Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008


1 Federalism DA

Federalism Shell..............................................................................................................................................................3 Federalism Shell – Tyranny Impacts...............................................................................................................................4 Federalism Shell – Modeling Impacts............................................................................................................................5 Federalism UQ – General...............................................................................................................................................6 Federalism UQ – Court Rulings......................................................................................................................................7 Federalism UQ – Bush....................................................................................................................................................8 Federalism UQ – Democrats...........................................................................................................................................9 Federalism UQ – Federal preoccupation abroad...........................................................................................................10 Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (1/3)...........................................................................................................................11 Federalism UQ – States leading on Alternatives now (1/2)..........................................................................................14 Federalism UQ – States outspend the FG on energy now............................................................................................16 Federalism UQ – States leading on GHG regulation....................................................................................................17 Federalism UQ – FG not intruding on states now........................................................................................................18 Environmental Federalism Now...................................................................................................................................19 A2: Federalism NUQ....................................................................................................................................................20 Federalism Brink – Supreme Court transition..............................................................................................................21 Federalism Link – Federal Action trades off with States (1/3).....................................................................................22 Federalism Link – Federal Action hurts States’ Rights.................................................................................................25 Federalism Link – Federal Action Preempts the States................................................................................................26 Federalism Link – Electricity Grid is State jurisdiction................................................................................................27 Federalism Link – Transmission Lines.........................................................................................................................28 Federalism Link – Cars.................................................................................................................................................29 A2: State control now steals Federal power..................................................................................................................30 Federalism solves the aff – Innovation.........................................................................................................................31 Federalism solves the aff (1/2)......................................................................................................................................32 Federalism solves Tyranny (1/2)...................................................................................................................................34 A2: Federalism = tyranny by the states.........................................................................................................................36 Judicial Protection is key to preserve Federalism.........................................................................................................37 Federalism key to Economic Growth............................................................................................................................38 US Federalism modeled – Generic (1/2).......................................................................................................................39 Federalist Modeling = Stable Democracies..................................................................................................................41 Federalism stops Global Wars.......................................................................................................................................42 Iraq Models US / Iraqi Federalism Good (1/2).............................................................................................................43 US Model is key to Iraq Federalism.............................................................................................................................45 US Model is key to Iraq Federalism.............................................................................................................................46 Iraq Federalism Good – key to Stability (1/2)..............................................................................................................47 Iraq Federalism Good – US Hegemony........................................................................................................................49 Iraq Instability spreads Region-wide............................................................................................................................50 Iraq Instability causes Regional War.............................................................................................................................51 Iraqi conflict spreads Region-wide (1/2)......................................................................................................................52 Iraq instability = civil war / genocide...........................................................................................................................55 Iraq Terrorism Impacts..................................................................................................................................................56 Iraq instability = nuclear war........................................................................................................................................57 Middle East War = Extinction.......................................................................................................................................58 Iraq War Turns the Aff...................................................................................................................................................59 A2: Modeling – They model locally.............................................................................................................................60 A2: Iraq Federalism – Public rejects.............................................................................................................................61 Afghanistan Models US Federalism.............................................................................................................................62 Afghanistan Federalism Good – Stability.....................................................................................................................63 A2: Afghanistan doesn’t want Federalism....................................................................................................................64 Afghanistan Brink (1/2)................................................................................................................................................65 Afghanistan Terrorism Impacts.....................................................................................................................................67 Afghanistan spills over to Central Asia.........................................................................................................................68 Russia Models US Federalism (1/2).............................................................................................................................69 Russia headed toward Federalism.................................................................................................................................71

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

2 Federalism DA

Russia Federalism Good – Stability..............................................................................................................................72 Russian Instability Impacts (1/2)..................................................................................................................................73 Russia Nuclear Terrorism Impacts................................................................................................................................75 Russia Nationalism Impacts..........................................................................................................................................76 Russia-China Impacts...................................................................................................................................................77 Russian Centralization Bad – Tyranny..........................................................................................................................78 ***Aff Answers***......................................................................................................................................................79 Federalism NUQ – Bush is sacrificing federalism........................................................................................................80 Federalism NUQ – Federal Control Now (1/2)............................................................................................................81 Federalism NUQ – Environmental Federalism Low (1/2)............................................................................................83 Federalism NUQ – Court shifting toward FG power....................................................................................................85 Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (1/3)...........................................................................................................................86 Federalism NUQ – Coercive Federalism Now.............................................................................................................89 SQ Environmental Federalism = Race to the Bottom...................................................................................................90 No Link – Federalism is Flexible (1/2).........................................................................................................................91 No Link – Federal/State power are not Zero-Sum........................................................................................................93 Turn – Incentives increase State innovation.................................................................................................................94 Turn – State control over electricity strips Federal power............................................................................................95 A2: Federalism/Constitutional Strike Down.................................................................................................................96 Protecting States’ Rights reduces Individual Rights.....................................................................................................97 Tyranny does not outweigh...........................................................................................................................................98 No one is modeling US Federalism..............................................................................................................................99 US model is not key....................................................................................................................................................100 Federalist Model Bad – Ethnic nationalism/civil war.................................................................................................101 Iraq won’t model Federalism......................................................................................................................................102 Iraq won’t model US Federalism................................................................................................................................103 Iraq Federalism Bad – Civil War.................................................................................................................................104 Imported Federalism Fails in Iraq...............................................................................................................................105 Middle East Conflict Coming Now............................................................................................................................106 Afghanistan Federalism Fails......................................................................................................................................107 Afghanistan Federalism Bad – Ethnic Cleansing (1/2)...............................................................................................108 Russia’s constitution doesn’t support Federalism.......................................................................................................110 Russia Rejects Federalism...........................................................................................................................................111 No Russia Civil War....................................................................................................................................................112 Russia Stable...............................................................................................................................................................113 No impact to Russia Nationalism................................................................................................................................114

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

3 Federalism DA

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, Texas
and 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 we call the United States. We're now seeing the fruition of the "federalism" that conservatives have touted for 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-century evolution. The erstwhile battle cry of knuckle-dragging Jim Crow segregationists has become the anthem 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 and dragged the South kicking and screaming into the civil rights era, today Washington stands in the schoolhouse 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 happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may ... serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." But the "laboratories of democracy" Brandeis envisioned have clout he couldn't have foreseen 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's largest 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 and

formulating 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 and Texas are already in an existential race to arrive at creative solutions to our nation's most intractable problems. The loser will end up buried beneath those problems. The winner will own the future.

B. Federal legislation concerning environmental regulation intrudes on state autonomy
Adler, associate professor, Case Western University School of Law, 05. [Jonathan, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism," New York University Environmental Law Journal 14, no. 1 (2005), p130-45. Accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.com] The federalist structure of American government supports a general, albeit rebuttable, presumption that any 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 federal government does not act, things will remain in state hands. 5 This principle of “subsidiarity,”6 that problems should be addressed at the lowest level at which they can be practically addressed is particularly appropriate in the context of environmental policy, and leads to the sort of “multitier regulatory structure” that Professor Esty suggests.7 Because most environmental problems are local or regional in nature,8 there is a strong case that most (though not all) environmental problems should be addressed at the state and local level.9 Given the nature of this nation’s federalist system, that would entail allocating responsibility for most environmental problems to state governments with the hope, if not the expectation, that state governments would leave many concerns to local authorities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

4 Federalism DA

Federalism Shell – Tyranny Impacts
C. Federalism prevents despotism and protects individual freedoms
Walker, TC Beirne School of Law 99. [Geoffrey, “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism,” Australian Law Journal, 1999 p. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from] 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 state governments, 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 ‘federalism prevents 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 a very distinguished constitutional lawyer. Although he was definitely no friend of federalism, he did have to admit 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 state political leaders who led the struggle against the 1991 political broadcasts ban. In fact, the New South Wales government was a plaintiff in the successful High Court challenge to that legislation, and that decision, I would 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 it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at 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 one believes 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.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

5 Federalism DA

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, Adjunct
Assistance 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, other countries 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 John Kincaid, "may have useful implications for an emerging federalist revolution worldwide." n25 Mikhail Gorbachev even stated that "the phenomenon of federalism affects the interests of the entire global community." n26 Given such trends, it seems likely that other countries may model American environmental 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 is more 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 suffering from problems that could be solved, if solutions are possible, by instituting creative forms of federalism. Federalism is not a sexy concept like “democracy” or “freedom”; it describes a more mundane mechanism that balances the need for a central and coordinating authority at the level of a nation-state with a degree of state and local autonomy, while also protecting minority interests, preserving ethnic and regional identification and sensibilities, and allowing as much self-government as possible. Federalism starts with governing structures put in place by formal, constitutional arrangements, but beyond that it is a partnership that requires trust. Trust can’t 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 so important now? There are political reasons: the breakup of the old world order has released resentments and tensions that had been suppressed for decades or even centuries. Ethnic pride and self-identifica tion are surging in many places around the globe. Add to this the easy availability of weapons, and you have a potent mixture for discontent, instability, and violence. There are also economic considerations: simply breaking up existing nation-states into separate entities cannot work when economies are interlinked in complex ways. And there are humane factors, too. No provinces or territories are ethnically pure. Creating
an independent Quebec, Croatia, or Kazakhstan would be uplifting for French Quebecois, Croats, and Kazakhs but terrifying for the large 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 of movement and individual rights, and to respect ethnic identity while protecting minority rights. Each country has unique problems that require different kinds of federal structures, which can range from a federation that is tightly controlled at the center to a confederation having autonomous units and a loose central authority. The United States pioneered federalism in its Union and its Constitution. Its invention of a federation that balanced power between a vigorous national government and its numerous states was every bit as significant an innovation as its instituting a separation of powers was in governance—and 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 itself to eliminate the economic and social disparities between the North and the South. Despite the federal guarantees built into the Constitution, 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 enabled

the United States to keep its union together without constitutional crisis or major bloodshed for the 125 years since the conclusion of the War Between the States. It has also enabled us to meliorate problems of regional and ethnic discontent. The American form of federalism fits the American culture and historical experience—it is not directly transferable to other societies. But if ever there was a time to apply the lessons that can be drawn from the U.S. experience or to create new federal approaches, this is it. What is striking is the present number of countries and regions where deep-seated problems could respond to a new focus on federalism.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

6 Federalism DA

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., “OUT
OF 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 federal government has implemented a significant portion of federal law. Instead of expounding every minute detail, preempting all state action within its constitutional reach, the federal government has allowed the states leeway to be laboratories of experimentation. n5 The Supreme Court has readily upheld this congressional 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 law should 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 state action is repugnant to the [*431] framework of the federal statute, in which case the state action will be per se invalid. n10 Unlike Congress, which has been willing to rely on state action, the judiciary does not generally defer to other institutions. It is traditionally the province of the judiciary to interpret the law. n11 However, in interpreting 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 most likely meaning. n13 This is the way the constitutional baseline operates: Congress creates the law, the judiciary interprets it. However, Congress is often intentionally ambiguous, a necessary byproduct of its utilization of entities outside itself, such as agencies, to fill in the particulars of a general statutory framework. n14 When federal administrative agencies are involved, the judiciary is less likely to make itself the sole determiner of the ambiguity, but is instead open to the possibility that deferring to agency interpretations of federal law may be the surest route to implementing congressional intent. n15 Under current law, however, this type of deference by the judiciary, referred to as Chevron deference, [*432] applies only when Congress delegates to federal administrative agencies n16 and not when it delegates to or relies on state action.

