as a knowledge base, interference mechanisms, and explanation facilities. Therefore they have been
built to solve a range of problems that can be beneficial to military applications. This includes the prediction of a given situation, planning which can aid in devising a sequence of actions that will achieve a set goal, and debugging and repair -prescribing remedies for malfunctions.
Genetic Algorithms
Artificial intelligence with genetic algorithms (GA) can tackle complex problems through the process of initialization, selection, crossover, and mutation. A GA repeatedly modifies a population of artificial structures in order to adjust for a specific problem (Prelipcean et al., 2010). In this
population, chromosomes evolve over a number of generations through the application of genetic operations. This evolution process of the GA allows for the most elite chromosomes to survive and mate from one generation to the next. Generally, the GA will include three genetic operations
of selection, crossover, and mutation. This is currently being applied to solving problems in military vehicle scheduling at logistic distribution centers.
Nanomanufacturing
Nanomanufacturing is the production of materials and components with nanoscale features that can span a wide range of unique capabilities. At the nanoscale, matter is manufactured at lengthscales of 1-100nm with precise size and control. The manufacturing of parts can be done with the
bottom up from nano sized materials or top down process for high precision. Manufacturing at the nanoscale could produce new features, functional capabilities, and multi-functional properties. Nanomanufacturing is distinguished from nanoprocessing, and nanofabrication, whereas
nanomanufacturing must address scalability, reliability and cost effectiveness ( Cooper & Ralph, 2011 ). Military applications will need to be very tough and sturdy but at the same time very reliable for use in harsh environments with the extreme temperatures, pressure, humidity, radiation,
etc. The use of nano enabled materials and components increase the militarys in-mission success. Eventually, these new nanotechnologies will be transferred for commercial and public use. Cooper et al. makes known how nanomanufacuring is a multi -disciplinary effort that involves
synthesis, processing and fabrication. There are however a great number of challenges that as well as opportunities in nanomanufacturing R&D such as;
Predictions from first principles of the progress and kinetics of nanosynthesis and nano-assembly processes.
23 Understand and control the nucleation and growth of nanomaterial and nanostructures and asses the effects of catalysts, crystal orientation, chemistry, etc. on growth rates and morphologies.
R&D IN THE USA

The USA is proving to have a lead in military research and development in nanotechnology. Research spans under umbrella of applications
related to defense capabilities. NNI has provided funds in which one quarter to one third goes to the department of defense in 2003, $ 243 million of $774 million. This is far more than any country

and the US expenditure would be five times the sum of all the rest of the world ( Altmann & Gubrud, Military, arms control, and security aspects of
nanotechnology, 2004 ).
INITIATIVES
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was unveiled by President Clinton in a speech that he gave on science and technology policy in January of 2000 where he called for an initiative with funding levels around 500 million dollars ( Roco & Bainbridge, 2001 ). The initiative had five elements. The first was to increase support for fundamental research. The second was to pursue a
set of grand challenges. The third was to support a series of centers of excellence. The fourth was to increase support for research infrastructure. The fifth is to think about the ethical, economic, legal and social implications and to address the education and training of nanotechnology workforce ( Roco & Bainbridge, 2001 ). NNI brings together the expertise needed to advance the
potential of nanotechnology across the nation.
ISN at MIT
The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) initiated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2002 ( Bennet-Woods, 2008 ). The mission of ISN is to develop battlesuit technology that will increase soldier survivability, protection, and create new methods of detecting toxic agents, enhancing situational awareness, while decreasing battle suit weight and increasing flexibility.
ISN research is organized into five strategic areas (SRA) designed to address broad strategic challenges facing soldiers. The first is developing lightweight, multifunctional nanostructured materials. Here nanotechnology is being used to develop soldier protective capabilities such as sensing, night vision, communication, and visible management. Second is soldier medicine prevention,
diagnostics, and far-forward care. This SRA will focus on research that would enable devices to aid casualty care for soldiers on the battle field. Devices would be activated by qualified personnel, the soldier, or autonomous. Eventually, these devices will find applications in medical hospitals as well. Third is blast and ballistic threats materials damage, injury mechanisms, and
lightweight protection. This research will focus on the development of materials that will provide for better protection against many forms of mechanical energy in the battle field. New protective material design will decrease the soldiers risk of trauma, casualty, and other related injuries. The fourth SRA is hazardous substances sensing. This research will focus on exploring advanced
methods of molecularly complicated hazardous substances that could be dangerous to soldiers. This would include food-borne pathogens, explosives, viruses and bacteria. The fifth and final is nanosystems integration flexible capabilities in complex environments. This research focuses on the integration of nano-enabled materials and devices into systems that will give the soldier agility
to operate in different environments. This will be through capabilities to sense toxic chemicals, pressure, and temperature, and allow groups of soldiers to communicate undetected (Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies).
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of countrys armed forces is to provide protection from foreign threats and from internal conflict. On the other hand, they may also harm a society by engaging in counter- productive warfare or serving as an economic burden. Expenditures on science and technology to develop weapons and systems sometimes produces side benefits, such as new medicines, technologies, or
materials. Being ahead in military technology provides an important advantage in armed conflict. Thus, all potential opponents have a strong motive for military research and development. From the perspective of international security and arms control it appears that in depth studies of the social science of these implications has hardly begun. Warnings about this emerging technology
have been sounded against excessive promises made too soon. The public may be too caught up with a nanohype ( Gubrud & Altmann, 2002 ). It is essential to address questions of possible dangers arising from military use of nanotechnology and its impacts on national security. Their consequences need to be analyzed.
NT and Preventative Arms Control
Background

The goal of preventive arms control is to limit how the development of future weapons could create horrific
situations, as seen in the past world wars. A qualitative method here is to design boundaries which could limit the
creation of new military technologies before they are ever deployed or even thought of. One criterion regards arms control and how the development of military
and surveillance technologies could go beyond the limits of international law warfare and control agreements. This could include autonomous fighting war machines failing to define combatants of either side and Biological weapons could possibly give terrorist circumvention over existing
treaties ( Altmann & Gubrud, Military, arms control, and security aspects of nanotechnology, 2004 ). The second criterion is to prevent destabilization of the military situation which emerging technologies could make response times in battle much faster. Who will strike first? The third
criterion, according to Altman & Gubrud, is how to consider unintended hazards to humans, the environment, and society. Nanoscience is paving the way for smaller more efficient systems which could leak into civilian sectors that could bring risks to human health and personal data.
Concrete data on how this will affect humans or the environment is still uncertain.
Arms Control Agreements
The development of smaller chemical or biological weapons that may contain less to no metal could potentially violate existing international laws of warfare by becoming virtually undetectable. Smaller weapons could fall into categories that would undermine peace treaties. The manipulation
of these weapons by terrorist could give a better opportunity to select specific targets for assassination. Anti- satellite attacks by smaller more autonomous satellites could potentially destabilize the space situation. Therefore a comprehensive ban on space weapons should be established (
Altmann & Gubrud, 2002 ). Autonomous robots with a degree of artificial intelligence will potentially bring great problems. The ability to identify a soldiers current situation such as a plea for surrender, a call for medical attention, or illness is a a very complicated tasks that to an extent
requires human intelligence. This could potentially violate humanitarian law.
Stability
New weapons could pressure the military to prevent attacks by pursuing the development of new technologies faster.
This could lead to an arms race with other nations trying to attain the same goal. Destabilization may occur through
faster action, and more available nano systems. Vehicles will become much lighter and will be used for surveillance. This will significantly reduce time to acquire a targets location.
Medical devices implanted in soldiers bodies will enable the release of drugs that influence mood and response times. For example, an implant that attaches to the brains nervous system could give the possibility to reduce reaction

Artificial intelligence based genetic algorithms could

time by processing information much faster than usual ( Altmann & Gubrud, Anticipating military nanotechnology, 2004 ).

make tactical decisions much faster through computational power by adapting to a situations decision . Nano robots could
eavesdrop, manipulate or even destroy targets while at the same time being undetected ( Altmann J. , Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns, 2004 ).
Environment Society & Humans
Human beings have always been exposed to natural reoccurring nanomaterials in nature. These particles may enter the human body through respiration, and ingestion ( Bennet- Woods, 2008 ). Little been known about how manufactured nanoscale materials will have an impact to the
environment. Jerome (2005) argues that nanomaterials used for military uniforms could break of and enter the body and environment. New materials could destroy species of plants and animal. Fumes from fuel additives could be inhaled by military personnel. Contaminant due to weapon
blasts could lead to diseases such as cancer or leukemia due to absorption through the skin or inhalation. Improper disposal of batteries using nano particles could also affect a wide variety of species. An increase in nanoparticle release into the environment could be aided by waste streams
from military research facilities. Advanced nuclear weapons that are miniaturized may leave large areas of soil contaminated with radioactive materials. There is an increase in toxicity as the particle size decrease which could cause unknown environmental changes. Bennet-woods ( 2008 )
argues that there is great uncertainty in which the way nano materials will degrade under natural conditions and interact with local organisms in the environment.

Danger to society could greatly be affected due to self-replicating , mutating, mechanical or biological plagues . In the event that these intelligent nano systems
were to be unleashed, they could potentially attack the physical world . There are a number of applications that will be developed with nanotechnology that could potentially crossover from the military to national security that can
harm the civilian sector ( Bennet-Woods, 2008 ). There is a heightened awareness that new technologies will allow for a more efficient access to personal priva cy and autonomy ( Roco & Bainbridge, 2005 ). Concerns regarding artificial intelligence acquiring a vast amount of personal data,
voice recognition, and financial data will also arise. Implantable brain devices, intended for communication, raise concerns for actually observing and manipulating thoughts. Some of the most feared risks due to nanotechnology in the society are the loss of privacy ( Flagg, 2005 ). Nano
sensors developed for the battlefield could be used for eavesdropping and tracking of citizens by state agencies. This could lead to improvised warfare or terrorism. Bennet-Woods ( 2008 ) argues that there should be an outright ban on nanoenabled tracking and surveillance devices for any
purpose.
Nanotechnology in combination with biotechnology and medicine raise concerns regarding human safety. This includes nanoscale drugs that may allow for improvements in terrorism alongside more efficient soldiers for combat. Bioterrorism could greatly be improved through nano-
engineered drugs and chemicals ( Milleson, 2013 ). Body implants could be used by soldiers to provide for better fighting efficiency but in the society, the extent in which the availability of body manipulation will have to be debated at large ( Altmann J. , Nanotechnology and preventive arms
control, 2005 ). Brain implanted stimulates could become addictive and lead to health defects. The availability of body and brain implants could have negative effects during peace time. Milleson ( 2013 ) argues that there is fear that this technology could destabilize the human race, society,
and family. Thus, the use in society should be delayed for at least a decade.
CONCLUSIONS
Nanoscience will lead to a revolutionary development of new materials, medicine, surveillance, and sustainable energy. Many a pplications could arrive in the next decade. The US is currently in the lead in nanoscience research and development. This equates to roughly five times the sum of
all the rest of world. It is essential to address the potential risks that cutting edge military applications will have on warfare and civilian sector. There is a potential for mistrust in areas where revolutionary changes are expected. There are many initiatives by federal agencies, industry, and

Preventive measures should be coordinated early on among national leaders.

academic institutions pertaining to nanotechnology applications in military and national security.

Due to rapidly
Scientists propose for national leaders to follow general guidelines. There shall be no circumvention of existing treaties as well as a ban on space weapons. Autonomous robots should be greatly restricted.

advancing capabilities, a technological arms race should be prevented at all costs. Nanomaterials could greatly harm humans and their environment
therefore nations should work together to address safety protocols. The national nanotechnology of different nations should build confidence in

addressing the social implications and preventive arms control from this technological revolution.
 2nc nano impact
Its coming fast and lab settings prove its feasible
Prado, 13 -- Mark Evan Prado, Retired Physicist in Advance Planning of the Space Program at the Pentagon,
Nanotechnology, http://www.gainextinction.com/nanotechnology.html
In other words, if there is a chance it may help people look more beautiful, or live longer, or cure their diseases, or
make a lot of money in this business, then these desires for personal benefits may make people less inclined to
believe other people questioning the safety of nanotechnology, and more inclined to believe the public relations
pitches of promoters of this multimillion and multibillion dollar business. You can always find experts to give you a
supportive opinion. Often overlooked are concerns that some kinds of random nanotechnology particles in the
environment could actually cause accelerated aging and diseases in a variety of ways including as irritants and
entering cells and causing chromosomal damage. Things like these have already been experienced in the laboratory
as well as in manufacturing environments where nano scale microscopic particles are in the air. As nanotechnology
applications gain success in the biotechnology realm, and desires grow for nanotechnology to address diseases as
well as provide beauty treatments and other biological enhancements, you can try to imagine where the
nanotechnology economy will be in 2020 -2025, and thereby where the human species will be going on the risk
scale. This will be before we will have self-sufficient space colonies. A wise man once said something like: The
greatest fortresses can be still be defeated or undermined by one simple and ages old weapon: money. Now we can
also say that it's likely the extinction of the human species will likewise be because of the desire to make money and
all the power that money brings.

Multiple scenarios for nano-extinction---form of development determines the impact

Pamlin, 15 -- Dennis Pamlin, Executive Project Manager of the Global Risks Global Challenges Foundation, and
Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute of the Oxford Martin School at
University of Oxford, Global Challenges Foundation, February, http://globalchallenges.org/wp-content/uploads/12-
Risks-with-infinite-impact.pdf
2. Continuing research into the transformative aspects, not just standard materials science is required for
nanotechnology to become a viable option for manufacturing. 3. Military nanotechnology research increases the
chance that nanotechnology will be used for effective weapons production, and may lead to an arms race. 4. Global
coordination allows for regulatory responses, and may mitigate the effect of possible collapse of trade routes. 5. The
general mitigation efforts of most relevance to nanotechnology are probably in surveillance and improved
international relations. 6. Nanoterrorism is one way in which humanity could lose control of aggressive
nanotechnology. 7. Nanotechnology-empowered warfare could spiral out of control, or could lead to the
deployment of uncontrolled aggressive nanotechnology. The risk would be acute if small groups were capable of
effective nanowarfare on their own. 8. Uncontrolled aggressive nanotechnology is a scenario in which humanity
unleashes weapons that it cannot subsequently bring under control, which go on to have independent negative
impacts on the world. 9. The direct casualties of an uncontrolled nanotechnology are hard to estimate, as they
depend critically on the nature of the nanotechnology, the countermeasures used, and the general technological
abilities of the human race after nanotechnology development. The casualties from nanowarfare are similarly hard to
determine, as it is unclear what would be the most effective military use of nanoweapons, and whether this would
involve high or low casualties (contrast mass nuclear weapons with targeted shutdown of information networks). 10.
Disruption of the world political and economic system (exacerbated by the collapse of trade routes or nanowarfare)
could lead to further casualties.
 Ai 2nc
Strong risk reduction key to prevent AI-driven extinction---its uniquely likely, but success solves every
impact
Pamlin, 15 -- Dennis Pamlin, Executive Project Manager of the Global Risks Global Challenges Foundation, and
Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute of the Oxford Martin School at
University of Oxford, Global Challenges Foundation, February, http://globalchallenges.org/wp-content/uploads/12-
Risks-with-infinite-impact.pdf
Despite the uncertainty of when and how AI could be developed, there are reasons to suspect that an AI with human-
comparable skills would be a major risk factor . AIs would immediately benefit from improvements to computer
speed and any computer research. They could be trained in specific professions and copied at will, thus replacing
most human capital in the world, causing potentially great economic disruption. Through their advantages in speed
and performance , and through their better integration with standard computer software, they could quickly become
extremely intelligent in one or more domains (research, planning, social skills...). If they became skilled at computer
research, the recursive self-improvement could generate what is sometime called a singularity, 482 but is perhaps
better described as an intelligence explosion, 483 with the AIs intelligence increasing very rapidly. 484 Such
extreme intelligences could not easily be controlled (either by the groups creating them, or by some international
regulatory regime),485 and would probably act in a way to boost their own intelligence and acquire maximal
resources for almost all initial AI motivations.486 And if these motivations do not detail 487 the survival and value
of humanity in exhaustive detail, the intelligence will be driven to construct a world without humans or without
meaningful features of human existence. This makes extremely intelligent AIs a unique risk ,488 in that extinction
is more likely than lesser impacts. An AI would only turn on humans if it foresaw a likely chance of winning;
otherwise it would remain fully integrated into society. And if an AI had been able to successfully engineer a
civilisation collapse, for instance, then it could certainly drive the remaining humans to extinction. On a more
positive note, an intelligence of such power could easily combat most other risks in this report, making extremely
intelligent AI into a tool of great positive potential as well.489 Whether such an intelligence is developed safely
depends on how much effort is invested in AI safety (Friendly AI)490 as opposed to simply building an AI .49

