BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New technologies enable detection and ban of nuclear tests.

Paul G. Richards and Won-Young Kim. "Advances in Monitoring Nuclear Weapon Testing". Scientific American. March 2009: "Detecting a test of a nuclear weapon has become so effective and reliable that no nation could expect to get away with secretly exploding a device having military significance.Seismic monitoring can now detect a nuclear explosion with a yield of a kiloton or more anywhere on Earth. In many places, detection is far more sensitive than that.In our view, those concerns about monitoring are groundless—and have been for several years. The scientific and technical community has developed a well-honed ability to monitor militarily significant nuclear test explosions anywhere in the world, above ground or below, and to distinguish them from mine collapses, earthquakes, and other natural or nonnuclear phenomena."
Test ban helps re-enforce right to nuclear energy.

NPT ensures all the signing and ratifying members have a right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes (i.e. nuclear energy). A nuclear test ban helps safeguard this right by reducing some of the suspicions surrounding the development of nuclear energy programs, as it makes it more difficult to switch a peaceful program into a weapons program. This generally helps uphold the right of countries to pursue nuclear energy without suspicion and any subsequent limitation or sanctions. In this sense, it helps re-enforce the Non-proliferation treaty as well as the right to peaceful nuclear energy, and makes the enforcement of these treaties easier. [7][8]
Risk of default/crisis justifies Obama raising debt limit

Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. "Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own." New York Times. July 22nd, 2011: "Our argument is not based on some obscure provision of the 14th amendment, but on the necessities of state, and on the president’s role as the ultimate guardian of the constitutional order, charged with taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, he said that it was necessary to violate one law, lest all the laws but one fall into ruin. So too here: the president may need to violate the debt ceiling to prevent a catastrophe — whether a default on the debt or an enormous reduction in federal spending, which would throw the country back into recession."
Powers in 14th are reserved to Congress alone.

Jerry Bowyer. "Four Questions for Obama's Amendment Courtiers." Forbes. July 20th, 2011: "If the 14th Amendment transfers debt power from the congress to the president, then why doesn’t it mention the president, and why does it explicitly mention congress? The locus classicus of Congressional jurisdiction over public debt is in Article 1, Section 8. But is that jurisdiction rescinded in the 14th Amendment? No way. In fact it is even reiterated in the 14th Amendment – twice! If the presidential sycophants had bothered to read the section immediately following the section which they have been quoting, they would have seen this: 'The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.' Obama’s knee-pad brigade never seems to quote that section. But even the section which they do quote makes the same point clear. 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law …shall not be questioned.' In other words, the only debt protected by the 14th Amendment is the debt authorized by law, that is by the legislative branch. If the framers of the 14th amendment somehow meant it to transfer borrowing authority from Congress to the President, why didn’t they say so in the ratification debates?"
Article 1 gives power to Congress alone to pay debts.

Article 1 of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States..."[9]
Debt unquestionable under 14th; Obama can raise ceiling

John Sloan. "U.S. Constitution has answer to debt-ceiling issue." Las Vegas Sun. July 31st, 2011: "Section 4 states: 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.' The language seems quite clear to me that the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned if authorized by law. Therefore, those who are sworn to uphold the law who do question raising the debt limit so we can pay obligations already incurred, and as authorized by law, are in violation of their oath of office. Those who refuse to vote to raise the debt limit, unless certain concessions are made by the opposing party, are violating the Constitution of the United States. A bill that has been incurred, as authorized by law, is a bill that must be paid. No questions! So, the president should have stepped in and insisted that the bills get paid."
1979 default resulted in permanently higher interest rates.

Terry Zivney, a finance professor at Ball State University, and his partner Dick Marcus found "that the series of defaults [ion 1979] resulted in a permanent increase in interest rates" of more than 0.5 percent. Over time, they found, that meant billions of dollars in increased interest payments on the nation's debt. This cost was eventually paid by taxpayers. A default on over 14 trillion dollars in debt today, versus the 800 billion in 1979, would presumably result in an even greater hike in interest rates and damage to the economy and taxpayers.[12]
Debt ceiling unconstitutional; public debt is unquestionable.