Federalism high- immigration reform Terrill, 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 a border 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 net financial 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 to
detain illegal aliens for deportation, and requiring businesses to verify employment eligibility of workers or face serious legal and financial 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. Numerous reports indicate that illegal aliens are leaving the state. Some naysayers claim states that unilaterally enact real, meaningful immigration reform 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 of exploiting cheap illegal-alien slave labor, and protecting taxpayers from waste, fraud and abuse. This issue is 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.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

7 Federalism DA

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 Chief Justice 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 decade between 1992 and 2002, embraced federalism as limits in several ways. Although the decisions are familiar, I want to briefly review them in this Part for two reasons: (1) to establish the proposition asserted above that the Rehnquist Court has taken a view of federalism as limits; and (2) to facilitate the discussion in the next Part about the underlying assumptions of the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions. A. Limiting the Scope of Congress's Powers From 1937 until 1995, not one federal law was invalidated as exceeding the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Countless criminal and civil laws were enacted under this constitutional power; it was by far the most frequent source of authority for federal legislation. But this changed with the Rehnquist Court. In United States v. Lopez, n21 the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, a federal law that made it a crime to have a firearm 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 the conviction and held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause authority. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court in a 5-4 decision and began by emphasizing that Congress's powers must be interpreted in a limited manner. The Court held that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate only: (1) "the channels of interstate commerce"; (2) "the instrumentalities of [*1770] interstate commerce" and "persons or things in interstate commerce"; and (3) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. n22 The Court found that the federal law prohibiting guns near schools did not constitute any of these types of regulation and thus was unconstitutional.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

8 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – Bush
States' rights are on the rise now due to Bush administration's policies Braun, Writer and Editorial Assistant for Seed 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 American politics: Democrats are for a stronger, more powerful federal government, while Republicans insist on a leaner one and support states’ rights. But in the past five years, Republicans have set about shattering this distinction, passing a litany of bills from No Child Left Behind to the Patriot Act, that have expanded the power of a rightist and growing federal government. There is, however, an exception to this paradigm shift. “I think it’s clear that on certain pivotal issues in science 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 is happening 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 government’s tendency to avoid the issue of embryonic stemcell research is a maneuver aimed at handing expensive, unwieldy and ethically tricky science-funding issues to industry and individual states.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

9 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – Democrats
Democrats and populists are beginning to support states' right in new paradigm shift Braun, Writer and Editorial Assistant for Seed 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 it’s a meeting of two political minds,” says Joanna Weinberg, a professor of law policy and ethics at the University of California-San Francisco researching the ethical and policy implications of the stem-cell research initiative passed by California voters. “There’s the very clear right-to-life orientation of this particular administration and its unwillingness to engage in much debate about that. [Additionally,] one of the hallmarks of this administration—and most Republican administrations—is that there should be less power held by the federal government and that the federal government should defer to the states in regulating activities unless absolutely necessary. It’s two interests that are coming together very opportunely.” Whether the reservations of the Bush administration or individual members of Congress have to do with a pro-life stance, a predilection for smaller government or both, it is clear that the synergy between agendas is likely 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: They’re calling for more states’ rights. “It’s been argued that we’re 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 the state level, the state level may be a better option.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

10 Federalism DA

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 major turning 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 be reversed. 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 Iran and North Korea and to global economic issues such as the price of oil and other commodities and the value of the dollar?all in an increasingly fragile international financial system. In short, the next administration and 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 several years, Vermont and Maine have enacted universal access while Massachusetts has enacted universal coverage. Overall, about 35 states have enacted major reforms, including coverage expansions, insurance market reforms, small business pools, and disease management. They also are focusing on quality improvement 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 to diversify supplies by expanding renewable resources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind. Many of these efforts also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, states are setting renewable portfolio standards for public utilities and are establishing renewable fuel standards for transportation and heating fuels. Other states are upgrading new building standards and setting standards for state automobile fleets and state government buildings. Climate Change – There are now three major regional climate change initiatives, which when fully implemented would cover about one-half the population of the United States. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions for power plants in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states through a regional, mandatory marketbased cap-and-trade program. Meanwhile, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have formed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Since WCI’s 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 nine Midwestern states and the premier of Manitoba, Canada.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

11 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (1/3)
State autonomy high now because of state energy regulations
Engel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 07. [Kristin, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.com] Just as the federal government has failed to resist poking its nose into local environmental issues, the states have found it difficult not to extend their reach to national, and even international, issues. Perhaps the most 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 gases around the world, the externalities of the activities producing greenhouse gases cannot be internalized within the boundaries of a single state, much less a metropolitan area.40 According to the “matching principle” discussed in Part I.A, state and local regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is inefficient because greenhouse gases are a national and international problem against which state and local regulation is powerless.41 While many of the state and local initiatives addressing greenhouse gases have localized economic 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 few local 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 regulations
Engel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 07. [Kristin, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.com] Today, however, in view of the federal government’s deregulatory and passive approach toward environmental regulation115 and the environmental leadership being demonstrated by many states, the assumptions underlying the cooperative federalism framework are being questioned.116 It seems the tables have turned; the states (or at least many of them) are the environmental leaders while the federal government 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 states from enacting more stringent environmental standards through legislative and administrative preemption.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

12 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (2/3)
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 Pauline
Vu, States are in rebellion over Washington's actions - and inaction, Dec 31) Making electricity more environmentally friendly passed in Illinois, Minnesota, Maine, Oregon and New Hampshire. That brings to 26 the states that require a percentage of their electricity to come from sources that do not burn fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. States are in rebellion over Washington's actions - and inaction - 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 both the States and the Federal Government. Reliable and affordable energy is a key component of economic development. However, opportunities for innovation and conservation cannot be ignored. It is appropriate to 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 2005
Energy Policy Act understood and shared this goal. I hope that we can leave here today with a better understanding of the way that the Federal 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 with alternative energy concepts Fialka, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, 06. [John, “States Power Renewable-Energy Push,” Wall Street
Journal, June 14 2006. Accessed 7/7/08 from http://www.cleanenergystates.org/press/States_Power_RenewableEnergy_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 in energy projects. A study prepared by the University of Michigan calls it a "classic case in federalism" with states experimenting with new and usually nonpolluting energy sources. Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy and author of the study, said the movement reminds him of state experiments in the 1920s that eventually 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.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

13 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (3/3)
States are driving the switch to renewable energy- greatly increasing the decentralization of power in the US
Ferrey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, 04. [John, “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, AND STATES’ RIGHTS,” NYU Environmental Law Journal, 2004. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn.com] We are embarked on a significant and ultimately inevitable transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources, by far the fastest growing source of new electric power in the U.S.5 The leverage for these 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 deregulating their electric power sectors.7 The socalled “renewable resource portfolio standard” is adopted in most of these deregulated states, as is the renewable energy system benefit charge trust fund subsidy.8 These state policies drive American energy policy into the twenty-first century. This energy transition has profound 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 beneficial environmental and national defense implications of this state-subsidized push into a renewable power future,9 there are serious Constitutional tripwires lurking before some of these innovative state initiatives.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

14 Federalism DA

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 more stringent than those agreed to by the three North American governments. Nevada continues to fight the federal government’s efforts to turn Yucca Mountain into a repository site for nuclear waste. Various states will 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 of the overall energy needs of the nation or the continent.

State governments are establishing standards on 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) 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 percentage of 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 and another 13,000 vehicles on electricity. Several states have also mandated that renewable energy sources must comprise an increasingly larger segment of their overall energy market.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

15 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – States leading on Alternatives now (2/2)
State and local governments have the key say in energy for the US citizens. 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) 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 gas utility 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 nation’s electricity transmission lines. However, the federal government has at its disposal very powerful weapons if it ever desires to confront subnational governments in their regulation of the energy field. The U.S. constitution is very clear in providing Washington, D.C. with a “big stick” linked to the commerce and supremacy clauses and to its overall preemption powers.

The state government has a key say in the future 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) 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 nationstates 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

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

16 Federalism DA

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 and sustainable energy resources to assist with the state's future power needs." said Glenn Farris, president and CEO of Biomass Gas and Electric. "Through the leadership of companies like Progress Energy, the state of 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 energy to its system -- which is enough to power 170,000 homes. In July, the company issued a request for renewables 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 by Massachusetts and Oregon to make up the top five. Washington state, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and 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 state regulators looking to trim electricity demand, "we're entering a new era" in the energy industry and "the age of cheap energy is over," said Bill Prindle, acting executive director of ACEEE and co-author of the scorecard 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

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

17 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – States leading on GHG regulation
States are taking the lead in limiting the production of CO2 emissions
Rabe, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of Michigan, 06. [Barry, “STATE COMPETITION AS A SOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION,”NYU Environmental Law Journal, Volume 14, February 1st 2006 p1-53. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol14/1/v14_n1_rabe-romandobelis.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. Various state governments are presently taking significant steps to mitigate climate change. This trend is particularly interesting in its sharp contrast to the federal government’s 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 if any such steps. Perhaps most interesting are those states that implement policies with beneficial consequences for the climate without referring to them as climate change mitigation efforts or attempts to control 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 between states in their respective policy responses to climate change? What other drivers of climate change mitigation exist besides purely environmental concerns?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

18 Federalism DA

Federalism UQ – FG not intruding on states now
Federal government supports state and local autonomy on alternative energy. Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, Adjunct
Assistance 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) After World War II, the federal role in environmental protection began a slow transformation that has been described as "creeping federalization." n38 Congress became more active in encouraging states to respond to environmental problems as increased industrial production intensified interstate pollution problems. "In 1956, Congress provided funding for the construction of municipal sewage treatment plants over President Eisenhower's veto," arguing that "the benefits of sewage treatment accrued largely to downstream cities" and that federal aid was [*410] needed to convince upstream states to act. n39 That same year, the federal government cancelled construction of Echo Park Dam on the Upper Colorado River, citing concerns that it would harm fish stocks and degrade the natural environment. n40 In 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to study and report on the quality of the nation's parks and forests. n41 But for the most part Congress continued to support local and state autonomy. The 1955 Air Pollution Control Act merely directed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to conduct a five-year research program on the effects of air pollution, continuing to emphasize that pollution control was a state responsibility. n42 Similarly, the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act n43 provided federal funding and technical assistance to help the states minimize environmental damage in the creation of an interstate highway system, but left the actual construction of roads and the responsibility for ensuring that they did not contaminate water sources and destroy land exclusively to the states. n44

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

19 Federalism DA

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: It’s 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: It’s 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 be based on accurate and complete information.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

20 Federalism DA

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 the 1990s, the Supreme [*617] Court engaged in a Federalism Revolution - taking upon itself the task of ensuring that the national legislature did not encroach upon the proper authority of the states. n7 In more 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. For example, this past term in Gonzales v. Raich, n8 the Court not only passed up an opportunity to further reduce 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 the Necessary 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 interstate commerce." n9 Moreover, the Gonzales decision is hardly an anomaly. Since 2003, in cases dealing with the Commerce Clause, n10 Section 5 of the Fourteenth [*618] Amendment, n11 the Spending Clause, n12 and the Eleventh Amendment, n13 the 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 assailed the Court's counter-Revolution cases as the end of an era, n14 those decisions have left ample room for lower 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. Hibbs n15 and [*619] Tennessee v. Lane, n16 two 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 asserting claims against the states under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). n17 Moreover, both lawyers and judges are taking full advantage [*620] of the leeway created by the Federalism Revolution to think creatively about what Congressional authority should be. n18

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

21 Federalism DA

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 fifteen years, 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. n1 But the sexiness of the new federalism has come at the price of confusion and instability. Everything about the area of law now seems to be in flux. The most obvious 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 the Court'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 federalism cases 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 he was a circuit court judge, suggests that he is willing to read Supreme Court precedent narrowing Congress's Commerce Clause powers and expanding [*616] facial challenges to federal statutes broadly. n3 ThenJudge Roberts, however, also allowed that he would be open to find "alternative grounds for sustaining application of [Commerce Clause statutes] that [would] be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." n4 Harriet Miers, President George W. Bush's next pick to fill a Supreme Court seat, had no record that would betray her leanings in federalism cases. n5 Judge Samuel Alito, however, Bush's next selection for the Court, had expressed hostility towards many of the assertions of Congressional power that we have grown accustomed to since the 1930s in his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. n6 Since Justice Alito is now a member of the Supreme Court, only time will tell if a new Court majority will coalesce to police strictly the boundaries of federalism.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

22 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Federal Action trades off with States (1/3)
State and federal action on energy policy trade off
Sovacool, 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 initiatives that have proliferated on the RPS and climate change fronts. The concern, however, is that through the process 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 influence
Adler, 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 Studies Working 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, knowledge and interest-group pressure. The influences of federal regulation on state regulatory choices, particularly insofar as such influences are felt indirectly, may be less obvious. Nonetheless, it should be evident that federal 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 and local level. This article suggests a framework for categorizing and analyzing how federal policy decisions can influence state regulatory choices. The federal influence can be both “positive” – resulting in greater levels of state regulation – or “negative.” Federal influence can also be direct or indirect. Direct influences include 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 are no less important. Federal action – or perhaps even federal inaction – can encourage greater state regulation by 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 environmental rules 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 benefits
Adler, 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 Studies Working 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 may discourage 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 entities pursue different research methodologies to address emerging environmental problems. measures are unnecessary. As a result, the adoption of federal regulation may induce state policymakers to lower comparable 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, the existence of federal regulation may discourage the adoption of additional state-level regulatory protections in the future.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

23 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Federal Action trades off with States (2/3)
Federal action undercuts state energy policy- “signaling”
Adler, 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 Studies Working 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, the adoption 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 for this effect is that federal policymakers, particularly federal agencies, are presumed to have substantial technical expertise. Thus, their actions may convince state policy makers (or their constituents) that additional safeguards are “unnecessary” or that the benefits of more stringent regulatory protections are not worth their costs. The magnitude of this effect is likely to correspond with the magnitude of the difference between the relevant federal and state standards. In this way, federal standards can discourage state policymakers from adopting and maintaining more stringent measures of their own, even where such measures could be justified. As a practical matter, the federal “floor” may become a “ceiling” as well. This effect is not merely hypothetical. There are numerous examples of state legislation designed to prevent state environmental agencies from adopting regulatory standards that are more stringent than federal rules.106 Between 1987-1995, nearly 20 states adopted at least one statute limiting the ability of state agencies to adopt regulatory controls more stringent than relevant federal standards.107 Some states focus on a given environmental concern, while others have general prohibitions against the adoption of any environmental rules more stringent than applicable federal standards.108 New Mexico and Colorado, for example, have statutes prohibiting the promulgation of air pollution controls more stringent than required by federal law.109 Virginia law bars state regulatory authorities from requiring greater amounts of water treatment than mandated under the federal Clean Water Act.110 Others state have general prohibitions against agency promulgation of environmental rules more stringent than federal law.

