federalism da - symonds

8/14/2019 Federalism DA - Symonds

1/114


2/114

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 2Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA

Russia Federalism Good Stability..............................................................................................................................72Russian Instability Impacts (1/2)..................................................................................................................................73Russia Nuclear Terrorism Impacts................................................................................................................................75Russia Nationalism Impacts..........................................................................................................................................76Russia-China Impacts...................................................................................................................................................77Russian Centralization Bad Tyranny..........................................................................................................................78***Aff Answers***......................................................................................................................................................79Federalism NUQ Bush is sacrificing federalism........................................................................................................80Federalism NUQ Federal Control Now (1/2)............................................................................................................81Federalism NUQ Environmental Federalism Low (1/2)............................................................................................83Federalism NUQ Court shifting toward FG power....................................................................................................85Federalism NUQ Its Cyclical (1/3)...........................................................................................................................86Federalism NUQ Coercive Federalism Now.............................................................................................................89SQ Environmental Federalism = Race to the Bottom...................................................................................................90No Link Federalism is Flexible (1/2).........................................................................................................................91No Link Federal/State power are not Zero-Sum........................................................................................................93Turn Incentives increase State innovation.................................................................................................................94Turn State control over electricity strips Federal power............................................................................................95A2: Federalism/Constitutional Strike Down.................................................................................................................96Protecting States Rights reduces Individual Rights.....................................................................................................97

Tyranny does not outweigh...........................................................................................................................................98 No one is modeling US Federalism..............................................................................................................................99US model is not key....................................................................................................................................................100Federalist Model Bad Ethnic nationalism/civil war.................................................................................................101Iraq wont model Federalism......................................................................................................................................102Iraq wont model US Federalism................................................................................................................................103Iraq Federalism Bad Civil War.................................................................................................................................104Imported Federalism Fails in Iraq...............................................................................................................................105Middle East Conflict Coming Now............................................................................................................................106Afghanistan Federalism Fails......................................................................................................................................107Afghanistan Federalism Bad Ethnic Cleansing (1/2)...............................................................................................108Russias constitution doesnt support Federalism.......................................................................................................110Russia Rejects Federalism...........................................................................................................................................111

No Russia Civil War....................................................................................................................................................112Russia Stable...............................................................................................................................................................113 No impact to Russia Nationalism................................................................................................................................114


3/114


Federalism Shell

A. State leadership on energy policy is driving United States Federalism

Ennis, Staff writer for Texas Monthly, 08. [Michael, Bear Market; With the federal government in knots, Texasand California--the two most powerful megastates--are fighting to lead the country forward. Guess who's winning.,Texas Monthly, March 08. Accessed 7/6/08 from Proquest.com]

But evolving most rapidly, and most portentously, is the role megastates like ours play in this federation wecall the United States. We're now seeing the fruition of the "federalism" that conservatives have toutedfor decades as the antidote to the smothering nanny state of the New Deal and the Great Society. The

irony, however, is that the notion of states' rights has undergone a radical twenty-first-centuryevolution. The erstwhile battle cry of knuckle-dragging Jim Crow segregationists has become theanthem of progressives of all stripes, from alternative energy entrepreneurs to gay rights advocates.

Where once the federal government took an enlightened stand against prejudice and poverty anddragged the South kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, today Washington stands in theschoolhouse door while forward-looking states invoke their right to solve problems like global warming

and spiraling health-care costs.To an extent, this is what Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis was talking about in his famous 1932 opinion: "It is one of the happyincidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may ... serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economicexperiments without risk to the rest of the country." But the "laboratories of democracy" Brandeis envisioned have clout he couldn't haveforeseen back when the entire national economy was considerably smaller, even in inflation-adjusted dollars, than that of either

California or Texas today. The challenges the two megastates face are commensurate in scale: California and Texas boast the nation'slargest undocumented populations, the most polluted skies, the most residents lacking health insurance, and the most pressing water and

energy demands. Despite the theme of change in the 2008 election, the days of Washington getting the lab results andformulating national panaceas are probably over; paralyzed by red-state-blue-state gridlock, the

federal government gives every appearance that it no longer has the agility to get the big things done in

a rapidly changing world. So even when we're not firing political potshots at each other, California andTexas are already in an existential race to arrive at creative solutions to our nation's most intractableproblems. The loser will end up buried beneath those problems. The winner will own the future.

B. Federal legislation concerning environmental regulation intrudes on state autonomyAdler, associate professor, Case Western University School of Law, 05. [Jonathan, "Jurisdictional Mismatch inEnvironmental Federalism," New York University Environmental Law Journal 14, no. 1 (2005), p130-45. Accessed7/7/08 from ssrn.com]

The federalist structure of American government supports a general, albeit rebuttable, presumption thatany given policy question should be addressed by state governments. This presumption is embodied in

the structure of the federal constitution, which grants the federal government limited and enumerated

powers while reserving all other matters to the states. Before the federal government can act, it must

demonstrate that a given policy is within the scope of its enumerated powers, as where the federalgovernment does not act, things will remain in state hands. 5 This principle of subsidiarity,6 thatproblems should be addressed at the lowest level at which they can be practically addressed isparticularly appropriate in the context of environmental policy, and leads to the sort of multitierregulatory structure that Professor Esty suggests.7 Because most environmental problems are local orregional in nature,8 there is a strong case that most (though not all) environmental problems should beaddressed at the state and local level.9 Given the nature of this nations federalist system, that would entailallocating responsibility for most environmental problems to state governments with the hope, if not theexpectation, that state governments would leave many concerns to local authorities.


