The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Presidential Power in the scope of Foreign Policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 25352
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




To lay out the format, we will each make opening statements, followed by three rounds of debate (each with a rebuttal if you want, followed by a statement) and then each get closing statements.

The topic: The proposed boundaries of Presidential Power with respect to Foreign Policy, should the current foreign policy system be totally reformed, with all other elements of governance remaining equal.

I will be arguing that the President will have supreme power on certain matters of foreign affairs. Additionally, certain other phases of foreign policy will be held strictly in the hands of the Congress, Ambassadors and the United Nations (or other international bodies). The delegation of power from the Federal State to the international body (or Ambassadors) will be at the discretion of the Congress, with Constitutional boundaries recognized by the Supreme Court.

This enables a framework for how the powers are delegated. The detailed description of each of the powers that will be delegated will be given in the arguments.

In setting up boundaries on this debate... we are free to use reference to any government in history (source upon request). The closing arguments should consist of a direct comparison of the two frameworks. The only added arguments in the conclusion will be the logical conclusion of the frameworks (meaning what would happen in the future as a result of the proposed policies). Neither closing statement is meant to be a rebuttal of either the opponents arguments, nor their closing statement.

I wish you the best of luck, and hope we can figure this out!


The format sounds fine. Rebuttals are part of the same round or begin a new one?

Also, I hope this system does not call for total opposition, because I feel we will overlap in some respects.

I will argue that the President, though the highest ranking military and diplomatic official in the US, is still part of a democratic system and must defer to expert (be it ambassadors, military officials or ranking members of other fields) and/or majority (namely Congress) rule on most issues (which further depends on specifics, as foreign policy encompasses a diverse array of scenarios as well as exceptions to said rule). Further, I too shall argue that the President ought keep within the rights endowed to him by the Constitution, yet interpretation should encompass Supreme Court rulings in addition to precedent (since not all Constitutional quandaries have made it through the Supreme Court).

Just for clarification: we shall use only real (past or present) systems, no theoretical ones as examples, but in the end still must defer back to the present political system in the United States. Correct? Wholesale revamping is not on the table.

Good luck to you too!
Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttals are part of the same round (you make your rebuttal, then start your own argument in the same round)

This certainly does not call for total opposition. We might even compromise at the end.
It is just each of us proposing our desired framework.

We can only use real systems as reference. Using Star Wars or Hunger Games is not allowed.

Wholesale revamping is not on the table, the only thing that is allowed to be changed is in regard to Foreign Policy.

I should have stated in my opening argument, my three rounds will be broken down.
The first will be in regards to commerce, the second to war, and the third to foreign aid.
In addition, I'll throw in treaties somewhere for things besides commerce (i.e. border disputes) and also anything else I forget before the closing arguments.
Most likely will be the third, since foreign aid won't be too expansive.

Onto the arguments,

My first argument will be in regard to commerce.

First off, total economic separation between ourselves and a foreign state will be decided internally solely by Congress (or must be accepted if demanded by the UN). It would require a 2/3rd majority in both to impose a ban, but only a 50%(+1) to remove one.
This would be like in the case with Cuba, that can only be imposed or lifted by Congress.

In this way, the weight of this heavy burden (and it's responsibility) would not be on one man.
It would have to be the collective thought of the majority that some country would need to be banned or welcomed.

Secondly, any limiting sanctions in imports/exports to a country will be decided by the Ambassador to that country. (The President can indirectly influence this decision)
The Ambassador must be nominated by the President, and approved by 50%(+1) Congress (both house and senate).
They shall serve until they are removed, resign or death.
He can only be impeached (removed) by 2/3rds Congress (either house or senate).

In this way, sanctions can be a more fluid action. They can happen more often, and lifted easier.
However, should it be the collective feeling that a particular ambassador is performing poorly in these actions, he can be removed. It is much easier to remove an ambassador than it is to remove a President. It is tough to impeach a President because of his sanction (or lack thereof) on one country, but easier for an ambassador.

All sanctions declared by the UN will be supported.
We must adhere to their requirements for international commerce.