Federal regulation crowds out state action- prevents states from going above and beyond federal regulations
Adler, 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 Studies Working Paper, May 2006 p. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.com] A second potential negative indirect effect of federal regulation on state regulatory choices is “crowding out.” This occurs because federal regulation may serve as a substitute for state-level regulation, and thereby reduce the benefits of adopting or maintaining state-level protections. Insofar as voters in a given state demand a certain level of environmental protection, there is no reason to expect states to duplicate federal efforts insofar as a federal program is satisfying that demand, particularly if a state has not already created such a program. If the federal “floor” is greater than or equal to the level of environmental protection demanded by a state’s residents, there is no reason for a state to adopt environmental regulations of its own once the federal government has acted. Insofar as this effect occurs, it is separate from – perhaps even in addition to – the signaling effect described above.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

24 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Federal Action trades off with States (3/3)
Federal energy legislation removes the long-term tendency of states to adopt more and more strict regulations- the status quo solves
Adler, 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 Studies Working Paper, May 2006 p. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.com] One implication of the crowding out effect is that it is possible that the adoption of a federal regulatory floor may result in lower levels of regulatory protection than had the federal government not entered the field. This potential is illustrated in Figure 5 below. As in Figure 2, which illustrated the signaling effect, States A and B initially have regulatory standards (QAReg and QBReg, respectively) less stringent than the federal standard (QFReg), while State C has a regulatory standard (QCReg) greater than the relevant federal standard. Here, however, the demand for environmental regulation in each state is not static. Rather, the demand for regulation in State B is increasing over time. Absent federal regulation, State B would eventually adopt a higher level of protection – a level of protection greater than that which would be adopted at the federal level. In this scenario, the adoption of a federal standard not only has the potential to signal to states to reduce their levels of protection. It may also discourage the adoption of ever greater levels of protection in those states that go through their environmental transition after the adoption of the federal standard. This potential opportunity cost of federal regulation is no less important than the more observable effects illustrated in Figure 2.

Federal action on climate change usurps state authority Franz T. Litz, Esq., Senior Fellow world recourse institute, 08
(Toward a Constructive Toward Federal and State Roles in U.S Climate Change policy, June 08, http://www.pewclimate.org accessed 7-12-08) Given the relative historical competencies of state and federal governments, it is neither desirable nor likely that the federal government will step in comprehensively to eliminate any state role in tackling climate change. Indeed, some areas central to climate change policy, such as smart growth and land use planning, fall within the near-exclusive purview of state and local governments. At the other extreme are international climate change negotiations leading to international agreements, which is a matter for exclusive federal control. Most areas relevant to climate change policy, however, fall between these two extremes and have historically been shared by both state and federal governments.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

25 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Federal Action hurts States’ Rights
Federal energy initiatives undermine states' rights Silverberg, News Radio Network Producer, 07 (Hank, WTOP News, "Power Corridors Could Start Battle Over States' Rights," 4-29-7, http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=1128225, 7-6-8)
A decision by the Department of Energy to declare part of the region as a "national interest electric transmission corridor" could start a battle royal over state's rights. The proposed corridors would set aside a path for power lines where energy demand is growing - so that power lines can be built in the national interest, and without consent from local governments. One of the proposed corridors would cross 22 jurisdictions in Virginia, and cover almost all of Maryland, and Washington D.C. The Department of Energy believes that these corridors are necessary to try and stop bottlenecks in the power grid due to age, and increased demand to massive population growth in parts of the country. However, there are many critics of this proposal who don't like the federal government stepping in on state's rights. "The attorney general believes that states have a very distinct role in this process and he's concerned that the state of Virginia is being cut out of the process," said Tucker Martin, a spokesman for Virginia's attorney general. Other critics believe that property rights are being threatened. "It appears the energy policy of the United States now is to threaten to condemn first and ask questions later," said Bob Lazarro, of the Piedmont Environmental Council. Congress may intervene in this matter, and several states, including Maine, have threatened to sue. Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell doesn't like the federal government's interference, but Martin says he's not ready for a lawsuit yet. A southwest corridor is also being proposed that would span seven counties in southern California, three in Arizona and one in Nevada. Authorities are planning public meetings on the corridors in San Diego, Arlington, Va., and New York City. Once a 60-day comment period ends, the law calls for state regulators to try to strike an agreement on where new lines should be built. If no new lines are approved after a year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be able to intervene and approve a new grid project so long as it is deemed necessary to the needs of the nation. So far only the two corridors have been proposed, but a report from last year identified several other potential corridors including; parts of New England, The PhoenixTucson region in Arizona, parts of the Pacific Northwest, and the San Francisco Bay area.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

26 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Federal Action Preempts the States
Federal action unintentionally preempts state policymaking- preemption is the most effective way to prevent state regulation and autonomy on policy issues
Engel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 07. [Kristin, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law,” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37, January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.com] From the vantage point of dynamic federalism, the real concern is not overlapping jurisdiction, but federal preemption. As others have recognized, federal preemption cuts short the lawmaking process and products of an entire level of democratic government.132 It leaves the responsibility of generating policy ideas to the federal government alone. Federal preemption is of course explicitly provided for under the Supremacy Clause and is furthermore an expected product of a political process that provides essentially unfettered access to interest groups. Nevertheless, the courts can and should control the relative ease with which state law is preempted under federal statutes and regulations by requiring strong evidence of congressional intent to preempt state law. Federal preemption can be considered an unpleasant by-product of interest group lawmaking. Moreover, once viewed in this manner, federal preemption is less appealing than it might be if considered as purely the effect of a conflict between federal and state regulatory schemes. Statutory language either expressly or implicitly preempting state law would seem to be the prize sought by interest groups successful in advancing their policy preferences at the federal level. Consistent with the idea that our dual system provides multiple points of entry to persons and groups, groups will generally favor federal regulation and will likely seek to prevent subsequent policymaking on the same topic at the state level out of a fear that the state level will be dominated by opposing interest groups. The best tool for preventing subsequent policymaking at the state level is, of course, federal preemption.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

27 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Electricity Grid is State jurisdiction
Federal alternative energy incentives undermine state jurisdictional control of the composition of the energy market; plan disrupts
Ferrey, law professor at NYU, Suffolk, 04. [Steven, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 2004, p. 403] States can segment the market to promote renewable energy. FERC expressly acknowledged a state's ability to promulgate regulations favoring particular generation technologies over others, in holding that a "state may choose to require a utility to construct generation capacity of a preferred technology or to purchase power from the supplier of a particular type of resource." FERC suggests that the mechanism to do this may be for "a state [to] account for environmental costs of all fuel sources including an all source determination of avoided cost." This provides a means, as long as the price paid is not more than the general market or administratively set price. While states may not violate federal law, they retain jurisdiction to structure the resource composition of the power supply market.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

28 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Transmission Lines
Federal regulation of Transmission lines violates federalism US Fed News, 2007, (April 25, Accessed July 7, 2008)
My concern over Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act springs from two sources: 1. Federalism/ State autonomy issues and 2. the mindset with which we approach energy management challenges. With respect to state autonomy, states have been in charge of the approval process for new transmission lines from the beginning. State statutes are set up to balance the interests of their citizens who are equally consumers of energy, land owners, and consumers of the environment. For example, in my home state, when the State Corporation Commission reviews an application of a new transmission line, they are bound to consider not just need, but also that the new transmission line will minimize adverse impacts on the scenic assets, historic districts, and the environment of the affected area. If a utility applies to FERC, will these issues be given due consideration?

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

29 Federalism DA

Federalism Link – Cars
EPA's auto decision hurts state's efforts Associated Press, 2008
(March 1, http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/01/epas-auto-decision-hurts-states-efforts/) The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to block California's crackdown on auto emissions is hampering efforts by Colorado to reduce greenhouse gases, an environmental group said Friday. "The EPA has turned a blind eye to science, law and the critical role that the states are playing in tackling global warming," said Keith Hay, energy advocate for Environment Colorado. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in December denied California a waiver from federal rules that would have allowed the state to adopt a first-of-its-kind greenhouse gas cap on vehicles. Johnson said Friday that problems with global warming aren't unique to California, so a waiver wasn't justified. Twelve other states had adopted California's restriction, and Gov. Bill Ritter planned to approve them.Colorado car dealers have said their industry would suffer if the state sets tougher emissions standards rather than offer incentives to consumers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

30 Federalism DA

A2: State control now steals Federal power
State regulation of energy consumption is justifiable on non-protectionist reasons like energy diversity, national security or economic development
Ferrey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, 04. [John, “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, AND STATES’ RIGHTS,” NYU Environmental Law Journal, 2004. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn.com] In some instances, the Court has deferred to, and made central to its reasoning, the state’s stated purpose for a particular regulation.549 The underlying purpose of the milk subsidy was to promote in-state milk production against cheaper out-of-state competition.550 The purpose of a renewable trust fund can be justified by energy source diversity, environmental, economic development, and national security goals,551 while a milk tax is justified by a narrower and more parochial set of goals, such as protectionism. While trust funds can be justified on a variety of purposes, some renewable energy trust funds are expressly predicated, in part, on a goal to encourage the continued survival of the state’s renewable energy industry.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

31 Federalism DA

Federalism solves the aff – Innovation
Low federalism can help foster more diverse policies and more choices for the idea policy. This allows for experiments without harming the country as a whole. Robinson, Akron Law Review, 2007 (Nick, Citizens Not Subjects: U.S. Foreign Relations Law and the
Decentralization of Foreign Policy, accessed July 6,2008) First, federalism allows for and fosters a greater diversity of policies. Decentralization can allow for a number of governmental subunits to work on the same problem creating what Jack Walker calls a "national system of emulation and competition" n169 while also taking into account local conditions and preferences. In a similar vein, Charles Tiebout famously argued that if "consumer-voters" are mobile and have full information they will sort amongst bundles of public goods offered by competing local governments, thereby leading to the distribution of public goods in an optimal manner. n170 Certainly, not all localities perform equally well at developing and adapting new policies. Research has shown that wealthier states tend to be more innovative although local political situations are in large part determinative as well. n171 There is also reason to believe localities are best at determining solutions to middle-level difficulty problems as large problems often require more resources than are at their disposal while decentralization can often confuse remedies for smaller problems. n172 With these limitations in mind, however, localities are remarkably adaptive, often correctly pinpointing problems and finding new solutions before the federal government does. Dissenting from New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, Justice Brandeis summarizes the frequently invoked idea that states can be laboratories for experimentation: To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. It is one of the happy incidents of [*680] the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. n173