4/114


Federalism Shell Tyranny Impacts

C. Federalism prevents despotism and protects individual freedomsWalker, TC Beirne School of Law 99. [Geoffrey, Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism, Australian LawJournal, 1999 p. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from http://202.14.81.34/Senate/pubs/pops/pop35/c02.pdf]

The fifth advantage I want to put before you is that federalism is a protection of liberty. I mentioned earlier

that a federal structure protects citizens from oppression or exploitation on the part of stategovernments, through the right of exit. But federalism is also a shield against arbitrary central

government. Thomas Jefferson was very emphatic about that, so was Lord Bryce, who said that federalismprevents the rise of a despotic central government, absorbing other powers, and menacing the private

liberties of the citizen.27 The late Geoffrey Sawer of the Australian National University in Canberra was avery distinguished constitutional lawyer. Although he was definitely no friend of federalism, he did have toadmit that federalism was, in itself, a protection of individual liberty. Even in its rather battered condition,Australian federalism has proved its worth in this respect. For example, it was the premiers and other statepolitical leaders who led the struggle against the 1991 political broadcasts ban. In fact, the New South Walesgovernment was a plaintiff in the successful High Court challenge to that legislation, and that decision, Iwould suggest, was the perhaps the greatest advance in Australian political liberty since federation.

D. Every invasion of freedom must be rejected with undying spirit

Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, 74(Sylvester, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, Spring, p. 480)

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway I believe in only one thing: liberty. And itis always well to bear in mind David Humes observation: It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost allat once. Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import

because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny,

despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if onebelieves in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to

maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically

identified and resisted with undying spirit.


5/114


Federalism Shell Modeling Impacts

C. American Environmental Federalism is modeled globally

Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, AdjunctAssistance Professor at the Virginia PI and University in Blacksburg VA Wrote a book, PhD in Science and

Technology,2008

(Benjamin, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, June, 27 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 397, accessed July 13, 2008)Third, othercountries continue to model American-style federalism. Germany, the Republic of Austria,Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria have all based parts of their government structure on

American federalism, choosing to decentralize power by adopting constitutions that are more federalist

than the ones that they have replaced. n24 The "American experience with ... federalism," writes JohnKincaid, "may have useful implications for an emerging federalist revolution worldwide." n25 MikhailGorbachev even stated that "the phenomenon of federalism affects the interests of the entire globalcommunity." n26 Given such trends, it seems likely that other countries may model Americanenvironmental federalism. If this is the case, ensuring that the United States government addresses

renewable energy and climate policy at the proper scale becomes even more important for the signal it

sends to the world.

D. Federalism stops global wars

Norman Ornstein, resident scholar in social and political processes at American Enterprise Institute, Jan-Feb

1992, The American Enterprise, v3 n1 p20(5)No word in political theory more consistently causes eyes to glaze over than federalism. Yet no concept ismore critical to solving many major political crises in the world right now. The former Soviet Union,Yugoslavia, Eastern and Western Europe, South Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, and Canada are

suffer ing from problems that could be solved, if solutions are possible, by instituting creative forms offederalism. Federalism is not a sexy concept like democracy or freedom; it describes a more mundanemechanism that bal ances the need for a central and coordinating authority at the level of a nation-statewith a degree ofstate and local autonomy, while also protecting minority interests, preserving ethnicand regional identification and sensibilities, and allowing as much self-government as possible. Federalismstarts with governing structures put in place by formal, constitutional arrangements, but beyond that it is apartnership that requires trust. Trust cant be forged overnight by formal arrangements, but bad arrangements

can exacerbate hostilities and tensions. Good ones can be the basis for building trust. Why is federalism soimportant now? There are political reasons: the breakup of the old world order has re leased resentmentsand tensions that had been suppressed for decades or even centuries. Ethnic pride and self-identifica tionare surging in many places around the globe. Add to this the easy availabil ity of weapons, and you have apotent mixture for discontent, instability, and violence. There are also economic considerations: simplybreaking up existing nation-states into separate entities cannot work when economies are interlinked incomplex ways. And there are humane factors, too. No provinces orterritories are ethnically pure. Creatingan independent Quebec, Croatia, or Kazakhstan would be uplifting for French Quebecois, Croats, and Kazakhs but terrifying for thelarge numbers of minorities who reside in these same territories. The only way to begin to craft solutions, then, is to create structures that

preserve necessary economic links while providing economic independence, to create political autonomy while preserving freedom ofmovement and individual rights, and to respect ethnic identity while protecting minority rights. Each country has unique problems thatrequire different kinds of federal structures, which can range from a federation that is tightly controlled at the center to a confederationhaving autonomous units and a loose central authority. The United States pioneered federalism in its Union and its Constitution. Itsinvention of a federation that balanced power between a vigorous national government and its numerous states was every bit assignificant an innovation as its instituting a separation of powers was in governanceand defining the federal-state relationship was far

more difficult to work out at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The U.S. federalist structure was, obviously, not sufficient by itselfto eliminate the economic and social disparities between the North and the South. Despite the federal guarantees built into theConstitution, the divisive questions of states rights dominated political conflict from the beginning and resulted ultimately in the Civil

War. But the federal system did keep conflict from boiling over into disaster for 75 years, and it has enabledthe United States to keep its union togetherwithout constitutional crisis ormajor bloodshed for the 125years since the conclusion of the War Between the States. It has also enabled us to me liorate problemsof regional and ethnic discontent. The American form of federalism fits the American culture and historicalexperienceit is not directly transferable to other societies. But if ever there was a time to apply the lessonsthat can be drawn from the U.S. experience or to create new federal approaches, this is it. What is striking isthe present number of countries and regions where deep-seated problems could respond to a new focus

on federalism.