Thirdly, the President alone can set an import/export balance for the country.
However, once the balance is set, he does not decide which field the limitations are in.
Upon reaching the limit, all imports are immediately halted until the balance is back to the President's pre-determined boundaries.
The actions to monitor the internal production will be regarded as an internal affair and regulated by the Department of Commerce.
Effectively, this leaves it up to the President should he desire to make us isolationists.

In this way, we will most likely limit our economic import/export trade imbalance, as the responsibility is solely on one man. He must be true in his decision. As it is impartial to any foreign state, he must be sure in his actions. This gives him ultimate control, but also ultimate responsibility for the entire trade deficit of the United States.

Fourthly, trade agreements will be done solely by ambassadors to specific countries. Multi-country deals (such as NAFTA) will be signed by the President and require 2/3rds Congressional approval (both house and senate).

This is much the same as the sanctions part. The multi-country deals is similar to the current system, albeit requiring 2/3rds instead of just 50%(+1) as it currently is because I think a think like a multi-country trade agreement should have more backing than just 50%(+1) of the current people.

I think that just about covers all of commerce, if I forgot any part, I'll throw it in later.


I like the 3-way breakdown you have chosen so if its all right, I too will adhere to that model.

SO, commerce:

I agree that a ban put forth by the UN ought to be accepted regardless. I also agree that in order to pass a ban, a 2/3rds majority has to approve it in both houses of Congress, but in the case of repealing a ban, a simple majority will do. I actually think this is an important differentiation to uphold and makes for an efficient yet democratic system.

To limit imports/exports to a country, the sanction would have to be approved by the Secretary of State, the Ambassador to that country, and the President. In the event of dissent among the three, it would be the duty of the Ambassador to assemble a committee within 30 days. The committee would consist of a minimum of 4 members of Congress and 4 non-office-holding experts in the field (ie: experts in international relations, economics, that particular country, etc.), with 10 members in total (some flexibility left up to the Ambassador). The committee would, once assembled, have 30 days to review the facts, discuss the issue and come to a conclusion. At the end of the 30 days, the committee would present their proposal and all 13 involved parties would vote. The ruling of the simple majority would go into effect (again, this is only in the case of dissent among the 3) in this case.

This way, if 3 of the biggest players in the trade limitation(s) can agree, then their decision goes into effect, problem solved. If it becomes a point of contention, it allows other authorities on the matter to weigh in with the possibility of proposing a compromise. And in the end, the majority rules, yet all voting parties are a) well-informed [hence the 30 days] and b) qualified to make said decision.

I agree with the nomination of Ambassadors by the President and their approval by a simple majority in both houses of Congress. I also agree that they shall serve until removal, resignation or death and may only be removed by a 2/3rds majority (barring any misconduct that the US judicial system rules outright illegal of course).

We will follow the sanctions of the UN with regard to commerce.

The import/export balance would be tackled like a budget. The President would annually draft a proposal that would include the overall balance as well as specific quotas or caps. It would be up to the President as to how specific the draft would be with regard to caps and quotas-- he may leave it open ended or itemize the whole thing. I see this as a matter of economic philosophy, so in this stage the President would have a certain amount of power.

The draft would then be put to a vote by both houses of Congress, where it would need only a simple majority to pass in either. If it fails in both houses of Congress, the draft would be put up for revision. Each house would have the opportunity (but not obligation) to put forth their revised version, as would the President. In this case, the next round of voting would determine the version of the import/export balance to be enacted for that year (ie: a choice between up to 3, not a yay/nay vote). This would avoid blatant special interests as well as force all parties to reach an end result that is functional.

The Dept. of Commerce would monitor production for exports and rate of imports. As part of their responsibility, they would "pace" imports and exports as to avoid sudden stops or hikes in either. Realistically, this would involve interdepartmental cooperation, but let's assume they have it. In the event of reaching a maximum/minimum as set forth by the approved balance, the Dept. of Commerce would halt the appropriate action. However, this would be a clear blunder on their part, as the whole point of pacing is to avoid such sudden changes.