AI outweighs---only risk of extinction, a categorically-distinct impact

Shulman 11 Carl Shulman, Research Fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, Arms Races and
Intelligence Explosions (Extended Abstract), April, http://singularityhypothesis.blogspot.com/2011/04/arms-races-
and-intelligence-explosions.html)
Not only is the arms race dynamic important for the evaluation of many aspects of the singularity hypothesis, it is
also an area where existing empirical evidence and theory can be brought to bear from the study of nuclear weapons.
This paper discusses some key parameters on which a race to intelligence explosion might differ from the historical
race to nuclear explosion: the potential for small differences in research progress to produce massive military
disparities in an intelligence explosion, the high risks of accidental catastrophe during research and development,
and additional barriers to verification and enforcement of arms control treaties. Collectively, these factors suggest
that states would have more to gain from AI control than nuclear control treaties, but would also face greater
challenges in coordinating.
II. An AI arms race may be winner-take-all
The threat of an AI arms race does not appear to be primarily about the direct application of AI to warfare. While automated combat systems such as drone aircraft have taken on greatly increased roles in recent years (Singer, 2009;
Arkin, 2009), they do not greatly disrupt the balance of power between leading militaries: slightly lagging states can use older weapons, including nuclear weapons, to deter or defend against an edge in drone warfare.
Instead, the military impact of an intelligence explosion would seem to lie primarily in the extreme acceleration in the development of new capabilities. A state might launch an AI Manhattan Project to gain a few months or years of
sole access to advanced AI systems, and then initiate an intelligence explosion to greatly increase the rate of progress. Even if rivals remain only a few months behind chronologically, they may therefore be left many technological
generations behind until their own intelligence explosions. It is much more probable that such a large gap would allow the leading power to safely disarm its nuclear-armed rivals than that any specific technological generation will
provide a decisive advantage over the one immediately preceding it.
If states do take AI potential seriously, how likely is it that a government's in-house systems will reach the the point of an intelligence explosion months or years before competitors? Historically, there were substantial delays
between the the first five nuclear powers tested bombs in 1945, 1949. 1952, 1960, and 1964. The Soviet Union's 1949 test benefited from extensive espionage and infiltration of the Manhattan Project, and Britain's 1952 test reflected
formal joint participation in the Manhattan Project.
If the speedup in progress delivered by an intelligence explosion were large, such gaps would allow the leading power to solidify a monopoly on the technology and military power, at much lower cost in resources and loss of life than
would have been required for the United States to maintain its nuclear monopoly of 1945-1949. To the extent that states distrust their rivals with such complete power, or wish to exploit itthemselves, there would be strong incentives
to vigorously push forward AI research, and to ensure government control over systems capable of producing an intelligence explosion.
In this paper we will discuss factors affecting the feasibility of such a localized intelligence explosion, particularly the balance between internal rates of growth and the diffusion of or exchange of technology, and consider historical
analogs including the effects of the Industrial Revolution on military power and nuclear weapons.
III. Accidental risks and negative externalities
A second critical difference between the nuclear and AI cases is in the expected danger of development, as opposed to deployment and use.Manhattan Project scientists did consider the possibility that a nuclear test would unleash a
self-sustaining chain reaction in the atmosphere and destroy all human life, conducting informal calculations at the time suggesting that this was extremely improbable. A more formal process conducted after the tests confirmed the
earlier analysis (Konopinski, Marvin, & Teller, 1946), although it would not have provided any protection had matters been otherwise. The historical record thus tells us relatively little about the willingness of military and civilian
leaders to forsake or delay a decisive military advantage to avert larger risks of global catastrophe.
In contrast, numerous scholars have argued that advanced AI poses a nontrivial risk of catastrophic outcomes, including humane extinction. (Bostrom, 2002; Chalmers, 2010; Friedman, 2008; Hall, 2007; Kurzweil, 2005; Moravec,
1999; Posner, 2004; Rees, 2004; Yudkowsky, 2008). Setting aside anthropomorphic presumptions of rebelliousness, a more rigorous argument (Omohundro, 2007) relies on the instrumental value of such behavior for entities with a
wide variety of goals that are easier to achieve with more resources and with adequate defense against attack. Many decision algorithms could thus appear benevolent when in weak positions during safety testing, only to cause great
harm when in more powerful positions, e.g. after extensive self-improvement.
Given abundant time and centralized careful efforts to ensure safety, it seems very probable that these risks could be avoided: development paths that seemed to pose a high risk of catastrophe could be relinquished in favor of safer
ones. However, the context of an arms race might not permit such caution. A risk of accidental AI disaster would threaten all of humanity, while the benefits of being first to develop AI would be concentrated, creating a collective
action problem insofar as tradeoffs between speed and safety existed.
A first-pass analysis suggests a number of such tradeoffs. Providing more computing power would allow AIs to either operate at superhumanly fast timescales or to proliferate very numerous copies. Doing so would greatly accelerate
progress, but also render it infeasible for humans to engage in detailed supervision of AI activities. To make decisions on such timescales AI systems would require decision algorithms with very general applicability, making it harder
to predict and constrain their behavior. Even obviously risky systems might be embraced for competitive advantage, and the powers with the most optimistic estimates or cavalier attitudes regarding risk would be more likely to take
the lead.
IV. Barriers to AI arms control
Could an AI arms race be regulated using international agreements similar to those governing nuclear technology? In some ways, there are much stronger reasons for agreement: the stability of nuclear deterrence, and the protection
afforded by existing nuclear powers to their allies, mean that the increased threat of a new nuclear power is not overwhelming. No nuclear weapons have been detonated in anger since 1945. In contrast, simply developing AI capable
of producing an intelligence explosion puts all states at risk from the effects of accidental catastrophe, or the military dominance engendered by a localized intelligence explosion.
However, AI is a dual-use technology, with incremental advances in the field offering enormous economic and humanitarian gains that far outweigh near-term drawbacks. Restricting these benefits to reduce the risks of a distant,
novel, and unpredictable advance would be very politically challenging. Superhumanly intelligent AI promises even greater rewards: advances in technology that could vastly improve human health, wealth, and welfare while
addressing other risks such as climate change. Efforts to outright ban or relinquish AI technology would seem to require strong evidence of very high near-term risks. However, agreements might prove highly beneficial if they could
avert an arms race and allow for more controlled AI development with more rigorous safety measures, and sharing of the benefits among all powers.
Such an agreement would face increased problems of verification and enforcement. Where nuclear weapons require rare radioactive materials, large specialized equipment, and other easily identifiable inputs, AI research can proceed
with only skilled researchers and computing hardware. Verification of an agreement would require incredibly intrusive monitoring of scientific personnel and computers throughout the territory of participating states. Further, while
violations of nuclear arms control agreements can be punished after the fact, a covert intelligence explosion could allow a treaty violator to withstand later sanctions.
These additional challenges might be addressed in light of the increased benefits of agreement, but might also become tractable thanks to early AI systems. If those systems do not themselves cause catastrophe but do provide a
decisive advantage to some powers, they might be used to enforce safety regulations thereafter, providing a chance to go slow on subsequent steps.
V. Game-theoretic model of an AI arms race
In the full paper, we present a simple game-theoretic model of a risky AI arms race. In this model, the risk of accidental catastrophe depends on the number of competitors, the magnitude of random noise in development times, the
exchange rate between risk and development speed, and the strength of preferences for developing safe AI first.

VI. Ethical implications and responses

The above analysis highlights two important possible consequences of advanced AI: a disruptive change in
international power relations and a risk of inadvertent disaster.
From an ethical point of view, the accidental risk deserves special attention since it threatens human extinction, not
only killing current people but also denying future generations existence. (Matheny, 2007; Bostrom, 2003). While
AI systems would outlive humanity, AI systems might lack key features contributing to moral value, such as
individual identities, play, love, and happiness (Bostrom, 2005; Yudkowsky, 2008). Extinction risk is a distinctive
feature of AI risks: even a catastrophic nuclear war or engineered pandemic that killed billions would still likely
allow survivors to eventually rebuild human civilization, while AIs killing billions would likely not leave
survivors. (Sandberg & Bostrom, 2008).
 2nc ai timeframe
AIs coming within a decade and causes extinction---safety plannings key
Pamlin, 15 -- Dennis Pamlin, Executive Project Manager of the Global Risks Global Challenges Foundation, and
Stuart Armstrong, James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute of the Oxford Martin School at
University of Oxford, Global Challenges Foundation, February, http://globalchallenges.org/wp-content/uploads/12-
Risks-with-infinite-impact.pdf
The authors then turned to analysing the AI safety proposals, dividing them into proposals for societal action,
external constraints, and internal constraints. They found that many proposals seemed to suffer from serious
problems, or to be of limited effectiveness. They concluded by reviewing the proposals they thought most worthy of
further study, including AI confinement, Oracle AI, and motivational weaknesses. For the long term, they thought
the most promising approaches were value learning (with human-like architecture as a less reliable but possibly
easier alternative). Formal verification was valued, whenever it could be implemented. 01-Oct-13: Publication of
Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era by James Barrat, warning of the dangers
of AI 519 Research, In this book, James Barrat argues for the possibility of human-level AI being developed
within a decade , based on the current progress in computer intelligence and the large sums invested by governments
and corporations into AI research. Once this is achieved, the AI would soon surpass human intelligence, and would
develop survival drives similar to humans (a point also made in Omohundros AI drives thesis).520 The book
then imagines the competition between humanity and a cunning, powerful rival, in the form of the AI a rival,
moreover, that may not be evil but simply harmful to humanity as a side effect of its goals, or simply through
monopolising scarce resources. Along with many interviews of researchers working in the forefront of current AI
development, the book further claims that without extraordinarily careful planning,521 powerful thinking
machines present potentially catastrophic consequences for the human race .
 2nc - Regs key
EPA regs that are proactive and flexible prevent dangerous nano but capture its upsides
Reese 13 Michelle Reese, J.D., 2013, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Nanotechnology: Using
Co-regulation to Bring Regulation of Modern Technologies into the 21st Century, Health Matrix: Journal of Law
Medicine, 23 Health Matrix 537, Fall, Lexis
Nevertheless, nanotechnology may also present new risks. Scientists are not sure whether nanotechnology poses any serious health hazards to humans or the

environment. Considering our wide exposure to nanotechnology, it is critical that we identify potential risks and impose regulations that strike a

balance between accessing the benefits of nanotechnology and limiting the foreseeable harm to the environment and public
health.
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on an atomic scale to create tiny, functional structures. n3 These structures are incredibly small: one nanometer is precisely one-billionth of a meter.
n4 Nanotechnology is defined as the production of materials that are between one and one-hundred nanometers in size. n5 Although they cannot be seen with the naked eye, these microscopic
structures called "nanoparticles" have been proven to benefit humans in a variety of ways. For example, they can lead to new medical treatments. n6 They also can be used to develop [*539]
building materials with a very high strength-to-weight ratio. n7 Sunscreen and cosmetics that make use of nanoparticles apply more smoothly and evenly to human skin. n8 Other examples of
products that utilize nanoparticles include stain-resistant clothing, lightweight golf clubs, bicycles, car bumpers, antimicrobial wound dressings, and synthetic bones. n9
While there are many benefits presented by nanotechnology, there are also potential risks. Studies have indicated that nanoparticles called carbon nanotubes act like asbestos within the human
body. n10 Cells that are exposed to nanostructures called "buckyballs" n11 have been shown to undergo slowed or even halted cell division. n12 In general, the small size and high surface-area-
to-volume ratio of nanoparticles indicates a higher potential for toxicity. n13
The application of nanotechnology to drug development has aided the treatment of common life-threatening diseases while concurrently posing toxic side effects. n14 For example, carbon
nanotubes n15 may be used to enhance cancer treatments, but there is also an indication that the nanotubes themselves might ironically have a carcinogenic effect on the human body. n16 Certain
nanoparticles can be used to enhance water filtration systems, but there are concerns that the production of nanoscale products may lead to new types of water pollution. n17 Common [*540] to
these examples is the difficulty in determining whether the benefits of nanotechnology will outweigh the risks.
One place to turn for answers is the regulatory agency tasked with investigating the risks posed by nanotechnology.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the regulatory authority to assess the environmental and public health risks
associated with nanotechnology, and to prescribe regulations as needed to prevent or reduce those risks. n18 Unfortunately,
authority to assess those risks does not mean the EPA has adequate tools to do so. n19 Nanotechnology is becoming ubiquitous as the industry continues to expand, and new products are being
created every day. n20 The need for thorough risk assessment, followed by appropriate risk management, is becoming more important as
potential environmental and public exposure to nanoparticles is becoming more common . n21
Nanotechnology is not categorically dangerous . n22 The current danger is that it is unknown whether nanoparticles
present any risks to the environment and public health. As more common household products are created or enhanced with nanoparticles, public exposure to
nanotechnology is increasing rapidly. n23 This increasing public exposure indicates an urgent need for risk assessment. And as

exposure increases, it becomes more important that the EPA be able to determine what risks will accompany that
exposure, if any, so that it can properly balance the risks against the benefits and promulgate the most effective
rules.
Generally speaking, the EPA is familiar with assessing risks and regulating new products. The EPA has authority
through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate chemical manufacturing . n24 TSCA requires manufacturers to inform the EPA of the potential risks

associated with a new product, or new uses for an existing product, before production begins. n25 This gives the EPA an opportunity to prohibit or limit the

manufacturing of that substance. n26 While this seems [*541] to suggest that the EPA is well-equipped to manage the potential risks
of products containing nanoparticles, some say that TSCA is outdated and that it will be difficult to use this older statute to regulate modern technology. n27
 At: trump turn
Knefel not offense says its unregulated now and doesnt say Trump regs would be harmful

Nano-AI regulation doesnt require a NEW agency EPA, OSHA necessary frontline for emerging tech

Agencies will regulate bureaucracy

Pazzanese 11-23 [Christina, two decades of experience as a print and digital journalist for both consumer and trade
press, 11/23/16, Trump and the law, http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/11/trump-and-the-law/]
Also, will Trump make good on campaign promises to take a wholesale look at existing regulations and demand
agencies toss those guidelines that dont make sense to him, something the Obama administration was quite
aggressive in doing? While tempting politically, there could be difficulties making that strategy work with civil
servants who have substantial technical expertise, past experience with such clean-ups, and their own ideas about
what should be done, and how.
Econ and Hegemony Answers - backlines
Extensions vs. Global Economy Impact
 Econ---No Impact---General