6/114


Federalism UQ General

Congress is deferring to the states in the squo- federalism is high

Edwards, Executive Articles Editor, New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 08. [David B., OUTOF THE MOUTH OF STATES: DEFERENCE TO STATE ACTION FINDING EFFECT IN FEDERAL LAW,New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 2008. Accessed 7/15/08 from LexisNexis]

There is little question of the power of Congress to forgo reliance on states and create a more uniform

federal law. However,utilization of state action has long been a mechanism through which the federalgovernment has implemented a significant portion of federal law.Instead of expounding every minutedetail, preempting all state action within its constitutional reach, the federal government has allowedthe states leeway to be laboratories of experimentation.n5 The Supreme Court has readily upheld thiscongressional approach even though allowing for state action within a federal statute dredges up many

questions relating to federalism and separation of powers .n6

Specifically, it is fully within Congress's power to decide that states' experience and comprehensive lawshould find effect in federal enactments, empowering purely state action to have widespread federal effect. n7

This holds true even when Congress acts prospectively without knowing the details of future state action. n8

Under these types of federal statutes, state action will be given federal effect by courts n9 unless the stateaction is repugnant to the [*431] framework of the federal statute, in which case the state action will be perse invalid. n10

Unlike Congress, which has been willing to rely on state action, the judiciary does not generally defer toother institutions. It is traditionally the province of the judiciary to interpret the law. n11However, ininterpreting federal statutes, the judiciary primarily strives to give effect to Congress's meaning and intent.n12

When a statute is ambiguous, the judiciary uses tools of statutory interpretation to determine Congress's mostlikely meaning.n13 This is the way the constitutional baseline operates: Congress creates the law, the judiciaryinterprets it. However, Congress is often intentionally ambiguous, a necessary byproduct of its utilization ofentities outside itself, such as agencies, to fill in the particulars of a general statutory framework.n14Whenfederal administrative agencies are involved, the judiciary is less likely to make itself the sole determiner ofthe ambiguity, but is instead open to the possibility that deferring to agency interpretations of federal lawmay be the surest route to implementing congressional intent.n15 Under current law, however, this type ofdeference by the judiciary, referred to as Chevron deference, [*432] applies only when Congress delegatesto federal administrative agenciesn16and not when it delegates to or relies on state action.

Federalism high- immigration reformTerrill, Oklahoma state representative, 08. [Randy, Oklahoma is doing its job, USA TODAY, April 16,2008, Pg. 10A. Accessed 7/15/08 from Lexis]

Given Washington's inability or unwillingness to address the issue, no one should be surprised that

states such as Oklahoma, Arizona and Georgia are taking the lead. It's federalism in action. Just as

states paved the way for welfare reform in the 1990s, they are pointing the way on immigration reform.

The federal government's failure to police our nation's borders has functionally turned every state into aborder state and indirectly imposed a tax on each and every citizen -- especially in the areas of health care,education, welfare and corrections. From a state perspective, it is indisputable that illegal immigration is a netfinancial drain. In Oklahoma, our new law tackles this issue by cracking down on identity theft,terminating taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens, empowering state and local law enforcement todetain illegal aliens for deportation, and requiring businesses to verify employment eligibility of workers or face serious legal andfinancial consequences. The overwhelming majority of Oklahomans -- more than 80% -- support our law, and I am confident national

polls would generate similar results. Even more important, Oklahoma's law appears to be achieving its intended purpose. Numerousreports indicate that illegal aliens are leaving the state. Some naysayers claim states that unilaterally enact real, meaningful immigrationreform place themselves at a "competitive disadvantage" economically -- the same argument once used to defend the subjugation of an

entire group of people through the institution of slavery. Those critics miss the point. The illegal immigration debate is

about a whole lot more than just economics. It's about fundamental principles and values: respect for

the rule of law, upholding our state and national sovereignty, basic human dignity and the immorality ofexploiting cheap illegal-alien slave labor, and protecting taxpayers from waste, fraud and abuse. This issueis also about elected officials going to the Capitol -- whether it's in Oklahoma City or Washington, D.C. --and doing what the people elected us expect us to do.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.699793.6910736902&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216157574370&returnToKey=20_T4168169577&parent=docview#n5


7/114


Federalism UQ Court Rulings

The case of United States v. Lopez sets a recent precedent for limited federalism and states'

rights

Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06

(Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of ChiefJustice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)To be more specific, the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions, particularly those in the decadebetween 1992 and 2002, embraced federalism as limits in several ways. Although the decisions arefamiliar, I want to briefly review them in this Part for two reasons: (1) to establish the proposition assertedabove that the Rehnquist Court has taken a view of federalism as limits; and (2) to facilitate the discussion inthe next Part about the underlying assumptions of the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions. A. Limiting theScope of Congress's Powers From 1937 until 1995, not one federal law was invalidated as exceeding thescope of Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Countless criminal and civil laws were enacted under thisconstitutional power; it was by far the most frequent source of authority for federal legislation. But thischanged with the Rehnquist Court.In United States v. Lopez,n21the Supreme Court declaredunconstitutional the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, a federal law that made it a crime to have afirearm within 1000 feet of a school. Alphonso Lopez, an 11th grader at a San Antonio high school, was

caught with a gun at school. He was convicted under the law, but the Supreme Court reversed theconviction and held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded the scope of Congress 's CommerceClause authority. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court in a 5-4 decision and began by emphasizingthat Congress's powers must be interpreted in a limited manner. The Court held that, under theCommerce Clause, Congress may regulate only: (1) "the channels of interstate commerce"; (2) "theinstrumentalities of [*1770] interstate commerce" and "persons or things in interstate commerce"; and (3)activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.n22The Court found that the federal lawprohibiting guns near schools did not constitute any of these types of regulation and thus wasunconstitutional.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n22http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n21http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.960800.2793714807&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463661024&returnToKey=20_T4110617396&parent=docview#n22