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

32 Federalism DA

Federalism solves the aff (1/2)
States are taking action against climate change and may be sparking a national movement Kenworthy, Former Denver-based correspondent for The Post and USA Today, senior fellow at Western Progress, 06 (Tom, USA Today, "Growing number of states requiring alternative energy," 11-23-6, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-23-alternative-energy_x.htm?csp=34, 7-6-8)
Renewable energy is gathering steam in several states as voters and governors push electric utilities to generate a set percentage of electricity from clean sources such as wind and solar power. In Washington state, voters approved a measure Nov. 7 mandating that 15% of electrical power come from renewable sources by 2020. That makes 20 states and the District of Columbia with such requirements, according to the Department of Energy. Two others states — Illinois and Vermont — have non-binding goals on using renewable energy sources. More states are forcing utilities toward wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, such as geothermal and biomass, to cut the use of coal and natural gas and spur greater U.S. energy independence. Burning coal produces greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change. Power plants fueled by natural gas pollute the air with sulfur dioxide. Opponents, including some utilities and industries, say the switch will be costly for consumers and businesses. In Senate testimony last year, the National Association of Manufacturers opposed a proposed federal requirement to use renewable energy because it would reduce the flexibility of utilities in choosing fuels and harm businesses trying to remain competitive by containing costs. Other states taking action: •California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law in September that accelerates the timetable for 20% of electricity to come from solar, wind and other clean power sources. The compliance date is now 2010, seven years earlier than previously required by state law. •New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson proposed last month that the state increase its current requirement that 10% of electricity come from renewable sources by 2011. He wants utilities to produce 15% of their power from renewable sources by 2015 and 25% by 2020. •Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski is developing a legislative package calling for 25% of electrical power from renewable energy by 2025. In Colorado, Gov.-elect Bill Ritter made renewable energy a centerpiece of his campaign. "We're going to move aggressively" on increasing the use of solar and wind power, says state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. "Colorado ought to be a leader in this field, and it's been lapped by more aggressive states." Colorado voters in 2004 approved a referendum requiring that the state draw 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. In October, the state's largest utility, Xcel Energy, announced it will meet the 10% target by next year. Xcel's quick success reflects, in part, the abundance of solar power and wind in Colorado, which is not the case everywhere. Xcel, which serves 1.3 million customers in Colorado, is studying how it could attain a higher percentage, spokesman Tom Henley says. That's "something we're looking at. ... The only question is whether it would be prudent." He points to the intermittent reliability of wind and solar power. Xcel was moving toward large-scale purchases of renewable electricity before the 2004 vote, Henley says. It has contracts with four large wind-electricity producers, is awaiting regulatory approval to build a large solar plant in southern Colorado and pays credits and rebates to homeowners and businesses that install solar panels. Progress in the states could spur Congress to enact a federal standard, predicts Anna Aurelio, director of the Washington office of U.S. PIRG, a national environmental group. The Senate in 2005 approved a 10% mandate that failed in the House, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., incoming chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said he will try again. "This is a huge opportunity right now," Aurelio says.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

33 Federalism DA

Federalism solves the aff (2/2)
States' rights on energy policy is key to tackling the crisis- climate change action and other domestic initiatives prove 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)
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 several years, Vermont and Maine have enacted universal access while Massachusetts has enacted universal coverage. Overall, about 35 states have enacted major reforms, including coverage expansions, insurance market reforms, small business pools, and disease management. They also are focusing on quality improvement 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 to diversify supplies by expanding renewable resources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind. Many of these efforts also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, states are setting renewable portfolio standards for public utilities and are establishing renewable fuel standards for transportation and heating fuels. Other states are upgrading new building standards and setting standards for state automobile fleets and state government buildings. Climate Change – There are now three major regional climate change initiatives, which when fully implemented would cover about one-half the population of the United States. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions 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 have formed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). Since WCI’s 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 nine Midwestern states and the premier of Manitoba, Canada.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

34 Federalism DA

Federalism solves Tyranny (1/2)
Prevention of tyranny and laboratories of experimentation are benefits of a states' rights approach to federalism Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
This view of federalism as limits also sees a need to significantly restrict the authority of federal courts to protect the domain of state judiciaries. Typical of this approach are cases like Younger v. Harris that proclaim the importance of "Our Federalism" as a major limit on federal judicial authority. n15 Also, this approach provides state governments with sovereign immunity so as to protect their dignity and finances. Those who defend this view of federalism see enforcement of limits as crucial to prevent government tyranny that can occur with centralization of power. n16 There is also the sense that state and local governments are closer to the people and are thus more likely to be responsive to their needs. n17 Additionally, states are seen as laboratories for experimentation, which ultimately benefits all of society. n18

Federalism decreases the likelihood of federal tyranny and enhances democratic rule. Imas, Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science, University of Southern California, McGeorge Law Review, 2001 (McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Spring, accessed July 7, 2008)
A striking, but often overlooked aspect of the Supreme Court's federalism decisions is the unquestionable importance of the laws that were invalidated. Cleaning up nuclear wastes, requiring background checks for gun ownership, keeping guns away from schools, creating a remedy for women who suffer gender-motivated violence, and allowing recovery for infringements of patents, all are compelling government interests. The key question is why safeguarding states is more important than these objectives. Justice O'Connor (and the Court), never answers this question. Most Supreme Court decisions protecting federalism say relatively little about the underlying [*888] values that are being served. When the Court does speak of the values of federalism, it usually does little more than present conclusions that federalism is desirable because it decreases the likelihood of federal tyranny, n92 enhances democratic rule by providing government that is closer to the people, n93 and allows states to be laboratories for new ideas. n94

Federalism prevents despotism and protects individual freedoms
Walker, TC Beirne School of Law 99. [Geoffrey, “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism,” Australian Law Journal, 1999 p. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from] 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 state governments, 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 ‘federalism prevents 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 a very distinguished constitutional lawyer. Although he was definitely no friend of federalism, he did have to admit 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 state political leaders who led the struggle against the 1991 political broadcasts ban. In fact, the New South Wales government was a plaintiff in the successful High Court challenge to that legislation, and that decision, I would suggest, was the perhaps the greatest advance in Australian political liberty since federation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

35 Federalism DA

Federalism solves Tyranny (2/2)
Federalism is a necessary check on tyranny- in its absence it is much easier for a tyrant to take control
Gardner, Professor of Law, State University of New York, 03. [James, GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, June 2003, p. 1007-8] "The accumulation of all powers . . . in the same hands," wrote Madison "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." To protect liberty, then, power must be divided. Federalism serves this guiding principle of American constitutional design by parceling out government powers among different levels of government. Federalism, it must be borne in mind, is a creation of the national Constitution, not state constitutions. It is not the result of a fortuitous series of agreements reached one by one by the separate peoples of the original thirteen states; on the contrary, federalism represents the deliberate decision of a single national polity to divide governmental power for the purpose of protecting the liberty of all. Federalism protects liberty by giving the state and national levels of government substantial powers sufficient to allow each to monitor and check the abuses of the other. n14 As with the horizontal separation of powers that divides governmental power into legislative, executive, and judicial branches, each level of government in this vertically fragmented system is given the power and incentive to struggle against the other: "Ambition," as Madison put it, "must be made to counteract ambition." nThe result is a compound federal republic in which power is deeply fragmented, reducing as far as possible by structural means the likelihood that a tyrannical measure of power can be accumulated in a single set of hands: In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people, is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people, is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each, subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controled by itself.

Federalism is absolutely key to protecting individual liberties
HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL, 2002 (January, pp. 433-4) I have a different perspective. Federalism is not a dysfunctional anachronism, a nostalgic symbol of a pre-industrial America. Rather, when properly viewed and applied, it is crucial to preservation of individual liberty and a valuable device to preserve a healthy balance of power among governmental institutions. The institutional benefits of federalism are not simply preservation of state autonomy as a counter to federal power but also operate less directly to preserve the scheme of separated powers within the federal government.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

36 Federalism DA

A2: Federalism = tyranny by the states
Empirically, state and local power does not cause tyranny Robinson, Akron Law Review, 2007 (Nick, Citizens Not Subjects: U.S. Foreign Relations Law and the
Decentralization of Foreign Policy, accessed July 6,2008) A second critique of federalism is that if localities are given too much power they will pursue narrowminded or unjust ends. Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that the tyranny of the majority could be checked more easily in a larger country because it was less likely they would share common enough interests to consistently suppress the rights of [*684] others. n183 Indeed, many who grew up during the Civil Rights era in the United States associate state and local governments with racist laws in the American South that were entrenched in localities. These laws were only ultimately purged through the commitment of the national government. Many have argued for international human rights and trade regimes so that people and markets under localities' control are not subject to parochial policies. They claim that localities' actions not in line with these commitments can only weaken the high standards of these international regimes. There are at least two reasons to doubt the validity of this criticism. First, if localities are not involved in and do not accept the validity of international agreements, these agreements can seem hollow and illegitimate no matter how just their goals purport to be. International agreements and the norms they promote are not as likely to be successfully internalized without local involvement and participation in the development, contestation, and implementation of these agreements. Second, history has shown localities were often on the forefront of causes of justice. An examination of American history shows a number of notable examples where state and local governments took the lead in protecting basic human rights. For example, the Constitution initially entrenched a system that would favor the continuation of slavery. n184 While the federal government actively condoned slavery, northern states banned its practice and worked towards its national abolition. Localities also pushed women's suffrage before the national government. In 1869 the Wyoming territory accorded women equal rights with men to vote and hold office, and in 1890 it entered the United States as the first woman-suffrage state. n185 By 1917, 11 states - all in the west - had full suffrage for women. n186 Suffrage advocates used the example of these states to successfully lobby for the 19th amendment, which was adopted in 1920.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

37 Federalism DA

Judicial Protection is key to preserve Federalism
Constitutional safeguards for states' rights are not adequate; judicial intervention is necessary due to changes in government since America's founding Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
The Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions obviously reject this view that the political safeguards of federalism are adequate. For example, its use of the [*1778] Tenth Amendment as a limit on congressional power, such as in New York v. United States n72 and Printz v. United States, n73 is based on the assumption that the political process is inadequate to safeguard state governments and that the courts must do so instead. Similarly, limiting the ability of Congress to authorize suits against state governments is also based on this assumption. n74 But never did the Rehnquist Court justify this crucial premise that the political process is insufficient to protect the states and that it is the judiciary's role to do so. Indeed, never did the Rehnquist Court even acknowledge that it was rejecting the Court's express conclusion in Garcia. Certainly, the assumption that states' interests are adequately represented in the national political process could be challenged. n75 At the time the Constitution was written, states chose senators and thus were directly represented in Congress. But now, with popular election of senators, why believe that the states' interests as states are adequately protected in Congress? n76 The assumption must be that the voters, in choosing representatives and senators, weigh heavily the extent to which the individual legislator votes in a manner that serves the interests of the state as an entity. Yet, simple observation of congressional elections shows that the issues at stake are usually basic ones about the economy, health care, and the personalities of the candidates. The focus of the attention is on the interests of the voters, not on the institutional interests of state and local governments. Indeed, it may well be that "the primary constituencies of the national representatives may ... be precisely those that advocate an extension of the federal power to the disadvantage of the states." n77

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

38 Federalism DA

Federalism key to Economic Growth
Competitive federalism is key to economic growth. Moran, Courier Mail, 2007
(Alan, June 15, How to slash housing costs, Pg. 28) Planning restraints reduce housing affordability, writes Alan Moran Competitive federalism can be an important growth propellant IN THE bad old days state governments' purchasing policies advantaged local suppliers by granting them preferential treatment. Such measures were always of dubious validity (after all, the Australian Constitution was supposed to be about freedom of interstate trade). But it took the competition reforms over the past decade for these practices to be abolished. This was not before time. State purchasing preferences tended to fragment supply and add to costs. But not all competition between states is bad. Competitive federalism in the European Union has been an important growth propellant. Nations that have reduced taxes and regulations have risen above the rather ordinary economic performance of the area as a whole. This policy has been the fairy godmother that has transformed Ireland, Europe's Cinderella, from rags to riches. Ireland has seen its average income levels grow to be a quarter above those of the United Kingdom. Some of the newer EU members are following similar paths. Slovakia, the location for a new Porsche vehicle plant, has adopted the Irish approach and has benefited from economic growth at 8 per cent a year. These same elements are seen within other federal systems. In California, regulatory excesses are undermining the state's advantages in spite of it being the centre of the world's hi-tech industry.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

39 Federalism DA

US Federalism modeled – Generic (1/2)
Countries look to Bosnia, Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Nepal and Nigeria for federalist leadership. Abaya, Manila Standard, 2008, (Antonio, Federal Role Models?)
Additionally, I was in the UAE in 1995 as guest of the UAE government (as I was in Malaysia in 1992 as guest of the Malaysian government). The UAE is, of course, fabulously wealthy, but it cannot be a model for this country since that wealth is due solely to oil and gas, which we do not have in similar quantities. Besides, 80 percent of its population are foreigners, a situation unique to the UAE. And what can we possibly learn from Micronesia, which has a population of only 107,000 at low tide? So, after removing Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, South Africa, Russia, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Federated States of Micronesia from Reader Faelnar's list, what does he have left as role models to entice us with to federalism? Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ethiopia, Nepal and Nigeria. Would Senator Pimentel and his 11 (or 16) senator-apostles call for dancing in the streets that we have such inspiring role models for a shift to federalism? Even that may be premature. Bosnia and Herzegovina (or B&H) may have been a unitary state (I don't really know) between the end of World War I (which began with an assassination in its capital Sarajevo) and the beginning of World War II.