Even massive economic decline has zero chance of war

Jervis 11
Robert, Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia
University, December 2011, Force in Our Times, Survival, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would
a
bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be
worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy
and bring back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to
believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting
each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed states that
were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme

versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited , it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting
high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by
impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved
by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial

crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such a sharp economic
down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about
greater economic conflict , it will not make war thinkable .
 Econ---No Impact---Empirics

Countries are too stable or its empirically denied

Bazzi 11
(et al; Samuel - UCSD economics department - Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence of?) Evidence from
Commodity Prices, November,
http://www.chrisblattman.com/documents/research/2011.EconomicShocksAndConflict.pdf?9d7bd4, ldg)

VI. Discussion and conclusions A. Implications for our theories of political instability and conflict The state is not a prize?Warlord politics and the state prize logic
lie at the center of the most influential models of conflict, state development, and political transitions in economics and political science. Yet we
see no
evidence for this idea in economic shocks, even when looking at the friendliest cases: fragile and unconstrained
states dominated by extractive commodity revenues. Indeed, we see the opposite correlation: if anything, higher
rents from commodity prices weakly 22 lower the risk and length of conflict. Perhaps shocks are the wrong test. Stocks of
resources could matter more than price shocks (especially if shocks are transitory). But combined with emerging evidence that war onset is no more likely even with
rapid increases in known oil reserves (Humphreys 2005; Cotet and Tsui 2010) we regard the state prize logic of war with skepticism.17 Our main political economy
models may need a new engine. Naturally, an absence of evidence cannot be taken for evidence of absence. Many of our conflict onset and ending results include
sizeable positive and negative effects.18 Even so, commodity price shocks are highly influential in income and should provide a rich source of identifiable variation in
Moreover, other time-
instability. It is difficult to find a better-measured, more abundant, and plausibly exogenous independent variable than price volatility.
varying variables,
like rainfall and foreign aid, exhibit robust correlations with conflict in spite of suffering similar
empirical drawbacks and generally smaller sample sizes (Miguel et al. 2004; Nielsen et al. 2011). Thus we take the absence of
evidence seriously. Do resource revenues drive state capacity?State prize models assume that rising revenues raise the value of the capturing the state, but
have ignored or downplayed the effect of revenues on self-defense. We saw that a growing empirical political science literature takes just such a revenue-centered
approach, illustrating that resource boom times permit both payoffs and repression, and that stocks of lootable or extractive resources can bring political order and
stability. This countervailing effect is most likely with transitory shocks, as current revenues are affected while long term value is not. Our findings are partly
consistent with this state capacity effect. For example, conflict intensity is most sensitive to changes in the extractive commodities rather than the annual agricultural
crops that affect household incomes more directly. The relationship only holds for conflict intensity, however, and is somewhat fragile. We do not see a large,
consistent or robust decline in conflict or coup risk when prices fall. A reasonable interpretation is that the state prize and state capacity effects are either small or tend
to cancel one another out. Opportunity cost: Victory by default?Finally, the inverse relationship between prices and war intensity is consistent with opportunity cost
accounts, but not exclusively so. As we noted above, the relationship between intensity and extractive commodity prices is more consistent with the state capacity
view. Moreover, we shouldnt mistake an inverse relation between individual aggression and incomes as evidence for the opportunity cost mechanism. The same
correlation is consistent with psychological theories of stress and aggression (Berkowitz 1993) and sociological and political theories of relative deprivation and
anomie (Merton 1938; Gurr 1971). Microempirical work will be needed to distinguish between these mechanisms. Other reasons for a null result.Ultimately,
price shocks have no discernible effect on new conflict onsets , but some effect on ongoing conflict,
however, the fact that commodity
suggests that political stability might be less sensitive to income or temporary shocks than generally believed. One
possibility is that successfully mounting an insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable risk, costs, and coordination challenges. Another possibility is that
If a nation is so fragile that a
the counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile nations, income shocks of one type or another are ubiquitous.
change in prices could lead to war, then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price shock. The
same argument has been made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low growth in developing nations in the 1980s.19 B. A general
problem of publication bias? More generally, thesefindings should heighten our concern with publication bias in the conflict
literature. Our results run against a number of published results on commodity shocks and conflict, mainly because of
select samples, misspecification, and sensitivity to model assumptions, and, most importantly, alternative measures
of instability. Across the social and hard sciences, there is a concern that the majority of published research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis
(2005) demonstrates that a published finding is less likely to be true when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection
of tested relationships; there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when more
teams are involved in the chase of statistical significance. The cross-national study of conflict is an extreme case of
all these. Most worryingly, almost no paper looks at alternative dependent variables or publishes systematic robustness
checks. Hegre and Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority of published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on timeinvariant regressors and not the
time-varying shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also concerned there is a file drawer problem (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this decision rule: scholars that
discover robust results that fit a theoretical intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry about problems with the data or
empirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further analysis produces a robust result, it is published. If not, back to the file drawer. In the aggregate,
the consequences are dire: a lower threshold of evidence for initially significant results than ambiguous ones.20

2008 disproves conflict

Barnett, 9
(Thomas P.M. columnist for World Politics Review, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial
Crisis, World Politics Review, 8/252009, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-
financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx, 9-26-11, zml)
So, to sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like
Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places) ; Not a single
state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); No great
improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all
that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given
the strain); and No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things
we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United
States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given
the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus
packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct
shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain
governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and
trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much
protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade
Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say
Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic
world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward,
austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the
economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing
global regulatory schemes , even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the
continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have
attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between
"fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial
markets , such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a
world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global
financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.
Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fear-
mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.
 Econ---No Impact---No Escalation
Conflict wont escalate instructions are robust
Drezner 11
(Daniel, Tufts international politics professor - Please come down off the ledge, dear readers, 8-12,
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge_dear_readers, ldg)

So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard times would cause governments
to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and disturbances, and eerie echoes of the Great
Depression. Let'sassume that the global economy persists in sputtering for a while, because that's what happens after major
financial shocks. Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it 1931? Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because
there's some passing familiarity with how 1931 played out. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic
career to studying the Great Depression. I'm gonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not
The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public
gonna be because central bank heads replay the same set of mistakes.
attitudes and institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of publuc attitudes, compare the
results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts below: The headline of the
2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things stand out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a
very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers , such as Germany and China. On the
whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that
much. While there might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or
anything so drastc. Another big difference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On
trade matters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still
working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. The IMF's
resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already
promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As
for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather
high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. Even
if there are disagreements, communication
can prevent them from growing into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working
papercited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that paper contains the following
important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on
the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-
2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. As
we limit the sample to ever more democratic
countries, the size of the coefficient declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative,
but no longer significant. This is good news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931.
What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent economic news
might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the 1930's. And, based on
the data we've got, that's not going to happen.
 Econ---No Impact---Studies
Best studies prove economic decline doesnt cause conflict
Brandt 11
(et al., Patrick, Indiana political science PhD - Economic Growth and Political Instability, April, SSRN,)
These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 20082010 reflect a widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound
effects on countries political stability. When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion,
and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the
type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with their governments, and the leaders at the
receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil
war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries economic growth rates
strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great deal of careful empirical analysis, and
evidence from social science research to date does not unambiguously support it. Theoretical models of civil wars, coups
detat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic growth as a n important cause or catalyst of those events, but
empirical studies on the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the
effects of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in
recent years , as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and repression.
This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political
instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to
subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical
characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the
data. We do so with statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political
stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic
growth. To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this relationship to simultaneously address the possibility of nonlinearity and
problems of endogeneity. As such, we believe this paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this
argument to date. As the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil
violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our
analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the
widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to democracy. While we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these
relationships, our findings do suggest that the
relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform
nor as strong as the conventional wisdom(s) presume(s). We think these findings also help explain why the global
recession of 20082010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of coups and regime failures that some observers had
anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis .
 Econ---No Impact---A2: Diversionary Theory
Diversionary war is wrongqualitative AND quantitative studies go negdecline facilitates coop
Fravel 10
M Taylor, Associate Professor of Political Science and member of the Security Studies Program at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Limits of Diversion: Rethinking Internal and External Conflict,
Security Studies.
The diversionary hypothesis offers one of the most powerful alternatives to rationalist explanations of war based on the state as a unitary actor.
Strong empirical support for diversion would identify a more complete set of causal mechanisms underlying international conflict. The cases
investigated in this article, however, raise doubts about the strength of the diversionary hypothesis as well as the
empirical validity of arguments based on diversionary mechanisms , such as Mansfield and Snyders theory about
democratization and war.126 In Argentina and Turkey, the hypothesis fails to pass two most likely tests. In neither case
was domestic unrest a necessary condition for the use of force as proponents of diversionary theory must demonstrate. Instead,
external security challenges and bargaining over disputed territory better explain Argentine and Turkish decision
making. The historical record , including leadership statements and reasoning, offers stronger evidence for a
standard realist model and the dynamics of coercive diplomacy.
Drawing definitive conclusions about diversion from just two cases is impossible. Nevertheless, the modified most likely research
design used in this article weakens confidence in the strength of diversionary arguments . Diversion as a principal or
primary source of some conflicts may be much less frequent than scholars assert . These two episodes should be among the
easiest cases for diversion to explain. Not only did embattled leaders escalate disputes into crises and then use force, but
scholars have also viewed these cases as being best explained by diversionary mechanisms. If diversion cannot
account for these decisions, it is unclear what the hypothesis can in fact explain.
My findings have several implications for the literature on diversionary war theory. At the most general level of analysis, the lack of support
for the diversion hypothesis in Argentina and Turkey complements those quantitative studies of diversion that do
not identify a systematic and significant relationship between domestic politics and aggressive foreign policies,
including the use of force.127 In addition, the modified most likely research design used in this article raises questions
about those quantitative studies that do provide empirical support for diversion because it demonstrates that
despite the presence of domestic unrest, the underlying causal mechanisms of diversion may not account for the
decisions to use force.
The lack of support for diversion raises a simple but important question: why is diversion less frequent than commonly believed, despite its
plausible intuition? Although further research is required, several factors should be considered. First, the rally effect that leaders enjoy
from an international crisis is generally brief in duration and unlikely to change permanently a publics overall
satisfaction with its leaders.128 George H. W. Bush, for example, lost his reelection bid after successful prosecution of the 1991 Gulf War.
Winston Churchill fared no better after the Allied victory in World War II. 129 Leaders have little reason to conclude
that a short-term rally will address what are usually structural sources of domestic dissatisfaction.
Second, a selection effect may prevent embattled leaders from choosing diversion . Diversionary action should produce
the largest rally effect against the most powerful target because such action would reflect a leaders skills through coercing a
superior opponent. At the same time, leaders should often be deterred from challenging stronger targets, as the
imbalance of military forces increases the risk of defeat and thus the probability of losing office at home. Although
the odds of victory increase when targeting weaker states, success should have a much more muted effect on
domestic support, if any, because victory would have been expected .130
Third, weak or embattled leaders can choose from a wide range of policy options to strengthen their standing at home .
Although scholars such as Oakes and Gelpi have noted that embattled leaders can choose repression or economic development in addition to
diversionary action,
the range of options is even greater and carries less risk than the failure of diversion . Weak
leaders can also seek to deepen cooperation with other states if they believe it will strengthen their position at
home. Other studies, for example, have demonstrated that political unrest facilitated dtente among the superpowers
in the early 1970s, Chinas concessions in its many territorial disputes, support for international financial
liberalization, and the formation of regional organizations such as the A ssociation of S outheast A sian S tates and the Gulf
Cooperation Council.131
 Econ---A-to: Trump = diversionary war