8/114


Federalism UQ Bush

States' rights are on the rise now due to Bush administration's policies

Braun, Writer and Editorial Assistant forSeed Magazine,06

(Josh, Seed Magazine, "The New Federalism: Is the United States government unburdening itself

of the big science issues and handing those responsibilities to individual states?" 1-19-6,http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism.php?page=2, 7-6-8)Every year kids across the U.S. open their civics textbooks and learn one of the cardinal rules of Americanpolitics: Democrats are for a stronger, more powerful federal government, while Republicans insist on aleaner one and support states rights. But in the past five years, Republicans have set about shattering thisdistinction, passing a litany of bills from No Child Left Behind to the Patriot Act, that have expanded thepower of a rightist and growing federal government.

There is, however, an exception to this paradigm shift. I think its clear that on certain pivotal issues inscience and medicine, the Bush administration is using the rhetoric of states rights, says Dr. Glenn

McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College. In effect, what ishappening is the lawyers for the Bush administration have determined that the easiest way to deal with

controversial problems in these areas is not to deal with them.

Pundits have insinuated that the federal governments tendency to avoid the issue of embryonic stem-

cell research is a maneuver aimed at handing expensive, unwieldy and ethically tricky science-fundingissues to industry and individual states.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/author-josh-braun/http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/author-josh-braun/http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism.php?page=2http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/author-josh-braun/http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism.php?page=2


9/114


Federalism UQ Democrats

Democrats and populists are beginning to support states' right in new paradigm shift

Braun, Writer and Editorial Assistant forSeed Magazine,06

(Josh, Seed Magazine, "The New Federalism: Is the United States government unburdening itself

of the big science issues and handing those responsibilities to individual states?" 1-19-6,http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism.php?page=2, 7-6-8)I think its a meeting of two political minds, says Joanna Weinberg, a professor of law policy and ethics atthe University of California-San Francisco researching the ethical and policy implications of the stem-cellresearch initiative passed by California voters. Theres the very clear right-to-life orientation of thisparticular administration and its unwillingness to engage in much debate about that. [Additionally,] one ofthe hallmarks ofthis administrationand most Republican administrationsis that there should be lesspower held by the federal government and that the federal government should defer to the states in

regulating activities unless absolutely necessary. Its two interests that are coming together very

opportunely.

Whether the reservations of the Bush administration or individual members of Congress have to do with apro-life stance, a predilection for smaller government or both, it is clear that the synergy between agendas islikely to thwart new federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research in the near future. Now, Democrats

find themselves in support of an unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable idea: Theyre calling for morestates rights.

Its been argued that were seeing the emergence, for the first time since the Kennedy administration,

of a kind of federalism embraced by populists because they themselves see advantages in a federalist

structure, says McGee. If you have no influence on federal policy, but can make a difference at thestate level, the state level may be a better option.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/author-josh-braun/http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/author-josh-braun/http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism.php?page=2http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/author-josh-braun/http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism.php?page=2


10/114


Federalism UQ Federal preoccupation abroad

States will likely gain more power in the next year because of their individual energy

initiatives and the federal government's preoccupation with global issues

Scheppach, Executive Director of the National Governors Association, 08

(Raymond C., Stateline, "Will the 2008 election improve state-federal relations?" 7-9-8,http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=323921, 7-10-8)Federalism by Default While it is always risky to look into the crystal ball, I sense that we are at a majorturning point in the role of the states in our intergovernmental system. Essentially, the long-term trend

of increased centralization of authority in Washington, D.C., may slow dramatically or even bereversed. Two reasons will drive this change. First, the next administration and Congress will have to

focus more on international issues, ranging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to terrorism, to Iranand North Korea and to global economic issues such as the price of oil and other commodities and the valueof the dollar?all in an increasingly fragile international financial system. In short, the next administrationand Congress will face huge international challenges that could dominate the agenda. Second, on

many of the domestic issues such as health care, energy and climate change, states and governors have

been providing national leadership over the last decade. Health Care Reform During the last severalyears, Vermont and Maine have enacted universal access while Massachusetts has enacted universal

coverage. Overall, about 35 states have enacted major reforms, including coverage expansions, insurancemarket reforms, small business pools, and disease management. They also are focusing on qualityimprovement and the development of electronic data exchange to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care. Energy Governors are leading efforts to conserve energy resources while also seeking todiversify supplies by expanding renewable resources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solarand wind. Many of these efforts also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, states are settingrenewable portfolio standards for public utilities and are establishing renewable fuel standards fortransportation and heating fuels. Other states are upgrading new building standards and setting standards forstate automobile fleets and state government buildings. Climate Change There are now three majorregional climate change initiatives, which when fully implemented would cover about one-half thepopulation of the United States. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will reduce carbon-dioxideemissions for power plants in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states through a regional, mandatory market-based cap-and-trade program. Meanwhile, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington haveformed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Since WCIs founding, the governors of Utah and Montana,and the premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba and Quebec, Canada, have joined. The third agreement the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord was signed in November 2007 by the governors of nineMidwestern states and the premier of Manitoba, Canada.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=323921http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=323921