US federalism modeled now
Tarr, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Rutgers University 2005 [G. Alan Tarr “United States of America” appearing in John Kincaid and G. Alan Tarr, editors Constituional Origins, structure and change in federal democracies” McGill Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston: 2005 pg 382] The United States of America is the world's oldest, continuing, modern federal democracy. Indeed, the framers of the United States Constitution are widely regarded as the inventors of modern federalism, as distinct from ancient forms of federalism, especially confederalism. The US Constitution has been influential as a model of federal democracy, and key principles of the Constitution - such as federalism, the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and individual rights - have gained acceptance worldwide. Americans believe that the nation's success owes much to the brilliance of the Constiution's drafters. Yet neither the Constitution, nor the federal polity it created, has remained static. Amendments adopted after the Civil War (186 1 -65) altered the federal-state balance, and the authorization of a federal income tax in the Sixteenth Amendment (1913) greatly augmented the fiscal power of the federal government. The Constitution has also both influenced and been influenced by political and social developments, including the transformation of the United States from a few states hugging the Atlantic Coast to a continental nation and also from a country recently liberated from colonial rule to an economic and military superpower.

US domestic federalism modeled
London, President of the Hudson Institute 2k [Herbert I. London, President of the Hudson Institute and Professor Emeritus at NYU “The Enemy Within” April 1st, 2001 http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1398&pubType=HI_Articles ] Fourth, the United States possesses a sense of moral universalism that exists nowhere else. When one talks about some sort of example—a model of human rights, constitutionalism, subsidiarity, rule of law, and property rights—the United States stands alone. It is the model. Not long ago several Hudson Institute scholars had the opportunity to spend some time in Indonesia, and we found that Indonesia does not turn for its models to China or Japan; it looks to the United States. The new Indonesian president is very keen on establishing a form of federalism. What does he look to? The American Constitution. Fifth and last, the rest of the world looks to the United States for answers. Very recently, an American deputy secretary of state said, “Everyone’s crisis is America’s crisis.” Why? Because the world looks to the United States as its model. As a consequence, there is no question that the United States will maintain its extraordinary leadership.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

40 Federalism DA

US Federalism modeled – Generic (2/2)
Federalism modeling is on the rise around the world
Walker, TC Beirne School of Law 99. [Geoffrey, “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism,” Australian Law Journal, 1999 p. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from] Worldwide interest in federalism is probably stronger today than at any other time in human history.1 The old attitude of benign contempt toward it has been replaced by a growing conviction that it enables a country to have the best of both worlds—those of shared rule and self-rule, coordinated national government and diversity, creative experiment and liberty. As one Canadian authority says, ‘political leaders, leading intellectuals and even some journalists increasingly speak of federalism as a healthy, liberating and positive form of organisation.’2 With the move of South Africa toward a federal structure, all the world’s physically large countries are now federations, except for China—and even that country has become a de facto federation by devolving more and more autonomy to the provinces. And you can see the same trend in countries that are not so big. When East Germany was released from the Soviet Union, there was never any question in the minds of its people that they would rejoin the nation as the five federal states that had been suppressed by Hitler and later by the Communists. Belgium became a federation in 1993 and Poland is heading in the same direction.

Countries model the federalist structure of the US Steven G. Calabresi, Law Professor, Northwestern, 1995 (MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, December, p. 759 60)
At the same time, U.S. style constitutional federalism has become the order of the day in an extraordinarily large number of very important countries, some of which once might have been thought of as pure nation states. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have decentralized power by adopting constitutions that are significantly more federalist than the ones they replaced. Many other nations that had been influenced long ago by American federalism have chosen to retain and formalize their federal structures. Thus, the federalist constitutions of Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, for example, all are basically alive and well today.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

41 Federalism DA

Federalist Modeling = Stable Democracies
Federal modeling key to the creation of stable democracies
Stepan, Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University, 99. [Alfred, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model,” Journal of Democracy Vol. 10, No. 4 (1999) pp. 19-34. Accessed 7/8/08 from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/fspub/6_7_Stepan_1999_Federalism_J_of_Dem.pdf] In addition to the strong association between multinational democracies and federalism, the six longstanding democracies that score highest on an index of linguistic and ethnic diversity--India, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and the United States--are all federal states. The fact that these nations chose to adopt a federal system does not prove anything; it does, however, suggest that federalism may help these countries manage the problems that come with ethnic and linguistic diversity. In fact, in my judgment, if countries such as Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, China, and Burma are ever to become stable democracies, they will have to craft workable federal systems that allow cultural diversity, a robust capacity for socioeconomic development, and a general standard of equality among their citizens.

A federalist division of power maintains state stability
Walker, TC Beirne School of Law 99. [Geoffrey, “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism,” Australian Law Journal, 1999 p. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from] The seventh advantage is stability. Stability is a cardinal virtue in government. Stable government enables individuals and groups to plan their activities with some confidence, and so makes innovation and lasting progress possible. Political stability is much valued by ordinary people, because they are the ones most likely to suffer from sudden shocks or changes in direction in the government of the country. So in that sense a stable government is more democratic than an unstable one, other things being equal. Stability is obviously a very high priority with the Australian people, as you can see from the tendency of people to vote for different political parties in the two houses of parliament. This is a practice designed to reduce the destabilising potential of transient majorities in the lower house. Professor Brian Galligan of Melbourne University supports this assessment, with his observation that the traditional literature on Australian politics has exaggerated the radical character of the national ethos, while at the same time overlooking the stabilising effect of the Constitution.33 Why is it more stable? The federal compact, Galligan says, deals in an ingenious way with the problem of the multiplicity of competing answers and the lack of obvious solutions, by setting government institutions against one another, by breaking up national majorities and pitting institutions against one another.34 And the people obviously prefer that, as we can see from their votes in constitutional referendums.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

42 Federalism DA

Federalism stops Global Wars
U.S. federalism modeling good- free trade, growth, human rights and interstate conflict prevention
Calabresi, Assistant Prof – Northwestern U., 94, [Steven, Michigan Law Review, 1994 p. 831-2] First, the rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is a good thing, and it is the best and most important structural feature of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional federalism, notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. Third, the Supreme Court is institutionally competent to enforce constitutional federalism. Fourth, the Court is at least as qualified to act in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment area. And, fifth, the doctrine of stare decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any new, prospectively applicable Commerce Clause case law. The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash in the pan. Elite opinion holds that the future of American constitutional law will involve the continuing elaboration of the Court's national codes on matters like abortion regulation, pornography, rules on holiday displays, and rules on how the states should conduct their own criminal investigations and trials. Public choice theory suggests many reasons why it is likely that the Court will continue to pick on the states and give Congress a free ride. But, it would be a very good thing for this country if the Court decided to surprise us and continued on its way down the Lopez path. Those of us who comment on the Court's work, whether in the law reviews or in the newspapers, should encourage the Court to follow the path on which it has now embarked. The country and the world would be a better place if it did. We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary federalism has swept across the world in recent years. To a significant extent, this is due to global fascination with and emulation of our own American federalism success story. The global trend toward federalism is an enormously positive development that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace, free trade, economic growth, respect for social and cultural diversity, and protection of individual human rights. It depends for its success on the willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief that those deals will be kept. The U.S. Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the future striking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own American federalism deal. Lopez could be a first step in that process, if only the Justices and the legal academy would wake up to the importance of what is at stake.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

43 Federalism DA

Iraq Models US / Iraqi Federalism Good (1/2)
An Iraqi federalist system must be modeled off of the United States to preserve unity and create peace Biden et al, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 07
(Joseph R., The Washington Post, "Federalism, Not Partition," 10-3-7, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201824.html, 7-6-8) The Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki greeted last week's Senate vote on Iraq policy -- based on a plan we proposed in 2006 -- with misrepresentations and untruths. Seventy-five senators, including 26 Republicans, voted to promote a political settlement based on decentralized power-sharing. It was a life raft for an Iraq policy that is adrift. Instead, Maliki and the administration -- through our embassy in Baghdad -- distorted the Biden-Brownback amendment beyond recognition, charging that we seek to "partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means." We want to set the record straight. If the United States can't put this federalism idea on track, we will have no chance for a political settlement in Iraq and, without that, no chance for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind. First, our plan is not partition, though even some supporters and the media mistakenly call it that. It would hold Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq but one in which power devolves to regional governments, with a limited central government responsible for common concerns such as protecting borders and distributing oil revenue. Iraqis have no familiarity with federalism, which, absent an occupier or a dictator, has historically been the only path to keeping disunited countries whole. We can point to our federal system and how it began with most power in the hands of the states. We can point to similar solutions in the United Arab Emirates, Spain and Bosnia. Most Iraqis want to keep their country whole. But if Iraqi leaders keep hearing from U.S. leaders that federalism amounts to or will lead to partition, that's what they will believe. The Bush administration's quixotic alternative has been to promote a strong central government in Baghdad. That central government doesn't function; it is corrupt and widely regarded as irrelevant. It has not produced political reconciliation -- and there is no evidence it will. Second, we are not trying to impose our plan. If the Iraqis don't want it, they won't and shouldn't take it, as the Senate amendment makes clear. But Iraqis and the White House might consider the facts. Iraq's constitution already provides for a federal system. As for the regions forming along sectarian lines, the constitution leaves the choice to the people of its 18 provinces. The White House can hardly complain that we would force unwanted solutions on Iraqis. President Bush did not hesitate to push Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari out of office to make way for Maliki, and he may yet do the same to Maliki. The United States has responsibilities in Iraq that we cannot run away from. The Iraqis will need our help in explaining and lining up support for a federal solution. With 160,000 Americans at risk in Iraq, with hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and with more than 3,800 dead and nearly 28,000 wounded, we also have a right to be heard.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

44 Federalism DA

Iraq Models US / Iraqi Federalism Good (2/2)
Now is the key time for the United States to help Iraq model a federalist system of government to avoid civil war; Bush's policies impede this Biden et al, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 07
(Joseph R., The Washington Post, "Federalism, Not Partition," 10-3-7, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201824.html, 7-6-8) Third, our plan would not produce "suffering and bloodshed," as a U.S. Embassy statement irresponsibly suggested. And it is hard to imagine more suffering and bloodshed than we've already seen from governmenttolerated militias, jihadists, Baathists and administration ineptitude. More than 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes, most for fear of sectarian violence. The Bush administration should be helping Iraqis make federalism work -- through an agreement over the fair distribution of oil revenue; the safe return of refugees; integrating militia members into local security forces; leveraging the shared interest of other countries in a stable Iraq; and refocusing capacity-building and aid on the provinces and regions -- not scaring them off by equating federalism to partition, sectarianism and foreign bullying. To confuse matters more, the administration has conjured a "bottom-up" strategy that looks like federalism and smells like federalism -- but is, in reality, a recipe for chaos. "Bottom-up" seems to mean that the United States will support any group, anywhere, that will fight al-Qaeda or Shiite extremists. Now, it always made sense to seek allies among tribal chiefs to fight common terrorist enemies. But to simply back these groups as they appear, without any overall political context or purpose, is to invite anarchy. Nothing will fragment Iraq more than a bottom-up approach that pits one group against another and fails to knit these parts into governable wholes. Federalism is the one formula that fits the seemingly contradictory desires of most Iraqis to remain whole and of various groups to govern themselves for the time being. It also recognizes the reality of the choice we face in Iraq: a managed transition to federalism or actual partition through civil war.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