Former President Bill Clinton told The National Memo in late July: “I think the Constitution is clear, and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy. [Raising the ceiling] is necessary to pay for appropriations already made. So you can’t say, ‘Well, we won the last election and we didn’t vote for some of that stuff, so we’re going to throw the whole country’s credit into arrears. [...] The validity of the U.S. public debt shall not be questioned."[4]
Obama raising debt ceiling would be politically costly

Michael Levenson. "Law is murky on whether Obama can act on his own." Boston Globe. July 31st, 2011 "[Some] say the move would be politically and legally disastrous, because it could spark divisive court battles and even impeachment proceedings in the GOP-controlled House. Some legal scholars warn that it would be an abuse of power for the president to wield the provision as a means of raising the debt limit."
Framers would have noted that 14th amends 1st.

Jerry Bowyer. "Four Questions for Obama's Amendment Courtiers." Forbes. July 20th, 2011: "If the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to amend Article 1, which gave that power to the congress, why did they not in the official text of the Constitution show it as an amendment to article 1? The official text of the constitution notes the places in which amendments to the original text supersede it. For example, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery and the framers of that amendment went back to the sections that were amended and inserted parenthetical notices of the change. They did so with all of the other sections of the 13th and 14th amendments, adding parenthetical statements to whichever earlier section of the constitution was being amended, but they made no such change to the Article 1 borrowing powers of the Congress. The reason they did not change the text is because they did not change the powers."
Normal balance of powers can be shirked during crisis.

Franklin D. Roosevelt in his first inaugural address in 1933, addressing his plans to confront the economic crisis, he hinted darkly that “it is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly equal, wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.”[6]
Raising debt ceiling violates Const, subject to impeachment.

Larry Darter. "Invoking 14th Amendment to Raise Debt Ceiling Would be Unwise." Suite101.com. July 27th, 2011: "Raising the debt ceiling by executive order could provoke impeachment The U.S. Constitution clearly sets out the functions and authorities of the three branches of government. Article 1, Section 8 establishes the powers reserved to Congress. Included among the powers are: 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...to borrow money on the credit of the United States...' Congress alone has the legal authority to extend the borrowing authority of the federal government. If the president chose to raise the debt limit on his own by use of executive order he would be guilty of exceeding the constitutional powers of the executive branch and of usurping the powers reserved to Congress. A historical document about the impeachment process, 'Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, Provisions in the Constitution that are Relevant to Impeachment and Past Impeachment Inquiries' provides the details behind presidential impeachment proceedings including that of President Andrew Johnson, the first president to face impeachment."
Supreme Court ruled Congress can't break debt obligations.

The Supreme Court ruled only once on Section 4 of Amendment 14, in the depths of the Depression, in Perry v. United States: "The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States ... Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations." Now that Congress has borrowed money and incurred debt, it cannot, under the Constitution and according to the Supreme Court, shirk that responsibility. If it does, the President has the authority to enforce the Constitution and raise the debt ceiling.[2]
Failing to raise debt ceiling would not cause crisis.

Michael Kirkland. "Can Obama raise the debt limit by himself." UPI. July 31, 2011: "Another debate developing rather late in the game is whether failing to raise the debt limit by Aug. 2 would really be the catastrophe U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says it would be. Actually, in 1979, Congress briefly failed to raise the debt limit and the government briefly defaulted on a small portion of its bills. Professor Peter Morici of the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland was on SiriusXM radio last Monday and said failing to lift the debt ceiling only would be comparable to a government shutdown. 'There is absolutely no possibility that we have to default on our debt,' he insisted. 'We will only default if Secretary Geithner chooses to default to give the president political advantage.' Morici said the U.S. government takes in $180 billion a month, while interest payments on the national debt are less than $30 billion a month. 'The U.S. would not be insolvent but rather in a political crisis.'"
Better for Obama to raise ceiling than keep compromising.