11/114


Federalism UQ Energy Policy (1/3)

State autonomy high now because of state energy regulationsEngel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 07. [Kristin, Harnessing the Benefits of DynamicFederalism in Environmental Law, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed7/7/08 from ssrn.com]

Just as the federal government has failed to resist poking its nose into local environmental issues, the stateshave found it difficult not to extend their reach to national , and even international, issues. Perhaps themost radical example of this is the recent surge in state and local government initiatives addressing

climate change. As a global problem resulting in part from the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gasesaround the world, the externalities of the activities producing greenhouse gases cannot be internalized withinthe boundaries of a single state, much less a metropolitan area.40 According to the matching principlediscussed in Part I.A, state and local regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is inefficient becausegreenhouse gases are a national and international problem against which state and local regulation ispowerless.41 While many of the state and local initiatives addressing greenhouse gases have localizedeconomic and environmental benefits other than those that might accompany a reduction in the risks

of climate change, and thus may be justified on the sole basis of those local benefits , others have fewlocal benefits other than to perhaps give local industries a leg up in future carbon regulation regimes.

Federalism is high now due to state leadership on environmental regulationsEngel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 07. [Kristin, Harnessing the Benefits of DynamicFederalism in Environmental Law, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed7/7/08 from ssrn.com]

Today, however, in view of the federal governmentsderegulatory and passive approach towardenvironmental regulation115 and the environmental leadership being demonstrated by many states, theassumptions underlying the cooperative federalism framework are being questioned.116 It seems the tableshave turned; the states (or at least many of them) are the environmental leaders while the federalgovernment is bringing up the rear. In addition to what is widely considered backpedaling on

environmental standard setting,117 the federal government is being accused of preventing the statesfrom enacting more stringent environmental standards through legislative and administrative

preemption.


12/114



States are the de facto national leaders of energy policy in the SQ

Prah, Sateline, 2007 (Pamela, John Gramlick, Eric Kelderman, Christine Vestal, Daniel C. Vock and PaulineVu, States are in rebellion over Washington's actions - and inaction, Dec 31)

Making electricity more environmentally friendly passed in Illinois, Minnesota, Maine, Oregon and NewHampshire. That brings to 26 the states that require a percentage of their electricity to come from sources thatdo not burn fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. States are in rebellion over Washington's actions - andinaction - on some of the nation's most pressing problems.

Disgusted with federal gridlock, states are carving out their own global-warming and immigration laws

and are warning they simply may ignore Uncle Sam's costly plan for tough national standards for

driver's licenses.

With enough states creating their own regional systems, "it becomes a de facto national policy," said

Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, who pinpointed global warming and other energy issues

as top priorities in his year as chairman of the National Governors Association

Status quo has a good balance of government and state policy on energy. Federal

government does not need to undermine states.

US Fed News, 2007, (April 25, Accessed July 7, 2008)The bottom line is that sound energy policy is, and should continue to be, a significant priority of boththe States and the Federal Government. Reliable and affordable energy is a key component of economicdevelopment. However, opportunities for innovation and conservation cannot be ignored. It is appropriateto require that solutions, such as demand side management and conservation be part of the package of

alternatives considered when planning for expected energy needs. It is also important that the Federal

Government not needlessly usurp the longstanding authority and role of the states on this issue. The 2005Energy Policy Act understood and shared this goal. I hope that we can leave here today with a better understanding of the way that theFederal Government can work with states to solve energy congestion problems, while still respecting state autonomy.I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Federalism is high- states are exercising the ability to pass energy policy and experiment withalternative energy conceptsFialka, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, 06. [John, States Power Renewable-Energy Push, Wall StreetJournal, June 14 2006. Accessed 7/7/08 from http://www.cleanenergystates.org/press/States_Power_Renewable-Energy_Push-WSJ-6.14.06.pdf]

Twenty-two states have passed laws requiring that a growing percentage of electricity come from

renewable-energy sources, such as wind and solar power. The effort has helped launch $475 million inenergy projects.

A study prepared by the University of Michigan calls it a "classic case in federalism" with statesexperimenting with new and usually nonpolluting energy sources. Barry Rabe, a professor of publicpolicy and author of the study, said the movement reminds him of state experiments in the 1920s thateventually led to the federal Social Security Act and other New Deal programs in the 1930s."These states have had very little contact with federal officials. There's this disconnect," he explained,noting that both the Bush administration and Congress have rejected a federal program.


13/114



States are driving the switch to renewable energy- greatly increasing the decentralization of

power in the USFerrey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, 04. [John, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY,ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, AND STATES RIGHTS, NYU Environmental Law Journal, 2004. Accessed7/12/08 from ssrn.com]

We are embarked on a significant and ultimately inevitable transition from fossil fuels to renewableenergy resources, by far the fastest growing source of new electric power in the U.S.5 The leverage forthese renewable power resources is fulcrumed at the state level by a host of renewable electric power

subsidies and requirements.6 Eighteen states, including every large state except Florida, are deregulatingtheir electric power sectors.7 The socalled renewable resource portfolio standard is adopted in most ofthese deregulated states, as is the renewable energy system benefit charge trust fund subsidy.8 Thesestate policies drive American energy policy into the twenty-first century. This energy transition hasprofound effects on the decentralization of power in America. It diversifies and strengthens the U.S.

energy system against attack and failure in the post-September 11 era . But despite the beneficialenvironmental and national defense implications of this state-subsidized push into a renewable power future,9there are serious Constitutional tripwires lurking before some of these innovative state initiatives.