Congress and Trumps advisors will create fake victories to make him feel like hes taken diversionary
action---no actual impact
Jonathan Bernstein 16, taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University,
12/13/16, 'Wag the Dog' for the Age of Trump, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-13/-wag-the-
dog-for-the-age-of-trump
Donald Trump will come into office knowing little about government policies and probably caring less about most of them. But he's
going to want to stage an impressive opening number or two, to let everyone know who's the star of this show. The combination of
uninformed and uninterested, but still ambitious and aggressive -- does that sound like potential trouble?
If so, here's a different question. How canwe insure that the new president feels he's getting his way often enough to keep
him satisfied without creating disaster on the actual policies?
Answer: Think "Wag the Dog." In this version, people inside and outside of his administration will persuade him to fight and
win a few harmless battles . The Tweeter-in-Chief can say and believe he's taking decisive action . And normal
Republicans and Democrats can get on with hashing out the normal stuff of politics.
Suggestion One: The president wins the war on crime!
Solution: As president-elect, Trump is still saying the murder rate is "highest in 45 years," a fictional claim he made in the campaign as well.
Despite a jump in 2015, the murder rate is close to historical lows. So all he has to do is start using real statistics instead of phony ones to claim
credit for solving this one.
The formula can be repeated for other mistaken claims he made during the campaign about how terrible America is.
Suggestion Two: Repeal a fictional law!
Solution: The president can help fulfill his "drain the swamp" pledge if he can claim a full defeat for everyone in Congress, including the
Republican leadership. A harmless way to do this is to make up a law he can persuade Congress to "repeal."
There's even a phony law that has already been invented, the Public Affairs Act of 1975, a title dreamed up by academics to study how public
opinion works. It turns out that many people will readily express opinions on non-existent laws, and will support or oppose them in response to
partisan cues.
If congressional leaders deny the need to repeal the (fictional) law, perhaps Trump can get them to take action anyway, since it would placate the
angry constituents who are calling the legislators' offices and demanding that the "law" be declared null and void. Done. Trump can go on a
victory tour, and leave the battles over real policies to the people who are serious about the policies.
Many voters don't know how law-making works in the U.S. in the first place, and others may not care much about the truth so much as they care
about visibly sticking it to the do-nothing bureaucrats in Washington.
Suggestion Three: Invade something!
The president-elect was the " bomb the hell out of them" candidate. How can he do this without involving a lot of
innocent people or harming the interests of the U.S., let alone pick the wrong place ( the South C hina Sea?) and risk global war?
Solution: Find someplace out of the way, maybe an uninhabited island somewhere in the South Pacific -- closer to Hawaii than to
China and Japan. Announce that Islamic League is about to set up a base there, and then bomb away and even stage a beach
landing, with patriotic flag-raising pictures.
Yes, I'm joking (well, mostly). But these
"solutions" show some serious truths about how government works.
Congress, career civil servants, interest groups and parties manipulate all presidents . The only question is how much, and how
successful presidents are in fighting back.
Even the most knowledgeable presidents have very limited expertise, given the vast number of subjects they deal with -- everything from space
travel to Medicare reimbursement rates to aircraft carriers to national parks to constitutional law to regulation of complex financial products to
disputes among Kurdish factions in Iraq. And the civil servants and members of Congress and lobbyists that presidents deal with are often
masters of detail on whatever specific issue is under consideration.
Presidents win a lot of these fights (or at least play to a draw) because they have strong political skills. They are good at figuring out what others
want, and at knowing the incentives and motivations of those they must interact with. Trump has to date not demonstrated such skills, although,
to be fair, he's only beginning to be tested.
Thus far, he has shown a weakness for being easily distracted , and of seeking quick, surface-level results -- ones that
career bureaucrats or House subcommittee chairs can reverse later , once the president's attention has moved on to something else.
Granted, a lot of people, even Republicans, would be reluctant to give Trump such a long leash to achieve phony victories. But if they fear
he's dangerous as president, then it would be better to keep him happy with some minor, temporary
bump-ups in public opinion than it is to let him intervene in areas where he could do real damage .
Of course, liberals believe that normal Republicans do plenty of damage to the nation on their own, Trump or no Trump. But at least those normal
Republicans may respond to normal incentives, and moderate their positions if their ideal policies turn out to be unpopular.
Think about it. Is a distracted president such a bad thing after all?
This is true for Trump relationship between economic decline and diversionary war is exagerrated
Hkan Frisn 17, Head of Economic Forecasting at SEB, 2-22-17, "Global economy resilient to new political
challenges," https://sebgroup.com/press/news/global-economy-resilient-to-new-political-challenges
The interplay between economics and politics was undoubtedly a dominant feature of analyses during 2016. As we know, it was difficult to
foresee both election results and their economic consequences. It was certainly not strange that economists were
unable to predict the Brexit referendum outcome or Donald Trumps victory, when public opinion polling organisations and
betting firms failed to do so, but lessons might be learned from the economic assessment impacts they made. Economists probably tend
to exaggerate the importance of more general political phenomena. While in the midst of elections that appear
historically important, it is tempting to present alarmist projections about election outcomes that seem improbable and/or
unpleasant. But once the initial shock effect has faded, more ordinary economic data such as corporate reports and
macroeconomic figures take the upper hand. Psychological effects often exaggerated One important observation is that it
is difficult to find any historical correlation between heightened security policy tensions and economic activity.
Households and businesses do not seem to be especially sensitive in their consumption or capital spending behaviour.
This is perhaps because uncertainty is offset by investments in a defence build-up, for example. Only when the conditions
that directly determine profitability and investments are affected , for example via rising oil prices or poorly functioning financial
markets, will the effects become clear. Markets also seem to have a general tendency to assume that the economic policy
makers can actually behave rationally in crisis situations, until this has been disproved. Both during the US sub-prime
mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 and the euro zone's existential crisis a few years later, for a rather long time the market
maintained its faith that a response would come. Not until after a lengthy period of inept actions by decision makers did these crises
become genuinely acute, with large secondary effects as a consequence. This market "patience" is presumably based on a long-
time pattern of recurring bailout measures by governments and central banks, which usually benefit risk-taking at the expense
of caution or speculation that policy responses will not materialise. It is reasonable to assume that this may also underpin the
rather cautious reactions to the risks associated with the Trump administration's agenda. Although one cannot complain
about the administration's power of initiative, there is a fairly high probability that in important areas it will not go from
words to actions. There may be various reasons for this, such as the inertia built into the s eparation o f p owers
between the White House, Congress and the court system, or expectations that Trump's newly appointed cabinet
secretaries and advisors will eventually take their cues from more established US positions.
 Econ---Econ Not k2 Heg
Not logical absolute weakness doesnt translate into comparative terms collapse would
make others suffer and unable to challenge the US
Economic decline doesnt kill hegAmerican leadership is unique and their predictions
have been denied for decades
Blackwill 9
Robert Blackwill, former associate dean of the Kennedy School of Government and Deputy Assistant to the
President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning, RAND, The Geopolitical Consequences of
the World Economic RecessionA Caution,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2009/RAND_OP275.pdf
First, the United States, five years from today. Did the global recession weaken the political will of the United States to,
over the long term, defend its external interests? Many analysts are already forecasting a yes to this question. As a result of what
they see as the international loss of faith in the American market economy model and in U.S. leadership, they assert that Washingtons
influence in international affairs is bound to recede, indeed is already diminishing. For some, the wish is the father of this thought.
But where is the empirical evidence? From South Asia, through relations with China and Russia through the Middle East
peace process, through dealing with Irans nuclear ambitions and North Koreas nuclear weaponization and missile activities,
through confronting humanitarian crises in Africa and instability in Latin America , the United States has the
unchallenged diplomatic lead. Who could charge the Obama Administration with diplomatic passivity since taking office? Indeed,
one could instead conclude that the current global economic turbulence is causing countries to seek the familiar and to rely more and not less
on their American connection. In any event, foreigners (and some Americans) often underestimate the existential resilience of
the United States. In this respect, George Friedmans new book, The Next Hundred Years,14 and his view that the United States will be
as dominant a force in the 21st century as it was in the last half of the 20th century, is worth considering. So once again, those who now
predict, as they have in every decade since 1945, American decay and withdrawal will be wrong 15 from John
Flynns 1955 The Decline of the American Republic and How to Rebuild It,16 to Paul Kennedys 1987 The Rise and Fall of Great
Powers,17 to Andrew Bacevichs 2008 The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism,18 to Godfrey Hodgsons 2009 The
Myth of American Exceptionalism19 and many dozens of similar books in between. Indeed, the policies of the Obama Administration, for
better or worse, are likely to be far more influential and lasting regarding Americas longer-term geopolitical power projection than the
present economic decline. To sum up regarding the United States and the global economic worsening, former Council on Foreign Relations
President Les Gelb, in his new book, Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy,20 insists that a nations
power is what it always wasessentially the capacity to get people to do what they dont want to do, by pressure and coercion, using
ones resources and position. . . . The world is not flat. . . . The shape of global power is decidedly pyramidalwith the
United States alone at the top, a second tier of major countries (China, Japan, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, France,
Germany and Brazil), and several tiers descending below. . . . Among all nations, only the United States is a true global power with global
reach. Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, agrees: After the crisis, the US is most likely to
remain at the top of every key index of national power for decades . It will remain the dominant global player for the next
few decades. No major issue concerning international peace and stability can be resolved without US leadership, and no country or grouping
can yet replace America as the dominant global power.21 The current global economic crisis will not alter this reality. And the
capitalist market model will continue to dominate international economics, not least because China and India have adopted their own
versions of it.

No internal link to collapse of heg if decline was uneven, this wouldnt cause conflict or
damage US leadership
Deudney 99
Daniel Deudney, Assistant Prof of Poli Sci at Johns Hopkins, Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New
Environmental Politics
Alterations in the relative power of states are unlikely to lead to war as readily as the lessons of history suggest because
economic power and military power are not as tightly coupled as in the past. The relative economic power
position of major states such as Germany and Japan has changed greatly since the end of World War II. But
these changes, while requiring many complex adjustments in interstate relations, have not been accompanied by war or the threat
of war. In the contemporary world, whole industries rise, fall, and relocate, often causing quite substantial fluctuations
in the economic well-being of regions and peoples, without producing wars. There is no reason to believe that
changes in relative wealth and power positions caused by the uneven impact of environmental degradation would be different
in their effects.
 Econ---Resilient
Econ resilient
Kohn 15 Donald Kohn, Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings, 1/30/15, U.S. Monetary Policy: Moving
Toward the Exit in an Interconnected Global Economy, www.brookings.edu/research/speeches/2015/01/30-us-
monetary-policy-global-economy-kohn
The global financial authorities have made major strides in making their systems more resilient to unexpected
developments, in particular with higher capital and greater liquidity for banks and bank holding companies. In several
jurisdictions, banks have been stress tested with scenarios that included rising rates. Moreover, weve seen several
episodes in which volatility and risk spreads have risen, including the summer of 2013 during the so-called taper
tantrum, and in the past few months amid mounting uncertainty about global economic prospects, plunging oil prices, growing
political and economic tensions in the euro area, and strong monetary policy responses. Although theres been some fallout from these
financial market developments, none has threatened financial stability.

Economy resilient multiple economic crashes prove no risk of violence

Zakaria 9 Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek International editor, The Secrets of Stability, 12-12-09,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425
One year ago, the world seemed as if it might be coming apart. The global financial system, which had fueled a great expansion
of capitalism and trade across the world, was crumbling. All the certainties of the age of globalizationabout the virtues of free markets, trade, and
technologywere being called into question. Faith in the American model had collapsed. The financial industry had crumbled. Once-roaring emerging markets like
China, India, and Brazil were sinking. Worldwide trade was shrinking to a degree not seen since the 1930s. Pundits whose bearishness had been vindicated predicted
we were doomed to a long, painful bust, with cascading failures in sector after sector, country after country. In a widely cited essay that appeared in The Atlantic this
May, Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote: "The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump
'cannot be as bad as the Great Depression.' This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse than the Great Depression." Others predicted that
these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February,
the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of
economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story
predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the
financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer
investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the
financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisissoaring debt and
fears of inflation. But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political collapse
have not materialized at all. A key measure of fear and fragility is the ability of poor and unstable countries to borrow money on the debt markets. So
consider this: the sovereign bonds of tottering Pakistan have returned 168 percent so far this year. All this doesn't add up to a recovery yet, but it does reflect a return
to some level of normalcy. And that rebound has been so rapid that even the shrewdest observers remain puzzled. "The question I have at the back of my head is 'Is
that it?' " says Charles Kaye, the co-head of Warburg Pincus. "We had this huge crisis, and now we're back to business as usual?" This revival did not happen because
markets managed to stabilize themselves on their own. Rather, governments, having learned the lessons of the Great Depression, were
determined not to repeat the same mistakes once this crisis hit. By massively expanding state support for the economythrough central banks and
national treasuriesthey buffered the worst of the damage. (Whether they made new mistakes in the process remains to be seen.) The extensive social safety
nets that have been established across the industrialized world also cushioned the pain felt by many. Times are still tough, but things are
nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s, when governments played a tiny role in national economies. It's true that the massive state interventions of the past year may be
fueling some new bubbles: the cheap cash and government guarantees provided to banks, companies, and consumers have fueled some irrational exuberance in stock
and bond markets. Yet these rallies also demonstrate the return of confidence, and confidence is a very powerful economic force. When John Maynard Keynes
described his own prescriptions for economic growth, he believed government action could provide only a temporary fix until the real motor of the economy started
Beyond all this, though, I believe there's a
cranking againthe animal spirits of investors, consumers, and companies seeking risk and profit.
fundamental reason why we have not faced global collapse in the last year. It is the same reason that we weathered the
stock-market crash of 1987, the recession of 1992, the Asian crisis of 1997, the Russian default of 1998, and the tech-
bubble collapse of 2000. The current global economic system is inherently more resilient than we think . The world
today is characterized by three major forces for stability, each reinforcing the other and each historical in nature.
 Econ---US not key to global econ

US not key to global econ - Emerging economies pick up the slack

Patton 16
Mike Patton, Forbes, China's Economy Will Overtake The U.S. In 2018, 29 April 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/04/29/global-economic-news-china-will-surpass-the-u-s-in-
2018/#6c20a287224a

Each country measures economic growth by its gross domestic product or GDP. Negative or positive GDP indicates
whether the economy is contracting or expanding. When you combine the total economic output of each country, the
result is global GDP. In this article, we will reveal how Americas contribution to global GDP has been falling while
Chinas has been rising. Changes in the Global Economy The Conference Board estimates that by 2018, Chinas
contribution to global GDP will surpass that of the U.S. In other words, Chinas economy will become more
significant than Americas. How is this possible? Is the golden era of Made in America in our rearview mirror? Is
China entering a modern-day economic dynasty? To find the answer, we will examine the period beginning in 1970
and the forecast through 2025. Recommended by Forbes U.S. Government Deficit Is Rising Again Americans'
Biggest Financial Fears HP IncVoice: Six Keys For 3D Printing To Unlock The $12 Trillion Manufacturing Market
U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil Hits 30-Year Low America's Tax Burden: Tax Freedom Day From 1900 to 2015
MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State Amazon-Whole Foods Deal Is Bad News For Store
Cashiers And The Fight For $15... MOST POPULAR Photos: The 10 Most Dangerous U.S. Cities MOST
POPULAR Use A Side Gig To Fund Retirement The Standard Chartered Bank building, center, HSBC Holdings Plc
headquarters building, center right, and other buildings standing illuminated and shrouded in clouds are seen from
Victoria Peak at night in Hong Kong, China, on Wednesday, April 6, 2016. Cash is pouring into Hong Kong stocks
from across the mainland border. Photographer: Justin Chin/Bloomberg As the chart below indicates, the U.S.
contributed 21.2% of total global economic output in 1970. This remained consistent until the year 2000. In every
year since, with one exception, Americas percentage of the worlds economic output has declined. In 2015, the U.S.
contributed 16.7% of the worlds economy. By 2025, this is expected to fall to 14.9%. Equally noteworthy is the
exceptional rise in Chinas economy. In 1970, China was responsible for a mere 4.1% of the total. This rose to
15.6% in 2015. In 2025, Chinas contribution to the global economy is projected to be 17.2%. Since 1990, Chinas
percentage of total global output has risen every year with one exception (1998), when it fell by one percent. The
vertical black-dotted line on the chart denotes the year (2018) that Chinas economic contribution is projected to
surpass the U.S. Global GDP - Regional Distribution 1970 to 2025 There are some other notable conclusions we can
make from the chart. Europes economic contribution to global GDP is rapidly declining. India is gaining economic
influence but still has a long way to go. In 2015, Indias contribution to global GDP was 6.7%. This is expected to
rise to 8.7% by 2025. One of the most significant observations is that large developed economies are becoming less
significant while smaller, emerging economies are gaining power. This is not a complete surprise as smaller
economies are much more nimble than large ones. China's Rise How has China become such a dominant economic
power? Part of the reason is its booming auto industry. To illustrate, the total number of autos sold last year in China
was 24.6 million. This dwarfs total auto sales in the U.S. last year, which hit a record 17.5 million cars and trucks. In
addition, SUV sales in China increased a whopping 52% in 2015. Chinas auto industry is thriving and should
provide stiff competition for U.S. auto manufacturers in the years ahead. Unless the U.S. government levies high
tariffs on imports to equalize prices between Chinese autos and those made in America. It is important to remember
that the cost of production (labor included) is much lower in China. The worlds economy is changing and
globalization is alive and well. There will likely be a large number of new trade agreements in the months ahead as
well as an increase in U.S. based companies deriving revenue overseas. Gone are the days when it was sufficient for
investment analysts to analyze trends in the U.S., to the exclusion of foreign markets. In the current global
climate, we must recognize how foreign companies will compete with U.S. corporations. Rising globalization
should result in greater competition. If the federal government does not levy new and increased tariffs on imported
goods, the added competition will result in lower prices for the consumer. However, I wouldnt get too optimistic
about a lack of tariffs. The federal government will likely view this as a source of revenue and a way to help its
constituents rather than allow cheap imports to flood the U.S. Perhaps Americans will be buying more goods online,
directly from foreign companies. Does UPS or FedEx FDX +0.02% deliver cars? It could happen.
Global macroeconomic policies solve spillover
Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School and a contributing editor to
Foreign Policy, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics
66, no. 1 ( January 14), 12364