45 Federalism DA

US Model is key to Iraq Federalism
The US is key to developing a stable and federalist government in Iraq Phillips, Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 03
(James, The Heritage Foundation, "Democracy, Federalism, and Realism in Postwar Iraq," 5-2-3, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/em873.cfm, 7-6-8) The United States scored a decisive military victory in Iraq, but building a stable, democratic, proAmerican Iraqi government will be more difficult than winning the war. To accomplish its postwar goals, the United States will have to overcome the resistance of hostile Iraqi political forces, referee the deadly factional struggles of bitter political rivals, and minimize the meddling of Syria and Iran, both of which seek to hijack Iraq's political future and drive out American influence. Building a stable democracy under these conditions will be a complex long-term challenge. The Bush Administration has wisely pledged to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis as soon as possible to minimize the risks of an anti-American backlash, but Iraq may not be ready for full-fledged democracy by the time U.S. troops withdraw over the next two to five years. The Bush Administration should patiently assist the Iraqis in laying the foundations for democracy in Iraq, but it should also avoid pressing for an overly ambitious rapid democratic transformation that could bring anti-democratic forces to power and/or destabilize Iraq. Although Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, has considerable oil wealth, a well-educated population, a secular tradition, and a modern infrastructure, there are daunting political, cultural, and historical obstacles to building a stable democracy in Iraq. American troops, initially welcomed as liberators by many Iraqis, soon will become scapegoats for all of Iraq's problems. America's honeymoon period may already be ending in Iraq: Last week, tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites on a pilgrimage in Karbala used their newly won political freedom to call for an Islamic state and the immediate withdrawal of American forces. Washington should remember that the British, welcomed as liberators in Baghdad in 1917 after defeating the Ottoman Empire, were the target of the "Great Iraqi Revolution" three years later. That uprising took the British more than four months to quell, at the cost of 450 British dead and 1,250 wounded, and was followed by repeated tribal and nationalist uprisings until 1936. Britain established the trappings of democracy--a constitution, parliament, king, and council of ministers--but British meddling, Iraqi political corruption, and the government's inability to meet basic needs discredited democracy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Iraq's army eventually terminated Iraq's democratic experiment, staging 15 coups between 1936 and 1968, when Saddam Hussein's Baath Party finally seized power. Building a genuine democracy in Iraq requires much more than regime change. It requires a supportive civil society, strong support for the rule of law, and a political culture that rewards compromise rather than zero-sum political competition. These will require many years to develop. Iraq's civil society has been ravaged by more than 30 years of totalitarian Baath Party rule. Iraq's shrinking middle class, a potential base of support for democratic rule, has been crushed by economic hardship and political repression. And, as in Yugoslavia, longstanding ethnic and religious tensions are likely to explode in political violence as repressed groups, such as the Kurds and Shiites, reassert themselves and seek vengeance against their former oppressors. It is unrealistic to expect that the United States can quickly remedy all these shortcomings. Moreover, attempting to compress the radical changes necessary for building a genuine democracy into a short five-year time frame would be a risky experiment. Premature elections would favor Islamic radical parties whose concept of democracy is "one man, one vote, one time." In 1992, an overly ambitious scheme to inject democracy into Algeria's one-party political system led to the electoral victory of the Islamic Salvation Front, plunging Algeria into a bloody civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives. A premature rush to democracy in Iraq could lead to a similar disaster.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

46 Federalism DA

US Model is key to Iraq Federalism
A step-by-step, federal government is key to stability and peace in Iraq Phillips, Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 03 (James, The Heritage Foundation, "Democracy, Federalism, and Realism in Postwar Iraq," 5-23, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/em873.cfm, 7-6-8)
The Bush Administration should set modest goals and have realistic expectations about the limits of its ability to transform Iraq. It should remember that the original purpose of the war was to disarm Iraq and protect Americans, not to implant democracy. Ultimately, only Iraqi civilians can build democracy. Tasking U.S. troops with democracy-building risks bogging them down in a social engineering project that could backfire disastrously, just as mission creep led to debacles in Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. The Bush Administration must avoid overreaching in Iraq and embarking on a neo-Wilsonian crusade to make the world safe for democracy. Washington should refrain from raising Iraqi expectations about a quick transition to democracy too high. Democracy should be phased in incrementally: first local and municipal elections, then provincial elections, and finally national elections. In the meantime, the United States should gradually transfer power to an inclusive, broad-based Iraqi interim administration that will prepare the ground for future national elections. The democratic, pro-Western Iraqi National Congress should play an important role in such an administration. Transforming Iraq into a genuine democracy is a long-term undertaking that can be completed only after American troops are long gone. By focusing on these short-term objectives, the United States can help put the Iraqis on the path to democracy. But Washington cannot compel Iraqis to reach that destination. It can only patiently assist the Iraqis to find their own way.

US role in Iraqi federalism is key to preventing ethnic conflict and instability in the Middle East
Brancati, visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, 04. [Dawn, “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. 7–21. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_brancati.pdf] For its part, the United States must take a more active role in advising Iraqi leaders to adopt a federal system of government along these lines. Such a system will help the United States not only to build democracy in Iraq but also to prevent the emergence of a Shi‘a-dominated government in the country. Without this form of federalism, an Iraq rife with internal conflict and dominated by one ethnic or religious group is more likely to emerge, undermining U.S. efforts toward establishing democracy in Iraq as well as the greater Middle East.

Strong regional powers in the Iraqi federalist system are critical to the system’s success
Brancati, visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, 04. [Dawn, “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. 7–21. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_brancati.pdf] First and foremost, federalism must be extensive in Iraq to ensure that the regional governments have considerable political and financial powers— an essential component for ensuring governmental protection for Iraq’s various ethnic and religious groups and for preventing ethnic conflict and secessionism. Federalism has failed in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Nigeria precisely because it did not go far enough in granting regional autonomy. If regional governments are granted certain powers in principal but denied these powers in practice or given only modest powers in the first place, federalism is guaranteed to fail.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

47 Federalism DA

Iraq Federalism Good – key to Stability (1/2)
Iraq’s only logical choice for a new system of government is federalism- other systems fuel insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups
Morrow, United States Institute of Peace research fellow, 05. [Jonathan, Federalism Could Hold Iraq Together, Newsday, October 21, 2005 pgonline. Accessed 7/10/08 from http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/op_eds/2005/federalism_morrow.html] Casting aside these misconceptions, the task at hand is clear. The Kurdish and Shia politicians must show their Sunni Arab brothers that federalism can deliver Sunni Arabs true self-government, a proportionate share of oil wealth and a stake in Baghdad politics. The United States, which pressed for a constitutional timetable that gave little opportunity for consensus-building, must now make the effort to work with Sunni Arab communities—not just the elites—on these issues. And, in turn, the Sunni Arabs themselves must work to shake off their nostalgia for a centralized Iraqi state. It is that nostalgia, more than anything else, that provides the ideology for the insurgency and gives a springboard to the religious lunacy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other foreign terrorists. The days of Sunni Arab hegemony in Iraq are a thing of the past, and a centralized Iraq is in nobody's interest right now - least of all the Sunni Arab minority. For all Iraqis, strategizing within the terms of federalism is the only way forward.

Iraqi federalism key to preventing ethnic conflict and a stable democracy
Brancati, visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, 04. [Dawn, “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. 7–21. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_brancati.pdf] The United States devoted nine months to planning the war in Iraq and a mere 28 days to planning the peace, according to senior U.S. military officials. Much more time has to be invested in the peace, however, if the military achievements of the war are to be preserved and a stable democracy is to be created in Iraq. Establishing a governmental system that can accommodate Iraq’s different ethnic and religious groups, previously kept in check by the political and military repression of the Saddam Hussein regime, is paramount to securing that peace. In the absence of a system uniquely designed toward this end, violent conflicts and demands for independence are likely to engulf the country. If not planned precisely to meet the specific ethnic and religious divisions at play, any democratic government to emerge in Iraq is bound to prove less capable of maintaining order than the brutal dictatorship that preceded it. By dividing power between two levels of government—giving groups greater control over their own political, social, and economic affairs while making them feel less exploited as well as more secure—federalism offers the only viable possibility for preventing ethnic conflict and secessionism as well as establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. Yet, not just any kind of federal system can accomplish this. Rather, a federal system granting regional governments extensive political and financial powers with borders drawn along ethnic and religious lines that utilize institutionalized measures to prevent identity-based and regional parties from dominating the government is required. Equally critical to ensuring stability and sustainable democracy in Iraq, the new federal system of government must secure the city of Kirkuk, coveted for its vast oil reserves and pipelines, in the Kurdish-controlled northern region to assure that the Kurds do not secede from Iraq altogether.

Iraqi federalism reduces risks of ethnic conflict
Brancati, visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, 04. [Dawn, “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. 7–21. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_brancati.pdf] Iraq might also adopt a presidential system of government, a step currently supported by the Kurds and the Iraqi National Congress. Presidential systems of government are less favorable to regional parties because directly elected presidents need more cross-regional support to get elected than doprime ministers who are chosen by a parliament. Such design features would help prevent identitybased parties from forming in a national government even when each of the regions is comprised principally of one ethnic or religious group. Under a presidential system, parties would have to represent more than one ethnic and religious group if they are to have a certain amount of support in more than one region of the country.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

48 Federalism DA

Iraq Federalism Good – key to Stability (2/2)
Federalism in Iraq is key to religious stability BBC Monitoring Middle East, 2007
(May 17, Iraqi Kurds have a right to statehood interview with “intellectual”, accessed July 12, 2008) Regional interference Shabandar reiterated that Al-Maliki's government has to raise the issue of neighbouring countries' interference [into Iraq] and provide documentations for that. He has to take these documents directly to the UN Security Council and put an end to these interferences. Al-Maliki and his government cannot solve these problems on their own as their government is too weak to do so. Al-Maliki's government has to be fearless, face up to the external interferences and turn to the Security Council. Al-Maliki can also benefit from the international conference since such conferences can put an end to regional interferences. Once I told AlMaliki to do so, but he pressed for a regional conference. Later on, he agreed on holding both an international and a regional conference. Federalism being an international political language Shabandar stressed that federalism has today become a political language at the level of the world that [peoples] can make use of it. Federalism protects the unity of Iraq and creates an active competition among the regions on the aspects of politics, economy and culture. I think, apart from the Kurdistan federalism that has its own historical and geographical peculiarity, the best federalism is a threegovernorates-based federalism, i.e. for each three governorates to form a federal region. I think, having southern and middle federal entity will cause problems for both Shia and Sunni sectarian groups.

A federalist Iraq is necessary to prevent further sectarian violence and instability in the region Al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, 08. [Mowaffak, “Federalism, Not Partition; A System Devolving
Power to the Regions Is the Route to a Viable Iraq,” The Washington Post, January 18, 2008. Accessed 7/15/08 from Lexis] BAGHDAD -- Iraq's government is at a stalemate. As in the United States, there is much discussion here of the need for political reconciliation. What does that mean? That the majority Shiites and the minority Sunnis and Kurds must find a way to govern collectively at the national level. As national security adviser to the head of Iraq's governments since March 2004, I have participated in the development of democracy in my country. I strongly support the government and applaud its achievements. But I understand that the political objectives of Iraq's three main communities are unrealizable within the framework of a unitary, centralized state.
It has been impossible to maintain a political consensus on many important issues. For one thing, the U.S.-dominated coalition, which has its own objectives, must be accommodated. The regional "superpowers" (Iran and Saudi Arabia) meddle in Iraq's affairs, and their own sectarian tensions are reflected in the violence here. The absence of truly national political parties and leadership that reach the Iraqi people exacerbates the problem. Overall, Shiites see their future based on two fundamental "rights": Power must be exercised by the political majority through control of governmental institutions, and institutional sectarian discrimination must be eliminated. Kurds see their future bound to their "rights" of linguistic, cultural, financial and resource control within Kurdistan. Sunni Arabs are driven by resistance to their loss of power, as well as fear of revenge for past wrongs and the potential for reverse discrimination.

The current political framework is based on a pluralistic democratic vision that, while admirable, is entirely unsuited to resolving this three-way divide. It ignores underlying issues and expects that a consensus will emerge simply by enacting a liberal constitutional legal order. Pluralistic democracy will not take root unless the national political compact recognizes and accommodates the fears and aspirations of Iraq's communities. Resolution can be achieved only through a system that incorporates regional federalism, with clear, mutually acceptable distributions of power between the regions and the central government. Such a system is in the interest of all Iraqis and is necessary if Iraq is to avoid partition or further civil strife. Only through a new political compact among Iraq's main communities will a viable state emerge. A key condition for success is that the balance of power should tip decisively to the regions on all matters that do not compromise the integrity of the state. The central institutions must earn their legitimacy from the power that
the three main ethnic groups are prepared to give them. Iraq needs a period during which the Shiites and the Kurds achieve political control over their destinies while the Sunni Arab community is secure from the feared tyranny of the majority.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

49 Federalism DA

Iraq Federalism Good – US Hegemony
A strong level of federalism in Iraq is key to Middle East stability and US hegemony
Brancati, visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, 04. [Dawn, “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. 7–21. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_brancati.pdf] . The potential consequences of failing to design federalism properly and to establish a stable democracy in Iraq extend far beyond Iraqi borders. Civil war in Iraq may draw in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Iran, further destabilizing the Middle East in the process. It may also discourage foreign investment in the region, bolster Islamic extremists, and exacerbate tensions between Palestinians and Israelis. A civil war in Iraq may even undermine support for the concept of federalism more generally, which is significant given the number of countries also considering federalism, such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, to name just two. Finally, the failure to design and implement the kind of federalism that can establish a stable democracy in Iraq might undermine international support for other U.S. initiatives in the region, including negotiations for Arab-Israeli peace. Iraq’s federal government must therefore be designed carefully so as to give regional governments extensive political and financial autonomy, to include Kirkuk in the Kurdish region that is created, and to limit the influence of identity-based political parties. The short- and long-term stability of Iraq and the greater Middle East depend on it.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

50 Federalism DA

Iraq Instability spreads Region-wide
Iraq instability spills over to the rest of the Middle East War on Want, an organization fighting for the elimination of poverty, 05 (War on Want, “ Just War? Poverty,
Instability, and War in the Middle East”, Feb 2, http://www.waronwant.org/Just20War3F20Poverty2C20conflict20and20instability20in20Iraq20and20the20Middle2 0East+4372.twl, 7/16/08) War on Want believes that another massive military campaign against Iraq will seriously jeopardise prospects for durable peace, human development and stability in the Middle East. Like the UK Government’s Department for International Development, War on Want believes that poverty is strongly linked to instability and conflict. Ending poverty and introducing social justice are both vital to peace and stability and reinforced by peace and stability. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, achieving peace and security can only go hand in hand with ending poverty. We have seen this in the impoverishment of whole regions and particularly in recent years through the effects of conflict on the Palestinian people. Throughout its 50-year history, War on Want has consistently criticised totalitarian regimes, which have denied social, political and economic rights to their citizens. We are clear that the ruling Ba’athist regime brutally suppresses such rights. But Iraq is not just an oppressive state. It also has marginalised and impoverished groups of people who have been the innocent victims of not only the Gulf War and the war with Iran, but also Western-led sanctions and previous bombing campaigns. Poverty in Iraq is on the increase. Life expectancy is falling, infant mortality is rising and malnutrition is unacceptably high. Since the Gulf War Iraq's economy has teetered on the brink. Unemployment is at least 50% and inflation hovers at around 100%. Sanctions and bombing have hit hard. It is too easy to say that all the suffering of the Iraqi people should be laid directly at the door of Saddam Hussein. The action of external forces has been one of the principal drivers of this suffering and any escalation of bombing or other military action against Iraq would exacerbate an already very serious situation. More children will die and more long-term damage will be done to the economy and to regional stability.