Liberal commentators like Robert Kuttner, the co-editor of The American Prospect: “Obama’s version of leadership is to implore the Republicans to accept a deal that is already on GOP terms. Now, you may say that the president has no responsible alternative. Since the GOP won’t compromise, Obama must keep compromising, so the United States doesn’t default. ... But you would be wrong. It would be far better for Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment and announce that Washington will make good on its debt while Republicans and Democrats continue to negotiate the budget.”[14]
14th Amendment applies only to Civil War debts.

Larry Darter. "Invoking 14th Amendment to Raise Debt Ceiling Would be Unwise." Suite101.com. July 27th, 2011: "One portion of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment is that which some Democrats say authorizes the President to raise the national debt cap by executive order: 'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.' The rest of the section, the part that is not being talked about or aired in the media is important in understanding the history and intent behind the portion being bandied about by Democrats: 'But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.' One need not be a constitutional lawyer to see after reading Section 4 in its entirety that the 14th Amendment was post-Civil War Reconstruction legislation. As a matter of record, the National Archives notes that the amendment was passed by Congress June 13, 1866 and it was ratified July 9, 1868. The section clearly pertains only to public debts incurred during the Civil War, not to all public debts. The section differentiates the validity of debts run up by the Union and any incurred by the Confederacy, making it clear that there was no obligation assumed to pay the latter by either the federal government or any state. It is also worth noting that the section doesn't authorize the president specifically to do anything."
Deadlocked Congress foregoes power to raise debt ceiling

Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule. "Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling on His Own." New York Times. July 22nd, 2011: "A deadlocked Congress has become incapable of acting consistently; it commits to entitlements it will not reduce, appropriates funds it does not have, borrows money it cannot repay and then imposes a debt ceiling it will not raise. One of those things must give; in reality, that means that the conflicting laws will have to be reconciled by the only actor who combines the power to act with a willingness to shoulder responsibility — the president."
Liberal groups can raise anonymous funding for ads too

Sean Parnell. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from Think Progress." Center for Competitive Politics. October 5, 2010: "if the question can and should be asked of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, what about other entities that receive funds from foreign entities? For example, the Wikipedia entry on the Service Employees International Union states: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a labor union representing about 1.8 million workers in over 100 occupations in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Likewise, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters also reports members (and therefore, member dues) from Canada, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has members not just in Canada but also Panama and several Caribbean nations. And the AFL-CIO includes several member unions that include foreign members, such as the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' International Union and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers. In fact, nearly half of the membership of the AFL-CIO have the term 'International' in their names or some other indication of foreign membership (the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada), and it is a certainty that other unions also have foreign membership. So, both the U.S. Chamber and the AFL-CIO have involvement with affiliated foreign entities, but only the Chamber's foreign members are of concern to the "reformers" at Think Progress and the Center for American Progress. I guess we can file this away as yet another example of why few believed the "reform" spin that the DISCLOSE Act treated corporations and unions equally."
2010 US elections show why transparent campaign ads needed

"Editorial: Public has right to know who is funding campaign ads." Grand Rapids Press Editorial. August 24, 2010: "if the August primary is any indication, the Nov. 2 general will provide plenty of evidence of why a legal overhaul is badly needed. Almost 40 percent, or $4 million, of the money spent in the gubernatorial primary on television advertising skirted hard disclosure rules applied to other campaign spending, according to figures collected by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. The $4 million came from groups running “issue ads.” The ads do not rely on court-defined magic words such as “vote for” or “vote against.” Because of that omission, they don’t make the detailed donor reports required of campaign committees."
TV issue ads conceal sources of funding behind shadow orgs

"Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." The Economist Democracy in America Blog. Oct 4th 2010: "the New York Times' Mike McIntyre set out to find out what you'd have to do in order to discover who the actual donors are behind these kinds of expenditures [for TV issue ads]. The verdict? You can't. Mr McIntyre tries to track down a mid-sized nonprofit called the Coalition of American Seniors, which was just formed in June and has so far spent $400,000 on ads featuring smart-alecky babies in diapers attacking the Democratic health-reform bill. After a long odyssey through Delaware post-office boxes and registered service agents, he finds that the group's telephone number rings at the offices of a Florida health-insurance broker; the political consulting firm the group lists seems to refer to just one guy, who refuses to provide any information about who its donors are."
Anonymity brings out the worst in campaign attack ads

"Editorial: Public has right to know who is funding campaign ads." Grand Rapids Press Editorial. August 24, 2010: "Anonymity brings out the worst in political ads, sharp edges designed to wound rather than enlighten. U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Holland, felt the sting. Mr. Hoekstra was on the receiving end of attacks from several groups in his unsuccessful bid for governor. They included Americans For Job Security, Michigan Taxpayers Alert and Peace & Prosperity Project."
Foreign funding in US election sis prohibited under current law

Sean Parnell. "A campaign finance 'reform' twofer from ThinkProgress. Center for Competitive Politics. October 5th, 2010: "For months, we've been told that Citizens United "opened the floodgates" to foreign spending in U.S. elections. CCP has pointed out numerous times that this was not the case, that the Supreme Court left intact the federal law as well as Federal Election Commission regulations prohibiting foreign expenditures in U.S. elections. Today's post by Think Progress, however, acknowledges what we have been saying all along, that foreign spending in U.S. elections remains prohibited. From the excerpt above: According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections. Well, so much for that 'reform' talking point."
Anonymity is essential to free speech in modern democracy

Electronic Frontier Foundation on Anonymity: "Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads 'Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation...at the hand of an intolerant society.' The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym 'Publius,' and 'the Federal Farmer' spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment. The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door." [This article on anonymity was not written by EFF as an explicit endorsement of anonymous funding for TV issue ads].
Anonymous funding of TV ads runs against principles of free speech

"Ignore that $800,000 behind the curtain." The Economist Democracy in America Blog. Oct 4th 2010: "It's all about freedom of speech and political participation, I'm told. I'm trying to imagine an analogy for this situation in a New England town meeting, circa 1789. Maybe there are huge curtains hanging along the walls. Some of the town's citizens sit in the meeting hall's pews, occasionally trying to be heard in little piping voices. They are overwhelmed by booming orations emanating from behind the curtains. "Henry Waddingstone is a British agent!" "Zachary Hurlburt will take away the grazing commons!" Who is speaking? The Coalition for a Grazeable Massachussetts? Who's that? Nobody knows. Nobody ever will."
Afg is backward, cannot be salvaged by US

Peter Navarro. "Orange Grove: Get out of Afghanistan now" OC Register. September 25, 2009: "As the British learned in two wars with Afghanistan in the 1800s and the Soviets learned in their bloodbath of the 1980s, Afghanistan is no country at all. Rather, it's a diverse collection of primitive tribes occupying a harsh landscape pockmarked with tens of thousands of hiding places ideal for guerrilla warfare. On the quagmire scale, it rates a full 10 and makes Vietnam look like a cakewalk. Why we want to send American sons and daughters into that trap is the question for this age."
Stabilizing Afghanistan important to Western interests

"Obama's War." Economist. October 15th, 2009: "the West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam (see article). Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability."
Afg only one of many possible terrorist safe havens

Peter Navarro. "Orange Grove: Get out of Afghanistan now" OC Register. September 25, 2009: "Consider the first argument: Afghanistan must not be allowed to be a staging area for al-Qaida terrorists. Of course, it was from Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden oversaw the 9/11 attacks so this argument seems at first glance compelling. However, Afghanistan is now just one of many possible staging areas for al-Qaida. In fact, hot zone that Afghanistan is, it is now much easier for al-Qaida's decentralized networks to conduct operations in numerous other places, with Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen emerging as the newest strongholds. Why aren't we invading them?"