There is considerable evidence that global economic governance functioned comparatively well in response to the
2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession. Even through the initial drop in output and trade levels was more
acute in 2008 than in 1929, by any measure the global economy has rebounded more robustly in the past five
years than during the era of the Great Depression. The great powers and global governance structures successfully
coordinated policy outputs that alleviated the worst effects of the financial crisis. Key multilateral insti- tutions,
particularly in the financial realm, expanded their policy competencies and adjusted their governance structures to
better reflect the distribution of power in the world. Contrary to precrisis expectations, global economic
governance performed the necessary tasks to prevent the 2008 financial crisis from metastasizing into a
prolonged depression. Why is there such a profound gap between perceptions and reality in evaluating the
performance of multilateral economic institutions?98 The simplest explanation is that the core economiesthe
advanced industrialized democracieshave not rebounded as vigorously as expected. Two trends have marked most
postwar global business cycles: economies rebound as vigorously as they drop, and the advanced industrialized
states suffer less than the economic periphery. Neither of these trends has held during the Great Recession. As
previously noted, the recovery from a financial crisis tends to be longer and slower than standard business-cycle
recessions. After the 2008 financial crisis, the recovery has been particularly weak in the advanced industrialized
economies. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, the oecd economies averaged gdp growth of 0.5 percent
between 2008 and 2012. The non-oecd economies averaged 5.2 percent during the same period. A weak economy
feeds perceptions of institutional breakdown. The 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer reflects this phenomenon. It
shows that trust of elite institutions is significantly higher among developing countries than in the developed
world.99 This is a reversal of traditional findings that show lower levels of trust in emerging markets. Since the
study of global economic governance has been anchored in the developed world, it is not surprising that this
literature suffers from a pessimism bias.
Extensions vs. Hegemony Impact
 Heg- A-to: Brzezinski
Brzezinskis wrong decline will be stable and other powers will fill in
Xijin 12
Hu is the Editor in Chief of the Global Times. Decline Just Doesnt Translate, Published in Foreign Policy,
March/April, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/27/decline_just_doesn_t_translate
Zbigniew Brzezinski ("After America," January/February 2012) thinks the decline of the United States will pose huge risks to the
world and seems to assume that it will occur suddenly, when other powers are unprepared. This is unlikely. The so-
called "decline" of the United States, after all, is a relative concept. America is still at the forefront of technological
development, and its national wealth is growing, as is its population, unlike in many European countries. The present
economic crisis is temporary. The United States still has opportunities for adjustment. The American sense of crisis comes from comparing the
United States with emerging countries such as China and India in terms of the speed of development. However rapidly China develops, though, it will take at least half
a century for it to surpass the United States. The
rise of emerging powers will be closely connected with the shrinking of U.S.
power, and the process will leave no power vacuum. Countries will easily be able to bear the psychological burden
of adjustment .
 Heg = No Impact on peace
U.S. primacy isnt key to peace their data is flawed
Preble 10 Christopher Preble, director of Foreign Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, August 3, 2010, U.S.
Military Power: Preeminence for What Purpose?, online: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/u-s-military-power-
preeminence-for-what-purpose/
Most in Washington still embraces the notion that America is, and forever will be, the worlds indispensable nation. Some scholars, however,
questioned the logic of hegemonic stability theory from the very beginning. A number continue to do so today. They advance
arguments diametrically at odds with the primacist consensus. Trade routes need not be policed by a single dominant power; the
international economy is complex and resilient . Supply disruptions are likely to be temporary, and the costs of mitigating their effects
should be borne by those who stand to lose or gain the most. Islamic extremists are scary, but hardly comparable to the threat posed by
a globe-straddling Soviet Union armed with thousands of nuclear weapons. It is frankly absurd that we spend more today to fight Osama bin Laden and his
tiny band of murderous thugs than we spent to face down Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao. Many factors have contributed to the dramatic
decline in the number of wars between nation-states; it is unrealistic to expect that a new spasm of global conflict would
erupt if the United States were to modestly refocus its efforts, draw down its military power , and call on other
countries to play a larger role in their own defense, and in the security of their respective regions. But while there are credible
alternatives to the United States serving in its current dual role as world policeman / armed social worker, the foreign policy
establishment in Washington has no interest in exploring them. The people here have grown accustomed to living at the center of the earth, and indeed, of the
universe. The tangible benefits of all this military spending flow disproportionately to this tiny corner of the United States while the schlubs in fly-over country
pick up the tab.

No data suggests a causal link between unipolarity and peace

Fettweis 10 Christopher Fettweis, Professor of Political Science at Tulane University, 2010, Dangerous Times?
The International Politics of Great Power Peace, p. 172-174
The primary attack on restraint, or justification for internationalism, posits that if the U nited S tates were to withdraw
from the world, a variety of ills would sweep over key regions and eventually pose threats to U.S. security and/or
prosperity. These problems might take three forms (besides the obvious, if remarkably unlikely, direct threats to the homeland): generalized
chaos, hostile imbalances in Eurasia, and/or failed states. Historian Arthur Schlesinger was typical when he worried that restraint would
mean "a chaotic, violent, and ever more dangerous planet."69 All of these concerns either implicitly or explicitly assume that the presence of
the United States is the primary reason for international stability, and if that presence were withdrawn chaos would ensue. In other words,
they depend upon hegemonic-stability logic. Simply stated, the hegemonic stability theory proposes that international peace is only possible
when there is one country strong enough to make and enforce a set of rules. At the height of Pax Romana between 27 BC and 180 AD, for
example, Rome was able to bring unprecedented peace and security to the Mediterranean. The Pax Britannica of the nineteenth century
brought a level of stability to the high seas. Perhaps the current era is peaceful because the United States has established a de facto Pax
Americana where no power is strong enough to challenge its dominance, and because it has established a set of rules that are generally in the
interests of all countries to follow. Without a benevolent hegemon, some strategists fear, instability may break out around
the globe.70 Unchecked conflicts could cause humanitarian disaster and, in today's interconnected world, economic turmoil that would
ripple throughout global financial markets. If the United States were to abandon its commitments abroad, argued Art, the world would
"become a more dangerous place" and, sooner or later, that would "redound to Americas detriment."71 If the massive spending that the
United States engages in actually provides stability in the international political and economic systems, then perhaps internationalism is
worthwhile. There are good theoretical and empirical reasons, however, to believe that U.S hegemony is not the
primary cause of the current era of stability . First of all, the hegemonic-stability argument overstates the role that the
United States plays in the system. No country is strong enough to police the world on its own. The only way there
can be stability in the community of great powers is if self-policing occurs , if states have decided that their interests
are served by peace. If no pacific normative shift had occurred among the great powers that was filtering down through
the system, then no amount of international constabulary work by the United States could maintain stability.
Likewise, if it is true that such a shift has occurred, then most of what the hegemon spends to bring stability would be
wasted . The 5 percent of the worlds population that live in the United States simply could not force peace upon an unwilling 95. At the
risk of beating the metaphor to death, the United States maybe patrolling a neighborhood that has already rid itself of
crime. Stability and unipolarity may be simply coincidental . In order for U.S. hegemony to be the reason for
global stability, the rest of the world would have to expect reward for good behavior and fear punishment for
bad. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not always proven to be especially eager to engage in humanitarian
interventions abroad. Even rather incontrovertible evidence of genocide has not been sufficient to inspire action. Hegemonic stability
can only take credit for influencing those decisions that would have ended in war without the presence ,
whether physical or psychological, of the U nited S tates. Ethiopia and Eritrea are hardly the only states that could go to war without the
slightest threat of U.S. intervention. Since most of the world today is free to fight without U.S. involvement ,
something else must be at work. Stability exists in many places where no hegemony is present . Second, the limited
empirical evidence we have suggests that there is little connection between the relative level of U.S. activism
and international stability . During the 1990s the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998 the
United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in I990.72 To internationalists, defense hawks, and other
believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible "peace dividend" endangered both national and global security. "No serious analyst of
American military capabilities," argued Kristol and Kagan, "doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America's
responsibilities to itself and to world peace."7' If the pacific trends were due not to U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against
interstate war, however, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence.

Unipolarity causes policy failure they cant access any impact

Glaser 11
Charles L. professor in the Elliott School of International Affairs and the Department of Political Science at the
George Washington University and the director of the Elliott Schools Institute for Security and Conict Studies,
June 2011, Why unipolarity doesnt matter (much), Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 24, No. 2, p.
135-147
A still different type of argument holds that unipolar powers tend to adopt expanded interests and associated goals that
unipolarity then enables them to achieve. To the extent that these goals are actually in the unipoles true interest, unipolarity is good for the
unipole. In broad terms, this argument follows the claim that states interests and goals grow with their power. 19 These expanded goals can be attributed to three
different types of factors. 20 The rst is a permissive structure, which allows the state to pursue more ambitious goals. The states
interests do not change, but its increased ability to pursue them results in a redenition of its goals. A state could have goals that were previously unachievable at
acceptable cost; by lowering the costs, unipolarity places these goals within reach, enabling the state to make itself better off. A unipoles desire for a higher
degree of security can be an example of this type of expanded goal, reecting the means that it can wield. Second, the
state can acquire new
interests, which are generated by the unipoles greater territorial and institutional reach . For example, a state that controls
more territory may face new threats and, as a result, conclude that it needs to control still more territory, acquire still more power, and/or restructure international
institutions to further protect its interests. Third, the
unipoles goals can be inuenced by what is commonly described as human nature
and by psychology. A unipolar state will be inclined to lose track of how secure it is and consequently pursue
inappropriate policies that are designed to increase its security but turn out to be too costly and/or to have a
high probability of backring. One variant of this type of argument expects unipolar powers to conclude that
they need to spread their type of governance or political ideology to be secure. These dangers can be
reinforced by a tendency for a unipolar power to see its new interests, which are optional, as necessary ones. The rst two types of expanded interests and goals
question here is whether the interests the United States might nd within its reach due to
can make the unipole better off. The
its unipolar position are very valuable. With respect to security, the answer is no . For the reasons summarized above, the United
States can be very secure in bipolarity, and unipolarity is important only in an extreme and unlikely case . Other US
goals, for example, spreading democracy and free markets, do not depend on unipolarity , at least not its military dimension.
Instead, whether these liberal systems spread will depend most heavily on their own effectiveness. Regarding the down side, there does not appear to be an
overwhelming reason that the United States cannot avoid the dangers of unipolar overreach. The Bush administration certainly proved itself vulnerable to these
dangers and the United States is continuing to pay for its awed judgments. Arguably, strands of overreach can be traced back to the Clinton administrations
emphasis on democratic enlargement, although the means that it chose were much more in line with US interests. 21 And the Obama administrations decision to
escalate the war in Afghanistan may well be an example of striving for too much security. Nevertheless, none of the basic arguments about unipolarity explain
why these errors are unavoidable. The overreach claim is more an observation about the past than a well-supported prediction about the future. We do not have
strong reasons for concluding that the United States will be unable to benet from analyses of its grand strategy options, learning to both appreciate how very
unipolarity does little to enable the
secure it is and at the same time to respect the limits of its power. In sum, then, under current conditions,
United States to increase its security. Given the limited benets of unipolarity and the not insignicant dangers of
unipolar overreach , the United States will have to choose its policies wisely if it is going to be better off in a unipolar world than a
bipolar one.

US leadership solves nothing

Walt 16
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, Foreign
Policy, June 9, 2016, Why Is Americas Foreign Policy Still Punching Above Its Weight?,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/09/why-is-americas-foreign-policy-still-punching-above-its-weight/

These days, both proponents and critics of Americas omnipresent role in the world tend to portray U.S. foreign policy
as the single most important factor driving world affairs. For defenders of global activism, active U.S. engagement
(including a willingness to use military force in a wide variety of situations) is the source of most of the positive developments that
have occurred over the past 50 years and remains critical to preserving a liberal world order. By contrast, critics of U.S. foreign policy
both at home and abroad tend to blame U.S. imperialism, the Great Satan, or mendacious Beltway bungling for a host of evil actions or
adverse global trends and believe the world will continue to deteriorate unless the United States mends its evil ways.
Both sides of this debate are wrong. To be sure, the United States is still the single most influential actor on the world stage. Although
its population is only about 5 percent of humankind, the United States produces roughly 20 to 25 percent of gross world product and remains the
only country with global military capabilities. It has security partnerships all over the world, considerable influence in many international
organizations, and it casts a large cultural shadow.
The United States, in short, is hardly the pitiful, helpless giant that Richard Nixon once feared it would become. At the same time, it
deserves neither all of the credit nor all of the blame for the current state of world politics . Lets unpack these competing
claims and see where each one goes astray.
For defenders of the U.S.-led liberal world order, Americas global role is the source of (almost) All Good Things. As Samuel P. Huntington
put it more than 20 years ago, U.S. primacy is central to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the
world. Or as Politicos Michael Hirsh once wrote (possibly after one too many espressos), the role played by the United States is the greatest
gift the world has received in many, many centuries, possibly all of recorded history.
Hyperbole aside, that self-congratulatory worldview is almost a truism within the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. In this version of recent
world events, Americas Greatest Generation defeated fascism in World War II and then went on to found the United Nations, lead the global
campaign for human rights, spread democracy far and wide, and create and guide the key economic institutions (World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc.)
that have produced six decades of (mostly) steady economic growth. By leading alliances in Europe and Asia and deploying its military force far
and wide, the United States has also ensured six decades of great power peace. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright captured this
narrative perfectly when she famously said the United States was the indispensable nation that sees further than others do, and all three post-
Cold War presidents embraced and endorsed that view as well.
Theres more than a grain of truth in some of these claims, but defenders of American leadership badly overstate their case.
Yes, weve seen 60-plus years without a direct clash between major powers, but the nuclear revolution probably has
as much to do with the reluctance of great powers to fight each other as with the global military presence of the
U nited S tates. Moreover, as John Mueller has argued, the past few decades of peace may also be due to cultural and
attitudinal changes occasioned by the destruction and brutality of the two world wars . Nor should we forget
Europes own efforts to build a supranational organization beginning with the original European Coal and Steel Community and
culminating in the E uropean U nion that was explicitly intended to prevent a return to the bloodlettings of the past.
The point is that we do not really know why the past 60 years have been more peaceful than the decades that
preceded them, but U.S. leadership was probably only one factor among several.
Furthermore , this peaceful world order was actually quite limited in scope and hardly covered the entire globe. As
American historian Andrew Bacevich makes clear, the pacifying effects of U.S. leadership did not prevent costly wars in
Korea or Indochina , did not prevent India and Pakistan from fighting in 1965 or 1971 , and did not stop millions of
Africans from dying in recurring civil and international wars . The United States did help end the brief Middle East
wars in 1956, 1967, and 1973, but it did little to prevent them from breaking out and didnt get serious about
genuine peace efforts until it helped broker the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in the 1970s. Washington did nothing to stop
the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), and U.S. leaders actively fueled conflicts in Central America and Southern Africa when they seemed to serve
broader strategic purposes. U.S. aid to the Afghan mujahideen may have helped bring the Soviet Union down, but it also helped wreck
Afghanistan and gave birth to the Taliban and al Qaeda. More recently, American leadership has produced failed states or worse in Iraq, Libya,
Yemen, and Somalia. As an agent for peace , in short, the U nited S tates has a decidedly mixed record.
We should be equally cautious in crediting America with the past six decades of economic growth. To be sure, the original Bretton Woods
institutions performed reasonably well in their day, and U.S. support for trade liberalization helped reduce global tariffs and fueled the post-
World War II recoveries. But U.S. leadership of the world economy was hardly an unbroken string of successes : U.S.
Middle East policy helped cause the punishing oil crises of the 1970s, and the 2008 financial crisis from which the
world economy is still recovering began right here in the U nited S tates.
My point is not that the U.S. role in the world has been consistently negative; the point is that those who believe U.S. leadership is the
primary barrier to a return to anarchy and barbarism are overstating Americas positive contributions . It is far from
obvious, for example, that the United States needs to garrison the world in order to maintain a healthy U.S. economy, because it is free to trade
and invest wherever profitable opportunities arise. Or as Dan Drezner has noted: The economic benefits from military
predominance alone seem, at a minimum, to have been exaggerated in policy and scholarly circles.
But if defenders of American hegemony give U.S. leadership too much credit, some critics of U.S. foreign policy make the opposite error. Im
often critical of U.S. foreign policy and especially its overreliance on military force, indifference to the deaths it causes, self-righteous
hypocrisy, and refusal to hold officials accountable but my criticisms pale in comparison to those offered up by the extreme left and extreme
right and by many foreign opponents. Blaming all the worlds ills on the United States is not merely factually wrong; it lets the real perpetrators
off the hook.
For example, though it is clear that unthinking U.S. support has sometimes enabled allies to misbehave in various ways, these states acted as they
did for their own reasons and not because they were following Washingtons orders. The United States did not want Pakistan to develop nuclear
weapons or back the Taliban, for example, and it does not want Israel to keep expanding settlements or pummeling Gaza for no good reason. Nor
did Washington want Saudi Arabia to spend millions of dollars spreading Wahhabi ideology or want other key allies to sign up for Chinas Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank. U.S. leaders did not do all they could to stop these (and other) activities, but even a global superpower cannot
control everything its allies do.
Similarly, the United States did not launch the uprisings against Muammar al-Qaddafi or Bashar al-Assad, did not start the long civil conflict in
Yemen, and cannot be blamed for the Sunni-Shiite divide that is now polarizing the Middle East. The financial meltdown on Wall Street may
have triggered the euro crisis, but the United States is not responsible for the foolish decision to create the euro in the first place, and Washington
didnt tell the Greek government to cook its books or tell German banks to make foolish loans. The Turkish, Polish, and Hungarian governments
arent drifting toward authoritarianism today because Washington encouraged them, and they will almost certainly chart their own course no
matter what U.S. leaders advise.
Instead of seeing the United States as all-powerful and either uniquely good or evil, therefore, it makes more sense to see it as pretty
much like most past great powers. It has done some good things, mostly out of self-interest but occasionally for the
benefit of others as well. It has made some pretty horrific blunders , and these actions had significant repercussions. It has done
bad things for the usual reasons overconfidence, ignorance, excessive idealism, etc. and, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, just because it could.
 Heg---No Impact---A-to: Quick Collapse
Our evidence assumes a massive, short-term internal link
MacDonald 11
Paul K. Assistant Professor of Political Science at Williams College, and Joseph M. Parent, Assistant Professor of
Political Science at the University of Miami, Spring 2011, Graceful Decline?: The Surprising Success of Great
Power Retrenchment, International Security, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 7-44
In theory, states should retrench whenever they experience declines in their relative power. In practice, some
periods of relative decline are of more analytical interest than others. For the purposes of this article, we focus on periods
of what we call " acute relative decline ." These are periods characterized by two features. First, a great power suffers a
decline in relative power that decreases its ordinal ranking among the great powers. Second, this decrease in
relative power remains evident for at least a five-year period. In making this argument, we are assuming that states are
most likely to retrench when they have lost their position in the rank order and that loss does not appear to be
temporary .
 Heg---No Impact---A-to: US Lashout
No U.S. lashout retrenchment causes caution and restraint reduces the risk of war
MacDonald 11
Paul K. Assistant Professor of Political Science at Williams College, and Joseph M. Parent, Assistant Professor of
Political Science at the University of Miami, Spring 2011, Graceful Decline?: The Surprising Success of Great
Power Retrenchment, International Security, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 7-44
With regard to militarized disputes, declining great powers demonstrate more caution and restraint in the use
of force: they were involved in an average of 1.7 fewer militarized disputes in the five years following ordinal
change compared with other great powers over similar periods.67 Declining great powers also initiated fewer
militarized disputes , and their disputes tended to escalate to lower levels of hostility than the baseline
category (see figure 2).68 These findings suggest the need for a fundamental revision to the pessimist's argument
regarding the war proneness of declining powers.69 Far from being more likely to lash out aggressively,
declining states refrain from initiating and escalating military disputes . Nor do declining great powers
appear more vulnerable to external predation than other great powers. This may be because external predators have great
difficulty assessing the vulnerability of potential victims, or because retrenchment allows vulnerable powers to
effectively recover from decline and still deter potential challengers .
 Heg---No Impact---A-to: Rising Powers