By this system, the balance is renewed/revised on an annual basis and thus problems can be corrected and changes can be accommodated.

Trade agreements with specific countries would be up to the Ambassador, but could be put to a vote in Congress (simple majority, both houses) if the President dissents.

I agree that multinational agreements must be signed by the President as well as passed by 2/3rds in Congress, particularly since these can have larger impacts for longer periods of time.

Hope I didn't miss anything. Onward!
Debate Round No. 2


For starters, on your opinion with regards to sanctions, I feel that it is wrapped in too much of the bureaucracy that currently dulls the system. The importance of my system was accountability and efficiency. Adding in extra people and having layers of voting only seeks to bludgeon these aspects of the system that I believe the people so desperately despise. In your setup, if you have dissent among the three people (POTUS, SECSTATE, and ambassador) you have 2 months of waiting time, followed by a vote. Two months is a much longer time than anything that would be involved in my system. If the ambassador screwed the pooch, he could be ousted the next day and replaced in a week, followed by a new ambassador who's policy would come into effect immediately. All of this especially if the ambassador (who is appointed for life) is of the opposing party to the POTUS/SECSTATE.

I also disagree that the US judicial system can rule that anything the ambassadors do as illegal. Unless you're talking about extra-political things (such as... they murdered someone). But anything they do in the political capacity is barred only by removal from office by the congress.

Again, I think they're too much bureaucracy in your budget plan. It should be on the weight of one accountable man. If it needs to be approved, then that takes the weight off his shoulders. He can do what he wants (such as Obama does) because if Congress doesn't go along, then they are the bad guy; not the President. Therefore, it should lay solely on the shoulders of the President. You made me realize though, in calling it an annual basis, that it really shouldn't be (as that system leads to waste). It should be a continual thing. It can be set by a rate that the President decides, be it daily, weekly, monthly, whatever. Or simply, a running tab that at any one moment we can't go past "this". I think just arbitrarily saying "annually" is wasteful.

Again, the trade agreements applies the same as sanctions. Any type of vote is wasteful.

Onto my arguments... WAR

At No Time will the Senate be involved in ANY matters of War, or the budget with regards to it.

The military budget every year should be done much as how it is, President proposes, the House of Representatives makes it. Once the budget is decided, the President can allocate that money however he sees fits (most likely according to his Secretary of Defense [who, from this day forward would again be called the Secretary of War]). He would be given a separate budget for allocation to Homeland defense. This would be sent to the Department of Homeland Security (now called Defense) that has such organizations under it as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, National Guard... things that are actually used for Defense. The Department of War would consist of the Navy, Army, and Air Force (and connecting departments such as the Marines, SEALS, NDWC... etc). These groups would be actively promoting US ideals around the globe. As stated, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of War (DoW) would be funded separately. Both proposed by the President and made by the House of Representatives, 50%(+1). In addition, a VA budget will be proposed separately. The Department of VA will be run at the discretion of the President.

Now that the funding is out of the way, implementation. Soldiers may be "lent" to the United Nations to be used for security detail from both the DoW and DoD at sole discretion of the President. However, once they have been committed, they may not be revoked until that commitment has been met. The President can, beforehand, make this commitment as long or as short as he wants. In any capacity the UN sees fit, they can use these soldiers that we lend to them.
Any base that is established in a foreign country (without a declaration of war) must be approved by the House of Representatives. (That is, approved for that area, once that area (being a region of country) has a base, more can be made in the region of that same country). Once approval for a base has been made, the President is free to operate by Executive Orders however he sees fit with regards to military actions within that country.
Only the House of Representative can declare war, signed by the President. In that declaration of war, it must be explicit on what countries FOBs (forward operating base) will be allowed. The FOBs must be removed once a peace settlement has been made (within a time period set by the House at the onset of the war), unless the House makes a separate demand that they remain. Only the President can sign a peace treaty absolving a Declaration of War.

In regards to the DoD and DoW, the United Nations will be heard, but not followed. In other words, unilateral action is allowed in any and all circumstances.