14/114


Federalism UQ States leading on Alternatives now (1/2)

State governments take the reign in development of alternative energy.

Fry, Professor of Political Science and Endower Professor of Canadian Studies Brigham

Young University, 2004(Earl, The Impact of Federalism On the Evolution of the North American Energy Sector, accessed July 9,2008)

First, U.S. state and local governments continue to exercise significant control over the extraction of

natural resources, the development and transmission of energy, the regulatory standards which will

govern this development and transmission, and the disposal of waste linked to the use of energy.Maryland has recently put in place energy efficiency requirements for small appliances which are much morestringent than those agreed to by the three North American governments. Nevada continues to fight thefederal governments efforts to turn Yucca Mountain into a repository site for nuclear waste. Various stateswill not permit new electrical generation facilities to be built on their territory, nor will they allow pipelines,transmission lines, or LNG facilities to be constructed in areas which would seem to be optimal in terms ofthe overall energy needs of the nation or the continent.

State governments are establishing standards on alternative energy.



Thirdly, state governments are increasingly engaged in establishing standards linked to renewable or

alternative energy sources or vehicle emissions. California has the toughest vehicle-emission standards

in the nation and because it is the most populous state with the largest gross state product, vehicle

manufacturers must pay attention to its demands. California has also mandated that a certain percentageof vehicles sold in the state be powered by sources other than the conventional internal combustion engine,with 60,000 cars, transit buses, and trucks already operating on natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas andanother 13,000 vehicles on electricity. Several states have also mandated that renewable energy sourcesmust comprise an increasingly larger segment of their overall energy market.


15/114


Federalism UQ States leading on Alternatives now (2/2)

State and local governments have the key say in energy for the US citizens.



In the United States, federalism is more centralized than within Canada, but state and local

governments do have significant day-to-day authority in determining the terms of access to energy for

their citizens. The National Governors Association emphasizes that states deal with (a) electric and gasutility industry restructuring, (b) the needs and issues of industry, business, and residential energy

consumers, (c) energy efficiency, (d) energy-related environmental goals, (e) cost-effective advanced

energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other clean energy technologies, (f) the management of

certain federal energy research, development, deployment, and demonstration programs, and (g)

energy conservation.vi The federal government has limited explicit powers in this arena, and does not

even have direct authority to regulate the reliability of the nations electricity transmission lines.

However, the federal government has at its disposal very powerful weapons if it ever desires to confrontsubnational governments in their regulation of the energy field. The U.S. constitution is very clear inproviding Washington, D.C. with a big stick linked to the commerce and supremacy clauses and to itsoverall preemption powers.

The state government has a key say in the future of alternative energy.



Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the capacity of state, provincial, and local governments in

North America to influence the course of future continental energy relations. Among the 200 nation-

states in the world today, 3 U.S. states would rank in the top10 measured by GDP, 22 states within the

top NAFI EGAP Comexi: Forging North American Energy Security 5


16/114


Federalism UQ States outspend the FG on energy now

Florida takes lead in the nation for alternative energy.

Staff Writers, St. Petersburg, 2007(Progress Energy Florida Signs Contract for Second Waste Wood Plant, Dec 20)

"We are very pleased to expand our relationship with Progress Energy Florida, providing clean andsustainable energy resources to assist with the state's future power needs." said Glenn Farris, president andCEO of Biomass Gas and Electric. "Through the leadership of companies like Progress Energy, the stateof Florida continues to lead the Southeast -- and the nation -- in the promotion of clean, alternative

energy for the production of electricity."

In the past two years, Progress Energy has signed contracts to add nearly 300 megawatts of renewable energyto its system -- which is enough to power 170,000 homes. In July, the company issued a request forrenewables in an effort to continue to expand its alternative-energy portfolio.

States spend three times as much money on alternative energy than the federal

government.

Staff Writers, St. Petersburg, 2007(Progress Energy Florida Signs Contract for Second Waste Wood Plant, Dec 20)

California, Connecticut and Vermont were in a tie for the top ranking on the scorecard, followed byMassachusetts and Oregon to make up the top five. Washington state, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Islandand Minnesota round out the top 10.States spend about three times as much on energy efficiency programs as does the federal government,

and are leading the way on efficiency gains in many areas, such as building codes and appliance

standards, ACEEE said. With Congress considering legislation on numerous energy issues and stateregulators looking to trim electricity demand, "we're entering a new era" in the energy industry and "the ageof cheap energy is over," said Bill Prindle, acting executive director of ACEEE and co-author of thescorecard report.

At a time when states' rights are dominant in the political landscape, "it is important to document best

practices and recognize leadership among the states so that other states follow, and to encourage

federal action to catch up," ACEEE said in the report. "The message that comes from the states'

patchwork approach to energy efficiency standards and practices is that the time is long overdue for

the federal government and the nation to get moving to close the gaps in our nation's energy policy

through which our energy security and our efforts to curb global warming are undermined," Prindle

said.

