the Obama administration shouldn't try to defend their policies to Republicans or anyone else

My opponent has ventured far a field from the resolution and has gone into a rhetoric filled diatribe. I will try to get this debate in line. He gave me a Gish Gallup here so I don't have the space to rebut all his claims. 1) My first round showed my opponent's fundamental lack of understanding of the US Government, separation of powers, and the multi polar arrangement of the separate branches, within and between, the US Government . I showed that the pro position could not hold due to this misunderstanding. Please note, my opponent did not rebut, nor defend, his comments listed in my argument as 5 and 6 and confronted as A5 and A6, respectfully. These comments show my opponent is basing his pro position on misconceptions. In addition, my opponent supported this statement claiming that no federal program has been eliminated in 35 years, and contends that I can't name one. This has nothing to do with our debate, but President Clinton, 1993, canceled the Superconducting Super Collider. The project was cancelled after 2 billion was spent on it. Remember, I only need one. Here is fun story about it. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com... 2)My opponent offers a weak argument as to the ability of the Obama administration to force all policies despite opponents' misgivings or disagreement. I will address this argument and rebut it properly. I need to add at this point, I base my contention on the administrations inability to carry out such an agenda, but do not step into the hypothetical realm of should they if they could. The reason is, simply, creating an executive branch capable of such actions would require policies and processes that remove the powers granted to the judicial and legislative branches such as judicial review, impeachment, the ability override a veto, the ability of Congress to form caucuses, etc. Removal of all these checks creates a totalitarian branch of government. Since the Constitution forbids such a government and this is the type needed to enact such an agenda as proposed by my opponent, then the Obama administration should not attempt to reach this position as it violates the very foundations of the Constitution and federalism as a whole. The US would cease to exist as a republic; such action is tyrannical. 3) Through both rounds my opponent claims the Obama administration can force all policies and because they can, they should. Since my opponent offers nothing more, voters need to be aware that even if my opponent shows the Obama administration can enact this agenda, he must still show why it should do. So far, he has not done so. 4) Opponent: "My opponent is naive to think that the Govt works for him and cares what he thinks about anything. Only 7% of registered voters polled were for ant type of bailouts But the gov't did exactly the opposite which is proof that it does not care what you think. One would think that if 93% of registered voters polled were against a bailout it would have not even made it to congress for a vote if they were representing the voters." A4) My naivety aside, my opponent should familiarize himself with some basic understanding of why officials vote or enact legislation and policies. This is political science 101. Three views permeate this topic: 1)Representational view 2)Organizational view 3)Attitudinal View (for a rough overview, I recommend a freshman level government text, for example American Government by James Q. Wilson, serves well. ) My opponent dismisses the first view so I will address that one for now. This view, representational, "is based on the reasonable assumption that members want to get reelected, and therefore they vote to please their constituents." (Wilson p206) The voters can show support by removing these officials from office. We will see if their disagreement is strong enough in the mid term elections. I do not doubt the other views have sway, but to dismiss the representational view out of hand is an error. 5) I asked my opponent whether he meant every policy when he claim some policy. He agreed that he means every policy. He then cites, oddly enough, an op-ed by a Republican Senator sub titled: Ramming a bill through Congress is not in the public interest. Keep in mind this is in direct opposition to my opponent's position! The Title: "National Heath Care with 51 votes" provides a hypothetical where the Obama Administration forces a policy through using budget reconciliation, but the quote "budget reconciliation can be used as a filibuster proof way of ramming any spending policy they want through congress. They will use this to shove gov't health care down your throat whether you like it or not." does not appear in the article linked. How does my opponent justify using quotation marks implying a direct quote that does not exist? If the quote is there, I do not see it, I will let the voters decide if misquoting an op-ed from a Republican Senator is considered proper source material. Budget Reconciliation is not as far reaching as Senator Sununu says. Yes it is filibuster proof, but he leaves out the portion containing this clause: There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase (emphasis mine), or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order. The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. http://www.rules.house.gov... If three-fifths is 51 votes then I stand corrected, and my source is from the rules committee, not an op-ed. All the commentators and pundits are ignoring the Byrd rule. Here is a great paper on the subject. http://budget.house.gov... Also not an op-ed. Even if the Obama administration could do this with a health care bill, the provisions of the Budget Reconciliation do not all legislation to pass this way. My opponents best argument fails due to his use of "every policy" 6) My opponent seems to misunderstand the difference between quid pro quo and bribery. Any compromise is greasing with pork and bribery, in his eyes, so any example I provide will be reduced to this nonsense. If my opponent is aware of any bribes given to congressmen, then I recommend he contact the FBI. He claims sub groups and committees are irrelevant, ignores caucuses as powerless (see the Congressional Black Caucus for a glaring example rebutting this premise.) I do not have the space to list all the committees and the breakdown of each. 7) Foreign policy: my opponent is wrong. Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations, punish piracies, felonies on the high seas, and crimes against the law of nations, declare war, and ratify treaties. The President can't "do what he wants". See the US Constitution. 8)Social policy: my opponent is wrong. The rules committee decides which bills go to the floor and although it is a tool for the speaker, the rules committee can be bypassed. As for your comment concerning Pelosi blocking every bill by a Republican: http://thomas.loc.gov... I need only show one to rebut this claim. I am out of room. My opponent has only shown his lack of understanding of the US Government and has used misquoted op-ed's to support them. He cannot maintain his basic claims in light of the sources I listed.