The power to raise troops.

Selective service will apply only to the Department of Defense. It must be put into the constitution that branches of the Department of Defense cannot be used outside of the United States (or "in an offensive manner") A draft will be voted upon by the House of Representative, signed by the President.

In any of the cases with respect to war, if the President refuses to sign, it cannot be over-voted. It is dead until he signs it.

In regards to the use of Nuclear Weapons. This must be voted on by the President, the Speaker of the House and the Minority Leader of the House. All three must agree, or we don't nuke. (This can be limited by an international peace agreement signed... but we'll get to that later)

I think I covered everything... oh, personally.. I think it should be in the budget for the DoD (or at least allow states to budget this for themselves) to set up militias in every state, but that isn't really part of Foreign policy... just something I'd like to see get done.

If I forgot anything, I'll try to cover it in my third argument.... cheers!


What you call bureaucracy, I call checks and balances. This concept is actually fundamental to our government, and thus I will assume you know the concept unless you indicate otherwise. �Further, while accountability is perhaps easier to keep track of when one man is given so much power, that does not incline that person to make better decisions persay. �In my view, accountability is about taking responsibility for actions rather than watering down the system just for the sake of simplicity. Further, I do not in any way see taking time to make educated decisions a "waste of time" and I should hope I need not remind you that quantity of decisions ought not take precident over quality of rulings.

As for Ambassadors, if they break a law, they lose their position. Simple. And that is actually the exact function of the judicial system-- to make legal rulings. Not sure the point of confusion.�

About the budget, don't quite see how annual revision is wasteful. I'd argue it's actually quite prudent. Things change constantly but what's more important is trends over time. Adjustments are absolutely necessarily, but also must be scheduled as to a) ensure they happen and b) guarantee they are regular. And you ought to keep in mind that the president does not necessarily have time to babysit the trade balance on a weekly/monthly basis.�

As a "bottom line" of sorts-- if you view voting as wasteful then you're working with the wrong systematic/conceptual framework. It is essential in a democracy. Period.

On to your ideas about war:
I do not understand why the Senate is barred from all matters relating to war.
Further, though I do not think the names of departments makes a huge difference, yours reveals a lot about your general philosophy. It seems you see war as something constant, whereas I see it as an occasional (not to mention unfortunate) occurrence. You say the military will "promote US ideals around the globe" and here is where a problem arises. Where is it stated as a primary concern of our country to promote our "ideals" around the world?! (hint: no where) Further who decides what exactly these ideals are?? The military is not a diplomatic unit, nor is it a vehicle of imperialistic international meddling. This is frankly a huge leap from the founding intentions of our nation and shows the certain air of superiority that tends to make the rest of the world think less of us.
Additionally, giving the president free reign once a foreign base is established is, like your commerce plans, taking a big risk by giving one person a great deal of power with few or no checks or balances.
Finally, I thought we needed to stay within the confines of our current system. State militias are, as per our current system, treasonous. It is a total redundancy to have both state and federal military and/or paramilitary forces. It does not make sense fiscally and encourages the fissure of the country along state lines. We can discuss this more at a more appropriate time, but that idea has no place in the framework of this discussion.

What I'd do:
The President proposes the military budget. The House must pass it by simple majority. Specific allocations ought to be decided along side heads of Defense and Homeland Security (I would keep these approximate departments, though wouldn't be opposed to appropriately renaming one or both). However, they'd function more as advisors. Defense would include Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, all specialized units (SEALs, Rangers, etc.) while Homeland would encompass Coast Guard, National Guard, Border Patrol, and so on. And yes, VA would be entirely separate (after all, it's actually a different department so no reason to over-reach).

Homeland would function as a domestic defense system. Defense would on the other hand be our overseas offense/defense (by my view this depends on circumstance) as well as our singular national military.�

The UN may "borrow" troops, and this would be the decision of the president. However, troops on UN missions could, with reason, be pulled by the president back to domestic and/or foreign posts. If there were political or economic repercussions, the president would have to deal as such.