So what is wrong with letting states chart their own course on energy and efficiency matters? Nothing,

if a majority followed the leading states, Prindle said. But the bottom 26 in the ACEEE rankings "have

done far too little to advance energy efficiency," and given the stakes of global warming and spiraling

energy costs, "it is not sufficient to let some lead while others lag," Prindle said.BC Monitoring South


17/114


Federalism UQ States leading on GHG regulation

States are taking the lead in limiting the production of CO2 emissionsRabe, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of Michigan, 06. [Barry, STATE COMPETITION AS ASOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION,NYU Environmental Law Journal, Volume 14, February1st 2006 p1-53. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol14/1/v14_n1_rabe-roman-

dobelis.pdf]The rapid proliferation and diversification of climate change policy initiatives at the state level in the

United States runs contrary to much conventional thinking about climate policy development. Variousstate governments are presently taking significant steps to mitigate climate change. This trend is

particularly interesting in its sharp contrast to the federal governments official stance on climate

change, which includes formal disengagement from the Kyoto Protocol as well as an enduring inability

to take incremental steps to reduce greenhouse gases through new legislation. At the same time, the

ways in which states approach the climate change issue differ markedly and are in considerable flux.

Some states, such as California, New Mexico, and New York, continue to pursue and expand fairly

aggressive climate change policies, while other states, such as Alabama and Michigan, have taken few ifany such steps. Perhaps most interesting are those states that implement policies with beneficialconsequences for the climate without referring to them as climate change mitigation efforts or attempts tocontrol greenhouse gas impacts. This raises a number of questions: What impels some states to take actions

that effectively run counter to federal government policy? What explains the substantial differences betweenstates in their respective policy responses to climate change? What other drivers of climate change mitigationexist besides purely environmental concerns?


18/114


19/114


Environmental Federalism Now

States are free to make their on environmental policies outside of federal legislation.

Collin, Writer for Environmental Law, 2008,(Robert, Environmental Justice in Oregon: Its the Law, Spring, accessed July 7, 2008)

US environmental policy is rapidly developed by federal agencies enacting federal legislation. However,

states are not preempted by federal environmental laws except in narrowly defined cases. Because of

this environmental federalism, states are free to pursue cleaner, cheaper, and smarter environmental

policies. n16

The role of communities is increasing presently and in the future as environmental policies

begin to mature.

Collin, Writer for Environmental Law, 2008,(Robert, Environmental Justice in Oregon: Its the Law, Spring, accessed July 7, 2008)

As environmental policy matures and includes more citizen monitoring and involvement, the role of

communities will increase. Those communities most affected by past, present, and future

environmental impacts will need monitoring before any type of sustainability assessment, evaluation,

or policy can begin. The strength of the environmental justice mantra "We Speak for Ourselves" lies both in

its authentic voice and in the needs for future global, domestic, state, and local environmental policies to bebased on accurate and complete information.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.306642.6942286344&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215464415301&returnToKey=20_T4110707998&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.306642.6942286344&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215464415301&returnToKey=20_T4110707998&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.306642.6942286344&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215464415301&returnToKey=20_T4110707998&parent=docview#n16


20/114


A2: Federalism NUQ

Balance of power and federalism still remain despite counter-revolutionary shift away from

states' rights

Morgan, Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006, 06

(Denise C.,New York Law School Law Review, "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms,"Accessed 7-7-8)In truth, the Court's federalism jurisprudence was in flux even before the recent personnel changes. In the1990s, the Supreme [*617] Court engaged in a Federalism Revolution - taking upon itself the task ofensuring that the national legislature did not encroach upon the proper authority of the states. n7Inmore recent years, however, the strong rhetoric that the Court used in those cases has faded away and

has been replaced by much more cautious, perhaps even counter-Revolutionary, language. Forexample, this past term in Gonzales v. Raich,n8the Court not only passed up an opportunity to furtherreduce the scope of Congress's powers, but Justice Scalia - usually a reliable vote to trim Congress's wings -concurred separately to emphasize the expansive reach of Congress's powers under the Commerce and theNecessary and Proper Clauses: "where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective,Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstatecommerce."n9Moreover, the Gonzales decision is hardly an anomaly. Since 2003, in cases dealing with the

Commerce Clause, n10 Section 5 of the Fourteenth [*618] Amendment, n11the Spending Clause,n12andthe Eleventh Amendment, n13the Court has firmly held a confused (perhaps even inconsistent) line -refusing both to definitively strip Congress of substantial authority to regulate the states or to create

individual rights that are enforceable against the states.

Even this apparent reversal of fortunes is uncertain. While commentators have both hailed and assailedthe Court's counter-Revolution cases as the end of an era,n14those decisions have left ample room forlower federal and state court judges acting in good faith to expand or restrict the scope of

Congressional power. For example, both Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbsn15and[*619] Tennessee v. Lane,n16two counter-Revolution cases, have been distinguished more than they have

been extended in the lower federal and state courts - so that plaintiffs continue to be prevented from assertingclaims against the states under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title II of the Americans WithDisabilities Act (ADA).n17Moreover, both lawyers and judges are taking full advantage [*620] of theleeway created by the Federalism Revolution to think creatively about what Congressional authority

should be.n18
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n18http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n7http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n8http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n9http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n10http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n11http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n12http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n13http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n14http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n15http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n16http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n17http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n18


21/114


Federalism Brink Supreme Court transition

With the Supreme Court in flux, the definitions of federalism and state power are

undecided

Morgan, Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006, 06

(Denise C.,New York Law School Law Review, "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms,"Accessed 7-7-8)These are the best of times and the worst of times to be writing about federalism. Over the past fifteenyears, the U.S. Supreme Court has breathed life into what appeared to be a moribund, abstract,

technical area of law. Federalism has become relevant and everyone has something to say about the

proper balance of power between the federal and state governments. Improbable as it may seem,suddenly it is cool to be a federal-courts junkie.n1But the sexiness of the new federalism has come at theprice of confusion and instability. Everything about the area of law now seems to be in flux. The mostobvious example is that the composition of the Supreme Court is changing for the first time in eleven

years - gone are both Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who played a strong leadership role in theCourt's federalism cases, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another consistent member of the States'