Instability in Iraq spreads to the region quickly, accelerated by a shortage of oil Slackman, Staff Writer, 06 (Michael, The New York Times, Feb 27, “Chaos in Iraq Sends Shock Waves Across
Middle East and Elevates Iran’s Influence”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/international/middleeast/27arab.html, 7/16/08) "The spillover of this is of concern for everybody in the region," said Ali Shukri, a retired Jordanian general who for 23 years served as an adviser to King Hussein. "When you take western Iraq, Anbar Province borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; the southern part of Iraq borders Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. If there is a conflict, a surge in violence, it becomes contagious in the region." The rising tensions in Iraq are also happening at a time when two other powerful dynamics are at work: the rise of Islamic political parties, like Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the effort of the Iran's leadership to once again try to spread its ideas around the region. How all these forces combine and ultimately influence each other has become a source of deep worry. In addition, should fighting increase, local leaders are also bracing for a new influx of refugees and damage to the regional economy. Both factors would have serious consequences for Middle Eastern states that have little or no oil and are already suffering from stagnant economies, including Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Yemen.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

51 Federalism DA

Iraq Instability causes Regional War
Iraq instability is a catastrophe that escalates to regional war. Peter Hadden Spring 2008 Iraq five years on - Invasion & occupation An unmitigated disaster Journal of the
Socialist Party http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/viewspring08.htm Date Accessed 7/16/08 As the fifth anniversary of the fateful decision to launch the invasion of Iraq passes, the claims by the US administration that the 2007 troop surge has succeeded in quelling the insurgency and checking the slide to sectarian break up - claims that were being made loudly at the start of this year - are becoming fainter by the day. More recent events have given pro-surge enthusiasts a cold shower, confirming that violence and instability remain the order of the day despite the extra 30,000 US troops. A series of suicide bombings, including the late February attack on Shi’ite pilgrims making their way to the shrine of Iman Hussein in Kerbala, which left at least 40 dead, have served as a reminder of how little has changed for ordinary Iraqis and how precarious and fragile is the political and sectarian balance that constitutes present day Iraq. So also has the other “surge” – the mini invasion of the Kurdistan Region by 10,000 Turkish troops. This was ostensibly to attack and destroy the mountain bases of the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), but in fact it was intended more as a warning to the rulers of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq not to push too hard for independence. This invasion showed the potential for the Iraqi nightmare to very quickly escalate into a regional conflict. Then, to cap it all, the US administration has had to put up with the spectacle of Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on a stately visit to Baghdad. On his arrival he was warmly greeted by Iraqi government ministers; a salutary reminder to George Bush that his military adventure in Iraq, designed in part to lessen the influence of Iran in the region, has had precisely the opposite effect. Of course a real balance sheet of the invasion and occupation has to be measured over five years, not a few months. Looked at in this way there is no question that the whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster. A disaster first of all for the US establishment, especially the neo-conservative cabal surrounding Bush, who were the architects of this war. It was conceived firstly as a war for plunder, particularly intended to put US and other foreign oil corporations in control of the Iraqi oil fields, which contain the second largest known reserves in the world. Five years on, the idea of cheap oil gushing through Iraqi pipelines has faded. Production, at 2.4 million barrels a day, has not yet reached prewar levels. The war was also about prestige; it was meant to provide the world with a brutal demonstration of US military prowess. Instead, it has shown the limits of US power, exploding the myth that superior technology, devastating ordnance and control of the skies are all that is necessary in modern warfare. The US has the military capacity to destroy any force put in its way, but Iraq – and now also Afghanistan – have shown that holding ground that has been gained is a different matter. The US military has been seriously overstretched by the Iraq conflict. Soldiers now have to endure gruelling 15 month tours of duty with obvious effects on morale. The five star chiefs at the Pentagon are well aware that the surge troop levels are unsustainable. Almost 4,000 troops have been killed and around 60,000 injured. Troops today are provided with better body armour and better medical care than in previous wars. Because of this soldiers who are injured have a higher chance of survival, but this means that many of the 60,000 wounded are going home with severely life-changing injuries and disabilities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

52 Federalism DA

Iraqi conflict spreads Region-wide (1/2)
Militant Iraqis will take regional wars global- a new generation of fighters has emerged Gerges, Christian A. Johnson Chairholder in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College, 06 (Fawaz, Yale Global, Dec 21, “Iraq War Fuels Global Jihad”,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8577, 7/18/08) Furthermore, while Muslim public backing for global jihad – as opposed to local jihad – is limited, Iraq today is one of the most promising theaters for the movement’s revival. Local jihad focuses only on occupied Arab and Muslim territories like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while global jihad’s boundaries extend wide and far to New York, Washington, Madrid and London. The American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq has given rise to a new generation of jihadists who differ dramatically from the
first generation – the founding fathers who killed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981 – and the second generation, Afghan Arabs or Al Qaeda. Members of the first generation of the jihadist movement – the pioneers – came from the middle class and upper middle class and graduated from top scientific and social sciences departments in Egypt’s best universities. They possessed a complex, though distorted, grasp of various schools of Islamic thought and laid the theoretical foundation of jihadism utilized by the Al Qaeda generation and the Iraq generation alike.

In contrast, many of the Iraq generation of jihadists, who represent a tiny minority of all fighters in Iraq, come from the poverty belts of Arab and Muslim ghettos and streets. Many have shockingly little religious and formal education. I met teenagers who aspired to join the fight against the American occupiers and were nearly illiterate, with no grasp of interpretations of religious texts. They lack the financial means – a few hundred US dollars – to travel to Iraq, but they and others like them form a huge pool of potential recruits for global jihad. Moreover, unlike the first and second generation, the Iraq jihadists, few as they are so far, do not make a clear distinction between the near enemy (Muslim ruling “renegades”) and the far enemy (the US and its allies). They wage an all-out war against internal and external enemies alike. The lines of demarcation between Muslims and non-Muslims have also become blurred. The Iraq jihadists are willing to kill thousands of fellow Muslims who, in their eyes, are kufar, or apostates, and are as dangerous, if not more so, as Americans and Westerners.
In my conversation with members of the first generation and some of the Afghan-trained Arab fighters, they were at a loss to explain the beastly acts of terror carried out by their Iraq counterparts. While jihadists are conspiratorial by nature, they

conceded that the indiscriminate killings of Muslims and civilians are a byproduct of the Iraq generation’s scanty religious education, low social status and America’s violation of Muslim sanctity.

The Middle East is interconnected- war in one area spirals into a regional war Ward, Staff Writer, 07 (Olivia, The Toronto Star, Feb 3, “Domino effect worries analysts: Three hotspots
could flare up at once, boosting Iran’s influence; Amerd foes stalk streets of Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, leaving them on the brink of civil war”, http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/94633, 7/16/08) Troops are on the streets of Lebanon. Blood is flowing in Gaza. And few question that a catastrophic civil war has come to Iraq. In the Middle East, with three hotspots threatening to flare up simultaneously, analysts say the sparks could spread in a region where few major events are unconnected for long.
Months after President George W. Bush promised a radical makeover of the region - and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" - the landscape that is emerging

is a dark and smouldering one. "Right now in the Middle East, we have three different places that are failed or failing states, either in, or on the brink of civil war," says Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution. "Even one would be enough. The danger to the region is increasing." The danger is also boosted by a looming conflict between the United States and Iran - the country that joins the dots among the three hotspots. "Now, we not only have three wars with spillover, but they are also creating opportunities for Iran to expand its influence," Pollack says, adding that American policies have fuelled, or failed to prevent, conflicts, opening the way for Iran's new power in the region. And for a new battlefront with Tehran that many
predict will explode by the end of this year. In Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War, Pollack and co-author Daniel Byman, of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, focus on Iraq, but caution that it is only one ingredient in a regional recipe for disaster.

They say the conflict "could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq, but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability, turmoil and war."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Pollack says Washington has badly underestimated the spillover effect of such events.

53 Federalism DA

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

54 Federalism DA

Iraqi conflict spreads Region-wide (2/2)
Spillover empirically proven- it will only get worse Ward, Staff Writer, 07 (Olivia, The Toronto Star, Feb 3, “Domino effect worries analysts: Three hotspots
could flare up at once, boosting Iran’s influence; Amerd foes stalk streets of Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, leaving them on the brink of civil war”, http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/94633, 7/16/08)
This week, a key U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq reportedly warned Bush the situation in Iraq is increasingly out of control worsening prospects for repercussions in the Middle East, and the West.

"When you look at the global picture, we have come full circle," says Pollack. "It started with an awful civil war in Afghanistan, which had spillover to the growth of Al Qaeda. That led to 9/11, which caused us to foolishly intervene in Iraq. Now there are new, and worse, spillover effects we will have to worry about." In Iraq itself, his study says, if civil war goes unchecked, "hundreds of thousands of people may die. Refugees and displaced people could number in the millions. And with Iraqi insurgents, militias and organized crime rings wreaking havoc on Iraq's oil infrastructure, a full-scale civil war could send global oil prices soaring even higher." For the U.S. and Middle East, the greatest threats could be "the burdens, the instability, the copycat secession attempts and even the follow-on wars that could emerge in neighboring countries. ... Welcome to the 'new Middle East' - a region where civil wars could follow one after another, like so many Cold War dominoes."
Pollack says Jordan, surrounded by conflicts, could be next. "There is latent unhappiness with the king, who has taken a pro-American stance. Add to that a huge influx of refugees from Iraq, and a possible spillover of any Palestinian conflict. If I had to look for the country in the region that is in the worst difficulties, this is it," he says. Mohammed Yaghi, a Toronto-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agrees. If the violence between the Fatah and Hamas factions worsens in Gaza and spreads through the Palestinian territories, it won't be contained to that small area, he says.

"It will not be a simple internal problem for Palestinians. It will spread to Israel and Jordan. But it is also connected to Lebanon. The United States is worried about the influence of Iran in the entire region. It is concentrating on Iraq, but it must also deal with the alliance between Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas."
After Hamas's victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections, Washington - and Ottawa - moved to choke off aid to the new government, condemned as part of a terrorist group that refuses to recognize Israel.

Iran offered Hamas funds to fill the economic vacuum. It also supports and arms the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which attacks Israel and has sparked violence in Lebanon by trying to bring down the government.