Any new bases in foreign posts must be pre-negotiated by the Ambassador to that nation and approved by the President under the advisement of top relevant military officials. �Once approved, the base operates under the President of course, but also reports immediately to a small group of ranking military officials. These people are chosen by the President and hold their posts until the base closes, they resign/retire/die or they are removed (whichever happens first). �These officials act as liaisons and though they report to the President, are expected to operate their base as independently and efficiently as possible.

To declare war, the House or Senate must pass the declaration by a 2/3rds vote and the President must sign it. Only a president can sign a peace treaty, and that effectively ends said war.
The US will respect the UN, but ultimately functions independently.�
To raise troops: Selective service applies to branches in both Homeland and Defense. Homeland shall not operate outside of the US and likewise, Defense shall not occupy domestically. I'm the event of the need for a draft, �it must pass by 2/3rds in the House and be signed by the President. Without the president's approval, no draft may go into effect. As for nuclear weapons, none shall be used without first passing by 2/3rds in the House AND receiving signed approval by the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. �These checks and balances are absolutely necessary, particularly when the stakes are so high.�

I think that wraps up my thoughts on this segment of the debate. I too shall add anything I have overlooked later on.�
Debate Round No. 3


I hope it's within the realm of this debate for me to clarify my opinions (a rebuttal of your rebuttal, if you will)

Checks and balances are less important than.... "separation of power". In the system I set up, everyone has power to do things effectively, but they are more separate. Usually, you're free to do as you wish until you mess up and we kick you out. I think we've seen enough of government inaction under the current system (close to the one you suggest) to know that we need something that will operate quicker.
For ambassadors breaking the law, what I was saying is that congress cannot make laws that limit ambassadors power to do any of the things that I gave them power to do. What type of laws would they be found guilty of? (outside of things like murder)

The point of the budget not being annual is the President can decide how long it's for. To arbitrarily say a year leads to inefficiency. Many times in government bodies that have to spend money for no reason just to keep in line with the budget.

I do view voting on matters that need to be handled quickly as problematic. Maybe you don't keep up on it, but members of congress have a lot more on their hands than then can really handle. They will still vote on stuff, but so many things get brought in front of them nowadays, it's a real issue.

Senate is barred because they are 100 people. They represent the states and not the people. I've always equated them with the House of Lords of England, and the House with the House of Commons (as that's what they were based on). Personally, I like the idea of the House of Commons deciding when they will be sending their children to war (as typically, if a senator's child is in the military, it's not in an active role). Also, the whole idea of the Senate vs the House is that the Senate is more detached from the people. They serve 6 year terms and are generally older (and have a higher age requirement). I think we should let the people who are closest to the Citizens (the House) decide what we do in matters of war, because they are the ones fighting it and they are the ones making the sacrifices for it. However, it does need approval of the President.

Whether we like it or not, War for our country has been, and will be perpetual. It won't always be against the same enemy. "Where is it stated as a primary concern of our country to promote our "ideals" around the world?!" -- The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. We will forever have a global presence (or at least as long as we are able to).

And I did say that the militia thing is outside of this debate, I was just making an off-hand comment. Plus, there are state militias that are organized independently, so I'm not sure where you're getting the "treason" thing.

To your argument:

"Defense would on the other hand be our overseas offense/defense" - How can we be on the defense overseas?

"troops on UN missions pulled by the president" - isn't it very likely then that when the UN is doing something we don't like, we would pull our support. I think this is against the nature of the UN, they are supposed to operate without influence (besides everyone getting a vote... along with Supreme Veto power of the security council... ugh).

"Any new bases...must be pre-negotiated by the Ambassador...approved by the President" - This is without the say of the House? Isn't this too much like the current system where the President can start a war without Congress?

"I'm the event of the need for a draft, it must pass by 2/3rds in the House" - so you think that the House (w/o Senate) should be responsible for the draft, but not other matters of war? why do you separate them? (I'm asking in the sense of you questioning my separation of the senate from war).