Rising powers will be cooperative and integrated into the liberal international order
Ikenberry 11
(May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, G. John, PhD, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs
at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, The Future of the Liberal World Order, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67730/g-john-
ikenberry/the-future-of-the-liberal-world-order?page=show)
For all these reasons, many observers have concluded that world politics is experiencing not just a changing of the guard
but also a transition in the ideas and principles that underlie the global order. The journalist Gideon Rachman, for example,
says that a cluster of liberal internationalist ideas -- such as faith in democratization, confidence in free markets, and the acceptability of U.S.
military power -- are all being called into question. According to this worldview, the future of international order will be
shaped above all by China, which will use its growing power and wealth to push world politics in an illiberal direction. Pointing out that
China and other non-Western states have weathered the recent financial crisis better than their Western counterparts, pessimists argue that
an authoritarian capitalist alternative to Western neoliberal ideas has already emerged. According to the scholar Stefan
Halper, emerging-market states "are learning to combine market economics with traditional autocratic or
semiautocratic politics in a process that signals an intellectual rejection of the Western economic model." Today's
But this panicked narrative misses a
international order is not really American or Western--even if it initially appeared that way.
deeper reality: although the United States' position in the global system is changing, the liberal international
order is alive and well. The struggle over international order today is not about fundamental principles. China and other
emerging great powers do not want to contest the basic rules and principles of the liberal international order; they wish
to gain more authority and leadership within it. Indeed, today's power transition represents not the defeat of the
liberal order but its ultimate ascendance. Brazil, China, and India have all become more prosperous and capable by
operating inside the existing international order -- benefiting from its rules, practices, and institutions, including the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and the newly organized G-20. Their economic success and growing influence are tied to the liberal
internationalist organization of world politics, and they have deep interests in preserving that system. In the
meantime, alternatives to an open and rule-based order have yet to crystallize. Even though the last decade has brought
remarkable upheavals in the global system -- the emergence of new powers, bitter disputes among Western allies over the United
States' unipolar ambitions, and a global financial crisis and recession -- the liberal international order has no competitors . On
the contrary, the rise of non-Western powers and the growth of economic and security interdependence are creating new constituencies for it. To
be sure, as wealth and power become less concentrated in the United States' hands, the country will be less able to
shape world politics. But the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive.
Indeed, now may be the best time for the United States and its democratic partners to update the liberal order for a new era, ensuring that it
continues to provide the benefits of security and prosperity that it has provided since the middle of the twentieth century.

Cooperation is more likely

Ikenberry 8 Milbank politics prof and International Affairs, Princeton. Co-faculty director of the Princeton Project on National Security. Former Transatlantic Fellow at the German
Marshall Fund. Former fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Former member of an advisory group at the State Department. Former member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. Senior Fellow at Brookings, former prof at Georgetown and U Penn. PhD from U Chicago (John, The Rise of China and the Future of the West, 28 January 2 008,
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/20080101faessay_v87n1_ikenberry.html)
unlike the imperial systems of the past, the Western order is built around rules and norms of nondiscrimination and market openness,
First,
creating conditions for rising states to advance their expanding economic and political goals within it. Across history, international orders have varied widely
in terms of whether the material benefits that are generated accrue disproportionately to the leading state or are widely shared. In the Western system, the barriers to economic participation are
low, and the potential benefits are high. China has already discovered the massive economic returns that are possible by operating within this open-market system. Second is the coalition-based
current Western order include a coalition of powers
character of its leadership. Past orders have tended to be dominated by one state. The stakeholders of the
These leading states, most of them advanced liberal democracies, do not always agree, but they are
arrayed around the United States -- an important distinction.
engaged in a continuous process of give-and-take over economics, politics, and security. Power transitions are typically seen as
being played out between two countries, a rising state and a declining hegemon, and the order falls as soon as the power balance shifts. But in the current
order, the larger aggregation of democratic capitalist states -- and the resulting accumulation of geopolitical power -- shifts the
balance in the order's favor. Third, the postwar Western order has an unusually dense, encompassing, and broadly endorsed system of rules and institutions. Whatever its
shortcomings, it is more open and rule-based than any previous order. State sovereignty and the rule of law are not just norms enshrined in the United Nations Charter. They are part of the deep
operating logic of the order. To be sure, these norms are evolving, and the United States itself has historically been ambivalent about binding itself to international law and institutions -- and at no
the overall system is dense with multilateral rules and institutions -- global and regional, economic,
time more so than today. But
political, and security-related. These represent one of the great breakthroughs of the postwar era. They have laid the basis for
unprecedented levels of cooperation and shared authority over the global system. The incentives these features create for China to integrate into the
liberal international order are reinforced by the changed nature of the international economic environment -- especially the new interdependence driven by technology. The most farsighted
Chinese leaders understand that globalization has changed the game and that China accordingly needs strong, prosperous partners around the world. From the United States' perspective, a healthy
Chinese economy is vital to the United States and the rest of the world. Technology and the global economic revolution have created a logic of economic relations that is different from the past --
 these features today is that they give
making the political and institutional logic of the current order all the more powerful. Accommodating the Rise The most important benefit of
the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority
and opportunities to play a role in governing the order. The fact that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to overturn the
great-power war is, thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical change. War-driven
existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence,

change has been abolished as a historical process.

 Heg---A-to Brooks, et al
Best data concludes no impact to heg
Friedman 13
et al; Benjamin H. ; research fellow in defense and homeland security studies; Brendan Rittenhouse Green, the
Stanley Kaplan Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Science and Leadership Studies at Williams College; Justin Logan,
Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute Fall 2013, Correspondence: Debating American
Engagement: The Future of U.S. Grand Strategy, International Security, Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 181-199
Brooks et al. argue that the specter of U.S. power eliminates some of the most baleful consequences of anarchy, producing a more peaceful
world. U.S. security guarantees deter aggressors, reassure allies, and dampen security dilemmas (p. 34). By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active
management, Brooks et al. write, primacy reduces security competition and does so in a way that slows the diffusion of power away from the United States (pp.
3940). There are three reasons to reject this logic : security competition is declining anyway; if competition increases,
primacy will have difficulty stopping it; and even if competition occurred, it would pose little threat to the United States.
an increasingly peaceful world. An array of research , some of which Brooks et al. cite, indicates that factors other than U.S. power are
diminishing interstate war and security competition .2 These factors combine to make the costs of military aggression very high, and its benefits
low.3 A major reason for peace is that conquest has grown more costly. Nuclear weapons make it nearly suicidal in some cases.4
Asia, the region where future great power competition is most likely, has a geography of peace: its maritime and mountainous regions are formidable
barriers to conflict.5 Conquest also yields lower economic returns than in the past . Post-industrial economies that rely heavily on human
capital and information are more difficult to exploit.6 Communications and transport technologies aid nationalism and other identity politics that make foreigners
harder to manage. The lowering of trade barriers limits the returns from their forcible opening .7 Although states are slow learners,
they increasingly appreciate these trends . That should not surprise structural realists. Through two world wars, the international
system "selected against" hyperaggressive states and demonstrated even to victors the costs of major war. Others adapt
to the changed calculus of military aggression through socialization.8 managing revisionist states. Brooks et al. caution against
betting on these positive trends. They worry that if states behave the way offensive realism predicts, then security competition will be fierce even
if its costs are high. Or, if nonsecurity preferences such as prestige, status, or glory motivate states, even secure states may become aggressive (pp. 36-37).9
These scenarios, however, are a bigger problem for primacy than for restraint . Offensive realist security paranoia stems
from states' uncertainty about intentions; such states see alliances as temporary expedients of last resort, and U.S. military commitments
are unlikely to comfort or deter them .10 Nonsecurity preferences are, by definition, resistant to the security
blandishments that the United States can offer under primacy Brooks et al.'s revisionist actors are unlikely to find additional costs sufficient reason
to hold back, or the threat of those costs to be particularly credible. The literature that Brooks et al. cite in arguing that the United States restrains allies
actually suggests that offensive realist and prestige-oriented states will be the most resistant to the restraining effects
of U.S. power. These studies suggest that it is most difficult for strong states to prevent conflict between weaker allies and their rivals when the restraining state
is defending nonvital interests; when potential adversaries and allies have other alignment options;11 when the stronger state struggles to mobilize power
domestically12; when the stronger state perceives reputational costs for non-involvement;13 and when allies have hawkish interests and the stronger state has only
moderately dovish interests.14 In other words, the
cases where it would be most important to restrain U.S. allies are those in
which Washington's efforts at restraint would be least effective . Highly motivated actors, by definition, have strong hawkish interests.
Primacy puts limits on U.S. dovishness, lest its commitments lack the credibility to deter or reassure. Such credibility concerns create perceived reputational costs for
restraining or not bailing out allies. The United States will be defending secondary interests, which will create domestic obstacles to mobilizing power. U.S. allies
have other alliance options, especially in Asia. In short, if
states are insensitive to the factors incentivizing peace, then the U nited States'
ability to manage global security will be doubtful. Third-party security competition will likely ensue anyway. costs for
whom? Fortunately, foreign security competition poses little risk to the United States. Its wealth and geography create natural security.
Historically, the only threats to U.S. sovereignty, territorial integrity, safety, or power position have been potential regional hegemons that could mobilize their
resources to project political and military power into the Western Hemisphere. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union arguably posed such threats. None exist today.
Brooks et al. argue that "China's rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table , at least in the
medium to long term" (p. 38). That possibility is remote , even assuming that China sustains its rapid wealth creation. Regional hegemony
requires China to develop the capacity to conquer Asia's other regional powers . India lies across the Himalayas and has
nuclear weapons. Japan is across a sea and has the wealth to quickly build up its military and develop nuclear weapons. A
disengaged United States would have ample warning and time to form alliances or regenerate forces before China realizes
such vast ambitions.
 Utilitarian vs. Morality - Extensions
Note: this is housed in its own section because the 1NC utilitarianism good argument could be vs. either the
Discrimination Advantage or vs. some versions of the Excess Flex Bad Advantage.
Utilitarian/Morality Backlines are here
 Extensions Utilitarianism 1st

Categorical appeals to ethics coming 1st are wrong. Utility is net more ethical
Williams 5
(Michael, Professor of International Politics at the University of WalesAberystwyth, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International
Relations, p. 174-176)
A commitment to an ethic of consequences reflects a deeper ethic of criticism, of 'self-clarification', and thus of reflection
upon the values adopted by an individual or a collectivity. It is part of an attempt to make critical evaluation an intrinsic element of responsibility.
Responsibility to this more fundamental ethic gives the ethic of consequences meaning. Consequentialism and responsibility are here drawn into
what Schluchter, in terms that will be familiar to anyone conversant with constructivism in International Relations, has called a 'reflexive
principle'. In the wilful Realist vision, scepticism and consequentialism are linked in an attempt to construct not just a
more substantial vision of political responsibility, but also the kinds of actors who might adopt it, and the kinds of
social structures that might support it. A consequentialist ethic is not simply a choice adopted by actors: it is a means of trying to
foster particular kinds of self-critical individuals and societies, and in so doing to encourage a means by which one can justify and foster a politics
of responsibility. The ethic of responsibility in wilful Realism thus involves a commitment to both autonomy and
limitation, to freedom and restraint, to an acceptance of limits and the criticism of limits. Responsibility clearly
involves prudence and an accounting for current structures and their historical evolution; but it is not limited to this, for it seeks ultimately the
creation of responsible subjects within a philosophy of limits. Seen in this light, the Realist commitment to objectivity appears quite differently.
Objectivity in terms of consequentialist analysis does not simply take the actor or action as given, it is a political practice an attempt to foster a
responsible self, undertaken by an analyst with a commitment to objectivity which is itself based in a desire to foster a politics of responsibility.
Objectivity in the sense of coming to terms with the 'reality' of contextual conditions and likely outcomes of
action is not only necessary for success, it is vital for self-reflection, for sustained engagement with the practical
and ethical adequacy of one's views. The blithe, self-serving, and uncritical stances of abstract moralism or rationalist
objectivism avoid self-criticism by refusing to engage with the intractability of the world 'as it is'. Reducing the
world to an expression of their theoretical models, political platforms, or ideological programmes, they fail to engage
with this reality, and thus avoid the process of self-reflection at the heart of responsibility. By contrast, Realist
objectivity takes an engagement with this intractable 'object' that is not reducible to one's wishes or will as a necessary condition of ethical
engagement, self-reflection, and self-creation.7 Objectivity is not a naive naturalism in the sense of scientific laws or rationalist calculation; it is a
necessary engagement with a world that eludes one's will. A recognition of the limits imposed by 'reality' is a condition for a
recognition of one's own limits that the world is not simply an extension of one's own will . But it is also a
challenge to use that intractability as a source of possibility, as providing a set of openings within which a suitably
chastened and yet paradoxically energised will to action can responsibly be pursued. In the wilful Realist tradition, the essential opacity of both
the self and the world are taken as limiting principles. Limits upon understanding provide chastening parameters for claims about the
world and actions within it. But they also provide challenging and creative openings within which diverse forms of life
can be developed: the limited unity of the self and the political order is the precondition for freedom. The
ultimate opacity of the world is not to be despaired of: it is a condition of possibility for the wilful, creative
construction of selves and social orders which embrace the diverse human potentialities which this lack of essential
or intrinsic order makes possible.8 But it is also to be aware of the less salutary possibilities this involves. Indeterminacy is not synonymous with
absolute freedom it is both a condition of, and imperative toward, responsibility.