Rights Five.n2 We can only speculate about the positions their replacements will take in future federalismcases and how the interplay of new personalities and judicial styles on the Court will affect the work of the

Justices. Chief Justice John Roberts's dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, written when hewas a circuit court judge, suggests that he is willing to read Supreme Court precedent narrowing Congress'sCommerce Clause powers and expanding [*616] facial challenges to federal statutes broadly.n3Then-Judge Roberts, however, also allowed that he would be open to find "alternative grounds for sustainingapplication of [Commerce Clause statutes] that [would] be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."n4Harriet Miers, President George W. Bush's next pick to fill a Supreme Court seat, had no record thatwould betray her leanings in federalism cases.n5Judge Samuel Alito, however, Bush's next selection for theCourt, had expressed hostility towards many of the assertions of Congressional power that we have grownaccustomed to since the 1930s in his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.n6SinceJustice Alito is now a member of the Supreme Court, only time will tell if a new Court majority willcoalesce to police strictly the boundaries of federalism.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n6http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n2http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n3http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n4http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n5http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.691943.9630515389&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215463685794&returnToKey=20_T4110622644&parent=docview#n6


22/114


Federalism Link Federal Action trades off with States (1/3)

State and federal action on energy policy trade offSovacool, senior research fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices, 08. [Michael, Necessary but Insufficient:State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies, Environment, Jul/Aug 2007. Vol. 49, Iss. 6; pg.21-31. Accessed 7/6/08 from Proquest.com

For all of the reasons just cited, a strong case can be made for federal governance to preempt state initiativesthat have proliferated on the RPS and climate change fronts. The concern, however, is that through theprocess of reaching federal consensus, some of the most aggressive and meaningful state programs will

be preempted, leaving a watered-down, lowest- common denominator national standard in their place.

Such a concern is not merely academic. University of Arizona law professor Kirsten Engel has noted

that in the 1970s, federal preemption was prompted by the desire to impose stronger federal programs

than states themselves would impose. The 1990s, however, saw a turnaround in which industry interest

groups are advocating federal preemption to eliminate aggressive state standards.36

Federal action on energy policy trades off with state influenceAdler, associate professor, Case Western University School of Law, 06. [Jonathan, WHEN IS TWO A CROWD?The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation,Case Research Paper Series in Legal StudiesWorking Paper, May 2006 p. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.com]

Some of the factors that influence state regulatory decisions are readily apparent, such as wealth, knowledgeand interest-group pressure. The influences of federal regulation on state regulatory choices, particularlyinsofar as such influences are felt indirectly, may be less obvious. Nonetheless, it should be evident thatfederal policy decisions should have some effect on state policy choices concerning the existence, scope,

and contours of state regulatory programs. These effects can occur whether intended or not. In some

instances, federal action may even preclude or discourage welfare-enhancing initiatives at the state andlocal level. This article suggests a framework for categorizing and analyzing how federal policy decisionscan influence state regulatory choices. The federal influence can be both positive resulting in greaterlevels of state regulation or negative. Federal influence can also be direct or indirect. Direct influencesinclude federal preemption and the creation of various incentives and penalties for state action or inaction,including conditional preemption and conditional spending. Indirect influences may be less obvious, but areno less important. Federal action or perhaps even federal inaction can encourage greater state regulationby reducing the costs of initiating regulatory action or by altering state policy agendas. At the same time,

federal regulation may discourage states from adopting or maintaining more protective environmentalrules or even crowd-out state-level regulatory action by reducing the net benefits of state-level

initiatives.

Federal energy incentives reduce state policy action in 2 ways- perception of irrelevance

and reduction of net benefitsAdler, associate professor, Case Western University School of Law, 06. [Jonathan, WHEN IS TWO A CROWD?The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation,Case Research Paper Series in Legal StudiesWorking Paper, May 2006 p. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.com]

Just as federal action may indirectly encourage greater state regulatory activity, federal action maydiscourage state regulatory action. This can occur in at least two ways. First, the adoption of a federal

regulatory standard may signal that more stringent state regulations are unnecessary. In effect, the

federal standard may be seen as evidence that a given level of regulatory protection is sufficient to

safeguard relevant public interests, and more stringent scientific research insofar as different entitiespursue different research methodologies to address emerging environmental problems. measures areunnecessary.As a result, the adoption of federal regulation may induce state policymakers to lowercomparable state protections. In addition, the adoption of a federal regulation may crowd out state

regulatory measures by reducing the net benefits provided by additional state measures. As a result, theexistence of federal regulation may discourage the adoption of additional state-level regulatory protections inthe future.


23/114


Federalism Link Federal Action trades off with States (2/3)

Federal action undercuts state energy policy- signalingAdler, associate professor, Case Western University School of Law, 06. [Jonathan, WHEN IS TWO A CROWD?The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation,Case Research Paper Series in Legal StudiesWorking Paper, May 2006 p. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.com]

Just as federal attention to a given environmental concern may increase the demand for state-level action, theadoption of a given federal standard may send a signal that discourages the adoption or maintenance

of more protective state regulations. Specifically, the adoption of a given regulatory standard by a

federal agency sends a signal that the relevant standard is worthwhile.105 Among other reasons forthis effect is that federal policymakers, particularly federal agencies, are presumed to have substantial

technical expert

federalism da - symonds

Documents