"As for nuclear weapons, none shall be used without first passing by 2/3rds in the House" -- again, only the House. But also, don't you think the decision for the use of Nuclear Weapons will be a hasty one (albeit not a light decision)? We can't wait for a vote in the House for such a decision.

On to Foreign Aid: (a much simpler topic)

Foreign Aid to each country much be independently approved on a individual basis. (Meaning, exactly how much money is given). This can be done at any time, without a definitive schedule. The ambassador to any one country will enter a plea to the house to vote on a bill for Foreign Aid. If it passes, it must be signed by the President. Problems with this might consist of more aid being sent to independent aid programs, such as the Red Cross and also funding the UN. This can be seen as either a good or a bad thing. I think it would remove some of the politics involved, and just get help to the people who need it.

Also, it should be entered into the Constitution that we cannot sell,give, barter... anything.. any weapons to Foreign Countries. Period. This has gotten us into trouble far too many times in the past (WWII, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan... the list goes on and on). If we wish to take part in other countries war efforts, we must do so by our own efforts. It must be entered into the Constitution so that there is no discrepancy (such as before WWII in our supplies to England).

Each lump sum of Federal Aid in dollars must be approved by the House %50( 1)
No weapons can be sold/given to Foreign countries

Oh, and lastly, it should be entered into the Constitution that we are never officially Allies with any nation
This has never been a good thing for us (or mostly anyone for that matter). Much better to remain neutral.
Allies, in the way I'm using it, means a "you attack them, we attack you policy"
This type of action should be saved for the UN.

I save the right to address any new topics that you bring up in your final argument (like, something I forgot, but you remembered.... I get to address your argument and counter with my own in the conclusion, but I will separate it)

That concludes arguments for my Foreign Policy framework


Dorie forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I am aware that my opponent was on vacation this past weekend and was unable to submit a response.

Therefore, we will skip closing statements and my opponent will just close with her response to my foreign aid and alliances positions.

Given that, I also restrict her ability to bring up any subjects not already addressed in either of our arguments. This is so she doesn't get to speak on a subject that I did not get a chance to address myself.

Thank you and VOTE PRO!


I shall try to respond to the above, present my view on foreign aid, and also introduce nothing new.

Separation of power is implicit in the structure of our political system. Checks and balances keep any one of those (or even one segment) from abusing the power they have. I think you credit much of the current government "inaction" to inherent problems within the system. I however propose that it is instead a symptom of "sour-grapes" politics. By that I mean that regardless of the system (and yes, ours does allow for more of this to happen), if a politician digs in his heals and refuses to do his job, then things move slower. Frankly, I think this should be illegal or at least grounds for dismissal, since in any other job where you refuse to do your work you will be swiftly fired. However, I do not think that removing checks and balances is the proper solution. Yes, it circumvents the problem but it does not solve it! Personally, I would rather invest time in truly solving the problem.

Quickly on budgets-- few politicians are chastised for budget surpluses. It means you completed the task in a cost-effective manner. To give the President power to set budgets of indefinite length could lead to inordinately long budget periods, which will later mean special measures being taken just to revise said budget. Better to plan for it and hey, if your budget is the same the next year, great! It won't take as long.

I do keep up, thank you. And while you may see Congress as having "more on their hands than [they] can really handle," I return to my point about stubbornness and inefficiency in Congress. The problem is absolutely NOT with how much they are asked to accomplish. They work less, vote less, and pass fewer bills. Yet they are closer, financially, personally, and professionally with lobbyists than ever before. They no longer work for those who got them there (ie: constituents), but rather those who flip the bills at fancy dinners and have pockets so deep its hard to find your way out. The problem is how little they are willing to work and how rarely they are willing to work together. And again, I think this attitude ought be greeted with a "Do it or get out" stance (a nicer version of another phrase about.. the bathroom.. that is often used) from their constituents. There is no reason to pander to those who, for reasons that are either selfish, corrupt or stubborn, make the whole system slow down to the point of painful inefficiency. Congress SHALL do their job. Of that I am convinced.