Deontology is violent and doesnt contextualize to public policy decisionmaking.

Woller 97
(Gary, Economics Professor at BYU, Policy Currents, June, http://apsapolicysection.org/vol7_2/72.pdf , p. 11)
At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, a
priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public
policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or
actually making it worse. For example, a moral obligation to preserve the environment by no means implies the best way, or any way for
that matter, to do so, just as there is no a priori reason to believe that any policy that claims to preserve the environment will actually do so. Any
number of policies might work, and others, although seemingly consistent with the moral principle, will fail utterly. That deontological principles
are an inadequate basis for environmental policy is evident in the rather significant irony that most forms of deontologically based environmental
laws and regulations tend to be implemented in a very utilitarian manner by street-level enforcement officials. Moreover, ignoring the relevant
costs and benefits of environmental policy and their attendant incentive structures can, as alluded to above, actually work at cross purposes to
environmental preservation. (There exists an extensive literature on this aspect of regulatory enforcement and the often perverse outcomes of
regulatory policy. See, for example, Ackerman, 1981; Bartrip and Fenn, 1983; Hawkins, 1983, 1984; Hawkins and Thomas, 1984.) Even the most
die-hard preservationist/deontologist would, I believe, be troubled by this outcome. The above points are perhaps best expressed by Richard
Flathman, The number of values typically involved in public policy decisions, the broad categories which must be employed and
above all, the scope and complexity of the consequences to be anticipated militate against reasoning so conclusively that they generate
an imperative to institute a specific policy. It is seldom the case that only one policy will meet the criteria of the public interest (1958, p. 12).
It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the
problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this
requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient,
though perhaps at times a necessary, basis for public policy in a democracy.

Ethical obligations are tautological- the only coherent rubric is to maximize lives
Greene 10
Joshua Greene, Associate Professor of the Social Sciences Department of Psychology Harvard University, 10, Moral
Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings, The Secret Joke of Kants Soul,
www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Developmental/Greene-KantSoul.pdf
What turn-of-the-millennium science is telling us is that human moral judgment is not a pristine rational enterprise, that
our moral judgments are driven by a hodgepodge of emotional dispositions, which themselves were shaped by a

hodgepodge of evolutionary forces, both biological and cultural . Because of this, it is exceedingly unlikely that there
is any rationally coherent normative moral theory that can accommodate our moral intuitions . Moreover, anyone who
claims to have such a theory, or even part of one, almost certainly doesn't . Instead, what that person probably has is a moral rationalization. It seems then, that
we have somehow crossed the infamous "is"-"ought" divide. How did this happen? Didn't Hume (Hume, 1978) and Moore (Moore, 1966) warn us against trying to derive an "ought" from and
"is?" How did we go from descriptive scientific theories concerning moral psychology to skepticism about a whole class of normative moral theories? The answer is that we did not, as Hume and
Moore anticipated, attempt to derive an "ought" from and "is." That is, our method has been inductive rather than deductive. We have inferred on the basis of the available evidence that the
phenomenon of rationalist deontological philosophy is best explained as a rationalization of evolved emotional intuition (Harman, 1977). Missing the Deontological Point I
suspect that rationalist deontologists will remain unmoved by the arguments presented here. Instead, I suspect, they will insist that
I have simply misunderstood what Kant and like-minded deontologists are all about . Deontology, they will say, isn't about
this intuition or that intuition. It's not defined by its normative differences with consequentialism. Rather, deontology is about taking humanity
seriously. Above all else, it's about respect for persons. It's about treating others as fellow rational creatures rather than as mere objects, about acting for reasons rational beings can share.
And so on (Korsgaard, 1996a; Korsgaard, 1996b).This is, no doubt, how many deontologists see deontology. But this insider's view , as I've

suggested, may be misleading . The problem, more specifically, is that it defines deontology in terms of values that are not

distinctively deontological , though they may appear to be from the inside. Consider the following analogy with religion. When one
asks a religious person to explain the essence of his religion, one often gets an answer like this: "It's about love, really.
It's about looking out for other people, looking beyond oneself. It's about community, being part of something larger than oneself." This sort of answer accurately
captures the phenomenology of many people's religion, but it's nevertheless inadequate for distinguishing religion
from other things. This is because many, if not most, non-religious people aspire to love deeply, look out for other people, avoid self-absorption, have a sense of a community, and be
connected to things larger than themselves. In other words, secular humanists and atheists can assent to most of what many religious people think religion is all about. From a secular humanist's
point of view, in contrast, what's distinctive about religion is its commitment to the existence of supernatural entities as well as formal religious institutions and doctrines. And they're right. These
things really do distinguish religious from non-religious practices, though they may appear to be secondary to many people operating from within a religious point of view. In the same way, I
the standard deontological/Kantian self-characterizatons fail to distinguish deontology from other
believe that most of

approaches to ethics . (See also Kagan (Kagan, 1997, pp. 70-78.) on the difficulty of defining deontology.) It seems to me that consequentialists, as much as anyone else,
have respect for persons , are against treating people as mere objects , wish to act for reasons that rational creatures
can share, etc. A consequentialist respects other persons, and refrains from treating them as mere objects, by
counting every person's well-being in the decision-making process . Likewise, a consequentialist attempts to act
according to reasons that rational creatures can share by acting according to principles that give equal weight to
everyone's interests, i.e. that are impartial. This is not to say that consequentialists and deontologists don't differ. They do. It's just that the real differences may not be
what deontologists often take them to be. What, then, distinguishes deontology from other kinds of moral thought? A good strategy for answering this question is to start with concrete
disagreements between deontologists and others (such as consequentialists) and then work backward in search of deeper principles. This is what I've attempted to do with the trolley and
If you ask a deontologically-minded person why it's wrong to
footbridge cases, and other instances in which deontologists and consequentialists disagree.

push someone in front of speeding trolley in order to save five others, you will getcharacteristically deontological answers. Some will be
tautological : "Because it's murder!" Others will be more sophisticated: "The ends don't justify the means." "You have to
respect people's rights." But , as we know, these answers don't really explain anything, because if you give the same people (on different

occasions) the trolley case or the loop case (See above), they'll make the opposite judgment , even though their initial explanation concerning the footbridge case

applies equally well to one or both of these cases. Talk about rights, respect for persons, and reasons we can share are natural attempts to
explain, in "cognitive" terms, what we feel when we find ourselves having emotionally driven intuitions that are
odds with the cold calculus of consequentialism. Although these explanations are inevitably incomplete, there seems to be "something
deeply right" about them because they give voice to powerful moral emotions. But, as with many religious people's
accounts of what's essential to religion, they don't really explain what's distinctive about the philosophy in question.

Even ethical frameworks would conclude we should prevent existential risks

Bostrom 11
Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute, and
Director of the Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology at the University of Oxford, recipient of the 2009 Eugene R.
Gannon Award for the Continued Pursuit of Human Advancement, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the London School of
Economics, 2011 The Concept of Existential Risk, Draft of a Paper published on ExistentialRisk.com, Available Online at
http://www.existentialrisk.com/concept.html
We have thus far considered existential risk from the perspective of utilitarianism (combined with several simplifying assumptions). We
may briefly consider how the issue might appear when viewed through the lenses of some other ethical outlooks . For
example, the philosopher Robert Adams outlines a different view on these matters: I believe a better basis for ethical theory in this area can be
found in quite a different directionin a commitment to the future of humanity as a vast project, or network of overlapping projects, that is
generally shared by the human race. The aspiration for a better society more just, more rewarding, and more peacefulis a part of this
project. So are the potentially endless quests for scientific knowledge and philosophical understanding, and the
development of artistic and other cultural traditions. This includes the particular cultural traditions to which we belong, in all their accidental
historic and ethnic diversity. It also includes our interest in the lives of our children and grandchildren, and the hope that they will be able, in turn, to have the lives of
their children and grandchildren as projects. To the extent that a policy or practice seems likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the carrying out of this complex of
projects in the nearer or further future, we have reason to pursue or avoid it. Continuity is as important to our commitment to the project
of the future of humanity as it is to our commitment to the projects of our own personal futures . Just as the shape of my
whole life, and its connection with my present and past, have an interest that goes beyond that of any isolated experience, so too the shape of human
history over an extended period of the future, and its connection with the human present and past, have an interest that goes beyond
that of the (total or average) quality of life of a population-at-a-time, considered in isolation from how it got that way. We owe, I think, some
loyalty to this project of the human future. We also owe it a respect that we would owe it even if we were not of the human race ourselves, but beings from another
planet who had some understanding of it. (28: 472-473) Since an existential catastrophe would either put an end to the project of the
future of humanity or drastically curtail its scope for development, we would seem to have a strong prima facie reason to avoid it, in
Adams view. We also note that an existential catastrophe would entail the frustration of many strong preferences , suggesting that
from a preference-satisfactionist perspective it would be a bad thing. In a similar vein, an ethical view emphasizing that public policy should
be determined through informed democratic deliberation by all stakeholders would favor existential-risk mitigation
if we suppose, as is plausible, that a majority of the worlds population would come to favor such policies upon reasonable deliberation (even if hypothetical future
We might also have custodial duties to preserve the inheritance of humanity passed on
people are not included as stakeholders).
to us by our ancestors and convey it safely to our descendants.[24] We do not want to be the failing link in the chain of generations, and we
ought not to delete or abandon the great epic of human civilization that humankind has been working on for thousands of years, when it is clear that the narrative is far
from having reached a natural terminus. Further, many theological perspectives deplore naturalistic existential catastrophes, especially ones induced by human
activities: If God created the world and the human species, one would imagine that He might be displeased if we took it upon ourselves to smash His masterpiece (or
if, through our negligence or hubris, we allowed it to come to irreparable harm).[25] We might also consider the issue from a less theoretical standpoint and try to
form an evaluation instead by considering analogous cases about which we have definite moral intuitions. Thus, for example, if
we feel confident that
committing a small genocide is wrong, and that committing a large genocide is no less wrong, we might conjecture
that committing omnicide is also wrong.[26] And if we believe we have some moral reason to prevent natural
catastrophes that would kill a small number of people, and a stronger moral reason to prevent natural catastrophes
that would kill a larger number of people, we might conjecture that we have an even stronger moral reason to
prevent catastrophes that would kill the entire human population .
 Utilitarian impact = outweigh Moral claims

Extinction outweighs moral norms

Bostrom 2
Existential Risks, Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, Nick Bostrom, Professor, Faculty of Philosophy,
Oxford University, Published in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2002)
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
The special nature of the challenges posed by existential risks is illustrated by the following points : Our approach to
existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error . There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach
see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach . This requires
foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral
and economic) of such actions. We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social attitudes or national security policies
that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast .
We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters.[5]
Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat. Reductions in existential risks are global public goods [13] and may therefore be
undersupplied by the market [14]. Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international
plane. Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk. If we take into
account the welfare of future generations , the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor, the size of
which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [15,16].
 A-to No Value To Life

Theres inherent value to living.

Coontz1
Phyllis D. Coontz, PhD Graduate School of Public and International Affairs University of Pittsburgh, et al, JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH NURSING, 2001, 18(4), 235-246 J-Stor
In the 1950s, psychiatrist and theorist Viktor Frankl (1963) described an existential theory of purpose and meaning in life.
Frankl, a long-time prisoner in a concentration camp, re- lated several instances of transcendent states that he
experienced in the midst of that terri- ble suffering using his own experiences and observations. He believed that these experi-
ences allowed him and others to maintain their sense of dignity and self-worth. Frankl (1969) claimed that transcendence
occurs by giving to others, being open to others and the environment, and coming to accept the reality that some situations are un-
changeable. He hypothesized that life always has meaning for the individual; a person can always decide how to face
adversity. Therefore, self-transcendence provides mean- ing and enables the discovery of meaning for a person (Frankl,
1963). Expanding Frankl's work, Reed (1991b) linked self-transcendence with mental health. Through a developmental process individuals
gain an increasing understanding of who they are and are able to move out beyond themselves despite the fact that
they are ex- periencing physical and mental pain. This expansion beyond the self occurs through in- trospection, concern about
others and their well-being, and integration of the past and fu- ture to strengthen one's present life (Reed, 1991b).

Death outweighs value to life claims- there is nothing to assign value if we are all dead
Wapner 3
Leftist Criticism of "Nature": Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age, Wapner, Paul, associate professor and director of
the Global Environmental Policy Program at American University, Dissent50.1 (Winter 2003): 71,
http://search.proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu/altpresswatch/docview/227259976/365B5D1D0A1A4369PQ/1?accountid=14541

All attempts to listen to nature are social constructions--except one. Even the most radical postmodernist must acknowledge the
distinction between physical existence and nonexistence. As I have said, postmodernists accept that there is a physical substratum to the
phenomenal world even if they argue about the different meanings we ascribe to it. This acknowledgment of physical existence is crucial. We
can't ascribe meaning to that which doesn't appear . What doesn't exist can manifest no character. Put differently, yes, the
postmodernist should rightly worry about interpreting nature's expressions. And all of us should be wary of those who claim to speak on
nature's behalf (including environmentalists who do that). But we need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression
is existence. This in turn suggests that preserving the nonhuman world--in all its diverse embodiments--must be seen by eco-critics as a fundamental good. Eco-
critics must be supporters, in some fashion, of environmental preservation.