I see your point about Senate/the House. It was more of a genuine question. Though don't be fooled-- any member of Congress is quite unlikely to have a child serving in the military. It happens, but they are still a privileged group.

Though I hate to take a slight detour from the argument at hand, I feel it is all together necessary, since you brought it up--
First, the Monroe Doctrine a) is almost 200 years old, not exactly "recent" by any standards; b) was issued with regard to colonies in the Americas and aimed specifically at Europe. Again, unless you are suggesting we go back to squabbling with Europe over the oppressed and resource-drained colonies we used to collect like Pokemon cards, then perhaps reconsider; and c) even at that, it still took a stance against meddling in European affairs or those of their colonies. It was mostly to ensure that we did not lose control over our slice of America. Thus, I conclude that the Monroe Doctrine does NOT support or justify our current or future presence around the world simply for the purpose of promoting our "ideals."

Second, the Roosevelt Corollary a) is over 100 years old and credited to a President who is seldom hailed for his imperialist foreign policy; b) ALSO about Europe and their American colonies (by no means the whole world); c) most importantly, it really did very little good for the US and only functioned to screw over South and/or Central America, as evidenced by Cuba, Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, etc. Thus the Roosevelt Corollary is also irrelevant, ineffective and outdated.

In conclusion of that side note, you still have not given any valid reason for our presence and pushiness overseas. Thus, I go back to my original argument-- it is neither our purpose nor our duty.

Like I said, the state militias are outside of this discussion, as set by the parameters. A chat for another time, but I maintain it is duplicitous, redundant, and undermines the entire current system in favor of, what I imagine you fancy as a more Anti-Federalist and/or anarchist manifestation of our government.

About war:
The way I see it, something like taking out Osama bin Ladin is defense. And that definitely happened overseas. Perhaps it is a simple categorical difference of opinion?

I meant for troops to be pulled only in circumstance that were dire and called for such, but an important safety measure all the same. It is not about not supporting the UN, but rather only having a certain number of resources and in the event we incur loses elsewhere (because it is quite possible we would be involved in multiple conflicts in multiple locales) being able to reallocate quickly and easily.

A new base does not by any means indicate war. Most bases do not lead to any conflict at all. Unless I missed something.

As for a draft, I think that involving both houses of Congress could likely mean that a draft is rarely, if ever, passable. Given that there may indeed be a time when we need one, I think that the larger house, which represents the people rather than the states (much like you were saying) is a sufficient body to make said decision, in conjunction with the President. Also, thus the 2/3rds rather than simple majority.

I defer to my previous argument for the House with regard to nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that neither a draft nor a nuclear attack is necessary, though in the event either were, I would like for the government to function in a way that makes either possible, though regulated. I should hope the decision is not a hasty one! That is the entire point of the vote. As I am sure you know, emergency sessions exist for a reason. Such a huge decision OUGHT be considered, if not only for a short while. Further, it is something that more than a handful of people needs to approve. As I'm sure you realize, the repercussions are potentially enormous.

Now foreign aid:

I think we are actually, for the most part, in agreement.
Aid should be independent from country to country. The amount, schedule and timing are each to be set on an individual basis. Aid may also be allocated to the UN, Red Cross, or other independent aid programs.. all depends on circumstance as I see it. A simple majority in either house, with the signature of the President, will do.
One additional exception that I would make is for natural disasters. Aid could be dispersed to multiple countries under a single bill if they were all victims of the same natural disaster and thus needed the same resources in the same time period, etc.
I agree no arms or weapons ought be sold, lent, bartered, or otherwise exchanged with other countries. Period. I think an amendment would be sufficient to ensure this. And yes, it has almost never gone well in the past. As part of this, more resources ought be allocated to cut down on black market arms trading, but that probably goes without saying.
I also support neutrality. I think it has proven to work much better than alliances in the past. We'd do well to learn from it. And yes, the UN is different.

I do not believe I introduced anything new, but rather responded to and extrapolated on our previous discussions only, as per your request. So, I believe that closes the debate?

Happy deliberation and may the best (wo)man win.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.