Preventing death is the first ethical priority- its the only impact you cant recover from.
Bauman 95
Zygmunt Bauman, University of Leeds Professor Emeritus of Sociology, 1995, Life In Fragments: Essays In Postmodern
Morality, p. 66-71
The being-for is like living towards-the-future : a being filled with anticipation, a being aware of the abyss between future foretold and future that
will eventually be; it is this gap which, like a magnet, draws the self towards the Other,as it draws life towards the future, making life into an activity of overcoming,
transcending, leaving behind. The
self stretches towards the Other, as life stretches towards the future; neither can grasp what
it stretches toward, but it is in this hopeful and desperate, never conclusive and never abandoned stretching-toward
that the self is ever anew created and life ever anew lived . In the words of M. M. Bakhtin, it is only in this not-yet accomplished world of
anticipation and trial, leaning toward stubbornly an-other Other, that life can be lived - not in the world of the `events that occurred'; in the latter world, `it is
impossible to live, to act responsibly; in it, I am not needed, in principle I am not there at all." Art, the Other, the future: what unites them, what makes them into three
words vainly trying to grasp the same mystery, is the modality of possibility. A curious modality, at home neither in ontology nor epistemology; itself, like that which
it tries to catch in its net, `always outside', forever `otherwise than being'. The possibility we are talking about here is not the all-too-familiar unsure-of-itself, and
through that uncertainty flawed, inferior and incomplete being, disdainfully dismissed by triumphant existence as `mere possibility', `just a possibility'; possibility is
instead `plus que la reahte' - both the origin and the foundation of being. The hope, says Blanchot, proclaims the possibility of that which evades the possible; `in its
limit, this is the hope of the bond recaptured where it is now lost."' The hope is always the hope of being fu filled, but what keeps the hope alive and so keeps the being
open and on the move is precisely its unfu filment. One may say that the paradox of hope (and the paradox of possibility founded in hope) is that it may pursue its
destination solely through betraying its nature; the most exuberant of energies expends itself in the urge towards rest. Possibility uses up its openness in search of
closure. Its image of the better being is its own impoverishment . . . The togetherness of the being-for is cut out of the same block; it shares in the paradoxical lot of all
possibility. It lasts as long as it is unfulfilled, yet it uses itself up in never ending effort of fulfilment, of recapturing the bond, making it tight and immune to all future
temptations. In an important, perhaps decisive sense, it is selfdestructive and self-defeating: its triumph is its death. The Other, like restless and unpredictable art, like
the future itself, is a mystery. And being-for-the-Other, going towards the Other through the twisted and rocky gorge of affection, brings that mystery into
view - makes it into a challenge. That mystery is what has triggered the sentiment in the first place - but cracking that mystery is what the resulting movement is
about. The mystery must be unpacked so that the being-for may focus on the Other: one needs to know what to focus on. (The `demand' is unspoken, the responsibility
undertaken is unconditional; it is up to him or her who follows the demand and takes up the responsibility to decide what the following of that demand and carrying
out of that responsibility means in practical terms.) Mystery - noted Max Frisch - (and the Other is a mystery), is an exciting puzzle, but one tends to get tired of that
excitement. `And so one creates for oneself an image. This is a loveless act, the betrayal." Creating an image of the Other leads to the substitution of the image for the
Other; the Other is now fixed - soothingly and comfortingly. There is nothing to be excited about anymore. I know what the Other needs, I know where my
responsibility starts and ends. Whatever the Other may now do will be taken down and used against him. What used to be received as an exciting surprise now looks
more like perversion; what used to be adored as exhilarating creativity now feels like wicked levity. Thanatos has taken over from Eros, and the excitement of the
ungraspable turned into the dullness and tedium of the grasped. But, as Gyorgy Lukacs observed, `everything one person may know about another is only expectation,
only potentiality, only wish or fear, acquiring reality only as a result of what happens later, and this reality, too, dissolves straightaway into potentialities'. Only
death, with its finality and irreversibility, puts an end to the musical-chairs game of the real and the potential - it once and for
all closes the embrace of togetherness which was before invitingly open and tempted the lonely self." `Creating an image' is the dress
rehearsal of that death. But creating an image is the inner urge, the constant temptation, the must of all affection . . . It is the loneliness of being abandoned to an
unresolvable ambivalence and an unanchored and formless sentiment which sets in motion the togetherness of being-for. But what loneliness seeks in togetherness is
an end to its present condition - an end to itself. Without knowing - without being capable of knowing - that the hope to replace the vexing loneliness with
togetherness is founded solely on its own unfulfilment, and that once loneliness is no more, the togetherness ( the being-for togetherness) must also collapse, as it
cannot survive its own completion. What the loneliness seeks in togetherness (suicidally for its own cravings) is the foreclosing and pre-empting of the future,
cancelling the future before it comes, robbing it of mystery but also of the possibility with which it is pregnant. Unknowingly yet necessarily, it seeks it all to its own
detriment, since the success (if there is a success) may only bring it back to where it started and to the condition which prompted it to start on the journey in the first
place. The togetherness of being-for is always in the future, and nowhere else. It is no more once the self proclaims: `I have arrived', `I have
done it', `I fulfilled my duty.' The being-for starts from the realization of the bottomlessness of the task, and ends with the declaration that the infinity has been
exhausted. This is the tragedy of being-for - the reason why it cannot but be death-bound while simultaneously
remaining an undying attraction. In this tragedy, there are many happy moments, but no happy end. Death is always the foreclosure of
possibilities , and it comes eventually in its own time, even if not brought forward by the impatience of love. The catch is to direct the affection to
staving off the end, and to do this against the affection's nature. What follows is that, if moral relationship is grounded in the being-for togetherness (as it is),
then it can exist as a project, and guide the self's conduct only as long as its nature of a project (a not yet-completed project) is not denied. Morality, like the
future itself, is forever not-yet. (And this is why the ethical code, any ethical code, the more so the more perfect it is by its own standards, supports
morality the way the rope supports the hanged man.) It is because of our loneliness that we crave togetherness. It is because of our loneliness that we open up to the
Other and allow the Other to open up to us. It is because of our loneliness (which is only belied, not overcome, by the hubbub of the being-with) that we turn into
moral selves. And it
is only through allowing the togetherness its possibilities which only the future can disclose that we
stand a chance of acting morally, and sometimes even of being good, in the present.
 A-to Sheper-Hughes ev

Everyday violence doesnt cause war and genocide because of significant differences in the degree of
intentionality
Bradby & Hundt 10
Hannah Bradby, Co-Director of the Institute of Health at the University of Warwick, Lecturer in Sociology at Warwick Medical
School, and Gillian Lewando Hundt, Professor of Social Sciences in Health at the University of Warwick, 2010, Introduction,
in Global perspectives on war, gender and health: the sociology and anthropology of suffering, p. 5-6
Scheper-Hughes (2002) views genocide as an extension of the dehumanising processes identifiable
Far from being a uniquely horrific activity
in many daily interactions. Drawing on analysis of the holocaust as the outcome of the general features of modernity, Scheper-Hughes posits a
genocidal continuum that connects daily, routine suffering and concomitant insults to a persons humanity with genocide (Scheper-
Hughes 2002: 371). The institutional destruction of personhood, as seen in the withdrawal of humane empathy from the poor or the elderly, creates the conditions
which eventually make genocide possible. The argument that conditions of modernity including western rational legal metaphysics
facilitate genocide has been criticised as too unifying and as conferring super-eminence on the holocaust (Rose 1996:
11). The holocaust has become a crucial emblem through which we have sought to understand subsequent violence, wars and genocides. But the centrality of
the holocaust in developing European thinking around conflict and suffering has made the resultant theoretical
perspectives difficult to apply in non-European settings and in instances where conflict is less focussed around a clash of
ideology. While the scale of the death toll of the holocaust should continue to shock, as should the organised nature of the attempted destruction of Jews, Roma,
Gays and the disabled, there is very little to be gained in comparing scales or forms of suffering . It should be possible to
use the study of the holocaust to inform understanding of other genocides in the context of other wars, to interrogate the link between war and
suffering and to think through gendered perspectives without essentialising gender or making it the only explanatory variable . This
collection does not primarily seek to add to the discussion of the role of the holocaust in theories of human suffering. Our chapters are, however, an unfortunate
witness to the fact that despite contemporary hopes and the scale of combatant and non-combatants deaths, the two World Wars were not the wars to end all wars.
Rather wars, and their associated suffering, have been ongoing ever since, both in Europe and beyond. War and Medicine While
structural approaches
can problematise a division between intentional and unintentional suffering , intentionality is nonetheless
crucial to the contradictory relationship that war and medicine have with suffering. War is an organised conflict between two military
groups and armed conflict is bound to be accompanied by suffering. Although rules of engagement and the rhetoric of targeted interventions deploying surgical
strikes suggest that unnecessary blood shed can be avoided, war entails suffering, even if this is restricted to combatants. A limited, or targeted war is an oxymoron
since war tends to be found in company with the other horsemen of the apocalypse, that is, pestilence, famine and death. Moreover, while the effect of war on soldiers
is closely monitored by both sides, the disproportionate way in which the apocalyptic horsemen affect non-combatants and particularly those who are already
disempowered such as women, the old and the young, has been less subject to scrutiny.
Not part of the 1NC
 Politics Link Defense Frontline card

( ) No link plan is not politically unpopular, even with Republicans.

Gersen 17
Jeannie Suk Gersen is a contributing writer for newyorker.com, and a professor at Harvard Law School. A New Phase of Chaos
on Transgender Rights New Yorker March 13th - http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-new-phase-of-chaos-on-
transgender-rights

A majority of Americans do not support excluding transgender people from bathrooms consistent with their gender
identities, and Republican leaders are less likely now than they were a year ago to view division on the bathroom
issue as helpful to their party. North Carolina has borne significant costs for its bathroom law, including the N.B.A.
and N.C.A.A. pulling events out of the state and PayPal cancelling expansion plans. The former Republican Governor Pat
McCrory is widely thought to have lost his relection bid to a Democrat in part because of his association with the
bathroom law. Texas and Arkansas are currently considering bathroom bills similar to North Carolinas, but they are
unlikely to pass, facing strong opposition from both civil-rights activists and pragmatic protectors of the states
economic interests. Corporations such as Google, Amazon, American Airlines, Microsoft, Intel, and Hilton have
opposed the proposed Texas bathroom bill, as have the N.F.L. and the N.B.A.
 CLOSE BUT NO GOOD Jessica Clarke ev

Legal trends irrelevant until the Supreme Court acts only the Aff ensures that.
Clarke 17
Jessica A. Clarke - Associate Professor of Law and Vance Opperman Research Scholar, University of Minnesota Law School.
From the Article: FRONTIERS OF SEX DISCRIMINATION LAW Michigan Law Review Continues to footnote -
Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/voll 15/iss6/4
The terrain of this debate is shifting rapidly. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
interpreted Title VlFs ban on sex discrimination to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, for reasons including
its assessment that sexual orientation discrimination and harassment "[are] often, if not always, motivated by a
desire to enforce heterosexu-ally defined gender norms."4 Although the EEOC's opinion does not bind federal
courts, it has prompted several to reconsider whether sexual orientation discrimination is a species of sex
discrimination.5 In July 2016, the Seventh Circuit observed that district courts were "beginning to question the
doctrinaire distinction between gender nonconformity discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination and
coming up short on rational answers."6 While it too came up short on rational reasons for the distinction, the
Seventh Circuit was unwilling to disturb its preLawrence v. Texas7 precedents holding that sex and sexual
orientation discrimination must be distinguished.FN8 That circuit is now reconsidering the issue en banc9 Other
circuits may soon revisit the question as well.10
fn8 . Hively, 830 F.3d at 718 ("Perhaps the writing is on the wall. ... But writing on the wall is not enough. Until the
writing comes in the form of a Supreme Court opinion or new legislation, we must adhere to the writing of our prior
precedent.").
Backline Econ Advantage
 INt link to worker productivity
Aziz 13
John internally quoting a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. John Aziz is a staffwriter and
journalist for The Week. From the article: Less racism and sexism means more economic growth The Week
December 16th - http://theweek.com/articles/454335/less-racism-sexism-means-more-economic-growth

Increased gender and racial diversity in the labor market since the 1960s has been a key factor in America's
booming growth in productivity, suggests a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
In 1960, 94 percent of doctors and lawyers were white men. By 2008, this was just 62 percent. Similar changes have
occurred across professions throughout the U.S. economy during the last 50 years.
A half century ago, being a white man was clearly considered an advantage (if not a requirement) for employment in
certain professions. Things have obviously changed since, though subconscious attitudes in this vein surely still
persist.
It should go without saying, but many people who are not white men black women, white women, Latino men,
etc have a lot of natural aptitude for various professions. But in too many cases over the last 50 years, many of
these talented individuals could not find such a job because they did not have the advantage of being a white man.
And because white males were getting such a big share of the professional jobs, some white males with little natural
aptitude surely ended up as doctors or lawyers simply because they were white males.
This can lead to lost productivity. If you have lots of white male doctors and lawyers who are comparatively poor at
the job, and lots of other people who have the innate talent to be better at the job, but who are doing other things
working in low-skilled labor, being unemployed, working as homemakers then you're going to lose productivity.
Slowly but surely, over the last 50 years, barriers to professional jobs for groups other than white males have been
reduced. This has had a number of causes for example, widely available and cheap contraception has allowed
women the ability to defer having children and pursue a career. Anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 have made it more difficult to discriminate on the grounds of race.
This has led to a boost in the economy. The NBER study found that 15 to 20 percent of growth in aggregate output
per worker between 1960 and 2008 may be explained by the improved allocation of talent.
Obviously, we still don't live in an entirely meritocratic world. Another NBER study found that job applicants with
white-sounding names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, while those with black-sounding names
and identical resumes needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback.
And of course, 62 percent of doctors and lawyers being white men is still a high number, considering that barely
one-third of the U.S. population is made up of white males.
Also, there are lots of other grounds on which discrimination can occur beyond just race and gender for example,
discrimination based on the region a person is from, or a person's economic class. The authors of the study suspected
that these two forms of discrimination may have increased in the past 50 years due to the growing class divide.
Still, this study does at least show that racism and sexism have decreased in the labor market, and that this decrease
has had economic benefits.
 vs. States Cplan
Solvency deficit Even in schools with protections, a Federal Signal is key to broadly reversing anti-trans-
norms.
Gajanan 17
Internally quoting Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign. Mahita Gajanan is a Breaking News Fellow at
Guardian US and a Reporter at Time Magazine - What the Trump Administration's Bathroom Memo Means for Transgender
Kids Time Magazine - Feb 24, 2017 - http://time.com/4681072/transgender-students-bathroom-donald-trump/
The Trump administration's letter this week revoking protections for transgender students does not directly change
schools' existing policies but transgender students and LGBT rights advocates say the action sends a message that the
highest political office in the U.S. does not support transgender rights.
The administration's letter rescinds guidance that came under former President Obama instructing schools to allow transgender students access to
bathrooms and other facilities that aligned with their gender identity. But any enforcement of those guidelines was already on hold even before
this week, after 13 states accused the Obama administration of overstepping its bounds and a federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked it late
last year.
Now, states are largely left where they started guided by state law, if there is one that addresses the rights of transgender students, and
otherwise able to make up their own minds about how to treat transgender students in public schools. And that, according to advocates like Sarah
Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, is a problem.
"We worry that it encourages states and local governments to behave badly toward transgender people," Warbelow said.
Fourteen states have passed their own non-discrimination laws to protect transgender students, Warbelow said, and political
leaders in many of those states publicly opposed the Trump administration's decision this week, including in Washington, Connecticut,
California, New Mexico, New York and Minnesota.
There remains a risk of litigation , but advocates worry that the move by Trump's Justice Department will embolden
states, cities or school districts to require that transgender students use the bathrooms that align with the sex assigned to them at
birth, even if enforcement of such policies is difficult. The prospect of singling out transgender students is harmful to children,
advocates say, noting that they already face misunderstanding and bullying. In Virginia, the Gloucester County School Board which was sued
by 17-year-old student Gavin Grimm after he was blocked from using the boys' restroom two years ago said it was "pleased" by the
government withdrawing the guidance. The school board is set to defend its policy before the Supreme Court next month.
Legal advocates say they believe that regardless of the Trump administration's guidance, transgender kids are still protected under Title IX, which
prohibits sex discrimination in education, and they plan to fight for those protections in states that aren't already offering them.