Instability in Iraq will lead to regional conflaguration. Gerecht, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 07
(Reuel Marc, The Consequences of Failure in Iraq, The Weekly Standard, Volume: 012, Issue 17, 01/15) The Sunni and Shiite migration we've so far seen from Baghdad is just a trickle compared with the exodus when these two communities battle en masse for the city and the country's new identity. If we leave Iraq any time soon, the battle for Baghdad will probably lead to a conflagration that consumes all of Arab Iraq, and quite possibly Kurdistan, too. Once the Shia become both badly bloodied and victorious, raw nationalist and religious passions will grow. A horrific fight with the Sunni Arabs will inevitably draw in support from the ferociously anti-Shiite Sunni religious establishments in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and on the Shiite side from Iran. It will probably destroy most of central Iraq and whet the appetite of Shiite Arab warlords, who will by then dominate their community, for a conflict with the Kurds. If the Americans stabilize Arab Iraq, which means occupying the Sunni triangle, this won't happen. A strong, aggressive American military presence in Iraq can probably halt the radicalization of the Shiite community. Imagine an Iraq modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

55 Federalism DA

Iraq instability = civil war / genocide
Continued instability will cause genocide in Iraq Gerecht, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 07
(Reuel Marc, The Consequences of Failure in Iraq, The Weekly Standard, Volume: 012, Issue 17, 01/15) Certainly the most damning consequence of failure in Iraq is the likelihood that an American withdrawal would provoke a take-no-prisoners civil war between the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, which could easily reach genocidal intensity. The historical parallel to have in mind is the battle between subcontinent Hindus and Muslims that came with the independence of India. Although of differing faiths, the pre-1947 Hindus and Muslims were often indistinguishable culturally, linguistically, and physically. Yet they "ethnically cleansed" their respective new nations, India and Pakistan, with exuberance. Somewhere between 500,000 and one million Muslims and Hindus perished, tens of thousands of women were raped, and more than ten million people were forced to flee their homes. This level of barbarism, scaled down to Iraq's population, could quickly happen in Mesopotamia, long before American forces could withdraw from the country. (And it's worth recalling that few British officials anticipated the communal ferocity that came with the end of the Raj.) Certain Western observers of Iraq, and many Arab commentators, have suggested that it is the American presence in Mesopotamia that aggravates the differences between Shiite and Sunni. If the Americans were to leave, then a modus vivendi would be reached before massive slaughter ensued. Shared Arabism and the Prophet's faith would helpfully reassert themselves. Yet, this seems unlikely. Iraq since 2003 strongly suggests a different outcome. Violence in both the Shiite and Sunni zones has gone up, not down, whenever American and British forces have decreased their physical presence in the streets and their intrusion in government affairs. Sunnis and Shiites who see no Americans are killing each other in greater numbers than Sunnis and Shiites who do see Yanks patrolling their neighborhoods.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

56 Federalism DA

Iraq Terrorism Impacts
Iraq instability causes terrorism Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent, 07
(David, The Daily Telegraph “Arc of instability spawning hatred,” Jul 4, Lexis, date accessed: 7/16/08) FROM the mountains of Pakistan to the chaos of Iraq and Gaza, an arc of instability providing a breeding ground for terrorism stretches across the globe. The core leadership of al-Qa'eda, almost certainly including Osama bin Laden, has probably found sanctuary in the tribal areas of Pakistan, lining its north-west frontier with Afghanistan. From this secure base, British counter-terrorism officials believe they are once again exerting strategic direction over a worldwide network of cells. Al-Qa'eda is a genuinely international organisation. Its recruits, drawn from any nationality, are linked by the common thread of loyalty to an extreme version of Islam's Sunni tradition. Whitehall sources say that any al-Qa'eda role in the failed car bombings has not yet become clear and, so far, there is no evidence of an international link to the plot. But al-Qa'eda does not possess a centralised command structure. Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants give orders for specific attacks on specific targets. Any order to detonate car bombs in London and Glasgow may not have come from overseas. Instead, the ideological inspiration behind al-Qa'eda is the key to its success. This lies at the heart of its global web. Pakistan serves as network headquarters, which makes use of what British officials call the "ungoverned spaces'' near Afghanistan. This is where recruits are trained. In Afghanistan, they are deployed directly against British and American forces as the footsoldiers of the Taliban. In Iraq, the network recruits fighters and uses them against coalition forces, perfecting their techniques for mass casualty terrorist attacks. The car bombs which failed to detonate in Britain are similar to those used in Baghdad.

Terrorism culminates in extinction Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 03
(Yonah, WASHINGTON TIMES, August 28, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030827-0842568999r.htm, date accessed: 7/16/08) Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

57 Federalism DA

Iraq instability = nuclear war
Regional instability stemming from Iraqi instability will cause nuclear war Gerecht, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 07
(Reuel Marc, The Consequences of Failure in Iraq, The Weekly Standard, Volume: 012, Issue 17, 01/15) These forces need increasing strife to prosper. Imagine Iraqi Shiites, battle-hardened in a vicious war with Iraq's Arab Sunnis, spiritually and operationally linking up with a revitalized and aggressive clerical dictatorship in Iran. Imagine the Iraqi Sunni Islamic militants, driven from Iraq, joining up with groups like al Qaeda, living to die killing Americans. Imagine the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunni Arab refugees. The Hashemites have been lucky and clever since World War II. They've escaped extinction several times. Does anyone want to take bets that the monarchy can survive the implantation of an army of militant, angry Iraqi Sunni Arabs? For those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the epicenter of the Middle East, the mass migration of Iraq's Sunni Arabs into Jordan will bury what small chances remain that the Israelis and Palestinians will find an accommodation. With Jordan in trouble, overflowing with viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli Iraqis, peaceful Palestinian evolution on the West Bank of the Jordan river is about as likely as the discovery of the Holy Grail. The repercussions throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to digest. Sunni Arabs in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own nukes. What little chance remains for the Americans and the Europeans to corral peacefully the clerical regime's nuclear-weapons aspirations will end with a Shiite-Sunni death struggle in Mesopotamia, which the Shia will inevitably win. The Israelis, who are increasingly likely to strike preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency, will feel even more threatened, especially when the Iranian regime underscores its struggle against the Zionist enemy as a means of compensating for its support to the bloody Shiite conquest in Iraq. With America in full retreat from Iraq, the clerical regime, which has often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft, could well revert to the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. If the Americans are retreating, hit them. That would not be just a radical Shiite view; it was the learned estimation of Osama bin Laden and his kind before 9/11. It's questionable to argue that the war in Iraq has advanced the radical Sunni holy war against the United States. There should be no question, however, that an American defeat in Mesopotamia would be the greatest psychological triumph ever for anti-American jihadists.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

58 Federalism DA

Middle East War = Extinction
Middle East wars goes global and causes extinction Steinbach, Researcher at Centre for Research on Globalisation, 02
(John, Center for Research on Globalization, 3/3, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html, date accessed: 7/) Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

59 Federalism DA

Iraq War Turns the Aff
The Iraq conflict turns the Aff’s peak oil and economic advantages Jeffrey Sachs MARCH 3 , 2003 What war can’t achieve. Smart Money WWW.TNR.COM
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/File/about/director/pubs/NewRepublic_030303.pdf A widening regional conflict following a war with Iraq is likely to undermine this sophisticated worldwide division of labor. Widening violence will disrupt trade lines; raise insurance costs and shipping tariffs; slow customs, ports, and immigration services; undercut tourism and business travel; cause spikes in world energy prices; and delay business decisions. It will make international commerce and investment more expensive, thereby shifting production away from long supply lines that are more efficient and economical under stable political circumstances.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

60 Federalism DA

A2: Modeling – They model locally
Countries model their federalism after those with similar culture and development. Newly emerging federalist countries will make decisions off of countries that were once Third World countries like them. Singhvi, Writer for Hindustan Times, 2007 (Abhiskek, Hindustan Times, Oct 16, accessed July 6, 2008)
NEW DELHI, India, Oct. 16 -- As Nepal decides upon its federal Constitution, India's contribution to the evolution of federalism makes for an interesting review. Despite its diverse hues, federalism essentially involves the devolution of power and sharing of the decision-making authority. The format can be a 'bottom up' model, like that of the US where sovereign pre-existing units cede power to form a union, a 'top down' model, like India's, with a strong unitary focus and provincial units, 'confederations' within a loose union, like the European Union, and 'consociational' models based on unanimity of all constituents. Federalism is a vehicle for managing diversities, multiplicities and pluralities. Much of the debate on definition is superfluous because a nation's model of federalism is determined by a unique amalgam of the region's history, development, culture, ethnicity, genius and concept of nationhood. While ancient Indian literature on gram swarajya and panchayats reflect a clear federalist spirit, it was the 16th century German philosopher and theologian, Johannes Althusius, who formalised the concept in the West.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

61 Federalism DA

A2: Iraq Federalism – Public rejects
Opposition to federalism is high and the public does not want the federal government to invade. Rozhnama, Writer for BBC News, 2007 (Sulaymaniyah, BBC News, pg 3 Oct 8, accessed July 7, 2008)
Right from the start, our politicians failed to turn their agreement on that article into a fundamental point in Kurdish relations with the outside world. The Kurdish policy in Baghdad has so far been essentially a mixture of courtesy, hospitality and the display of loyalty to the idea of Iraq's unity and integrity. The slowness of the Kurdish side over these important and crucial matters made many Iraqi sides and important officials openly oppose the federal system. While they were previously timid in voicing that view, now they are more open and fearless in expressing their objections to federalism. Also, after the declaration of the US Congress resolution, the unequivocal stand taken by those opposing federalism reached a higher level and stronger unanimity, which underpinned a sort of an alliance, while dominating the political arena so overwhelmingly and fearlessly that the supporters of federalism can no longer voice their positive stand openly. They are afraid they might be branded as traitors and advocates of the disintegration and division of Iraq. This is, if anything, a clear indication of the failure of the Kurdish diplomacy in Iraq and particularly with regard to the issue of an alliance with different sides of Iraq.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

62 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Models US Federalism
Afghanistan is modeling US federalism now- presence of military and political coalitions Shahani, professor of Anthropology and Central Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University, 01. [M.
Nazif, “Not “Who?” but “How?”:Governing Afghanistan after the conflict,” Federations, October 2001, npg. Accessed 7/15/08 from http://www.institute-for-afghanstudies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/Federalism/Federations%20Magazine%2010-26-01.pdf] The question is not “Who should govern in Afghanistan?” but “How should Afghanistan govern itself?” A U.S.-led political and military coalition is poised to set in motion profound changes in Afghanistan. At this critical moment in its history, what Afghanistan needs the most is what the United States already has— the federal model of decentralized government with a strong national constitution. Indeed, this could be the longest-lasting contribution the United States and her anti-terrorism international coalition could make in Afghanistan today, and in fighting the root cause of global terrorism forever.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

63 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Federalism Good – Stability
Federalism is key to stability in Afghanistan
Rubin, Council on Foreign Relations, 99. [Barnett, “The Political Economy of War and Peace in Afghanistan,” eurasianet.org, 1999. Accessed 7/9/08 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+Political+Economy+of+War+and+Peace+in+Afghanistan] Most important is working with Afghans to change the image and role of the state, seen largely as a distant and indifferent if not hostile power. Local power structures that have largely grown up as defensive measures of self-rule to keep the state or powerholders away have to be incorporated into official structures of planning and service provision. It is unlikely that any central power will find it worthwhile to provide localities with much in the way of governance and services. For this very reason, Afghanistan needs a decentralized governance structure in which provinces and localities should receive official authority to tax and plan in consultation with local shuras (councils). In the past local societies developed unofficial power structures to shield themselves from the state, rather than participate it, and the centralizing mentality shared by the Taliban and much of their opposition reproduces that past pattern. Instead, modest local resources under local control could be directed into locally accountable planning processes rather than a dysfunctional central state. The central state will still be needed for provision of basic security and dispute resolution, but a clear division of labor among levels of governance will promote greater accountability over the reconstruction process. The disintegration of the state creates such potentials, though the criminalized economy that has filled the gap in providing livelihoods has created interests that will resist it. But unless peacemaking can appeal to the interests of powerful economic actors and transform them into agents of peace, it will be limited at best to halting fighting in one place before social and economic forces provoke it once again elsewhere in this dangerous region.

Modeling of US federalism in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent tyranny- the US model is specifically key Roashan, Institute for Afghan Studies and author of The New Beginning, 02 [G. Rauf , “Pros and Cons of
Federalism in Afghanistan,” December 08, 2002, accessed 7/15/08 from users.tns.net/~mroashan/politics/countrycorner/CCorner2/ProsAndConsOfFederalismInAfghanistan.pdf] Nazif Shahrani, looking at the issue probably from the point of view of ethnic minorities, in a detailed article called "Not "Who?" but "How?”: Governing Afghanistan After the Conflict" describes his view in favor of federalism and states: "At this critical moment in its history, what Afghanistan needs the most is what the United States already has-the federal model of decentralized government with a strong national constitution." He further states: "The painful lesson of Afghanistan's history has been that strong centralized government in any form will only lead to hegemony by one group, whether ethnic, linguistic, or religious, and abuse by ruling group at the expense of justice for all citizens of Afghanistan."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

64 Federalism DA

A2: Afghanistan doesn’t want Federalism
Afghanistan stands strong for federalism even when under attack. BBC Monitoring Africa, 2007 (Nov 5, Ethiopian premier says ready to host 5th federalism conference in country)
[Balkh governor addressing a gathering] On the other hand, there are persons who try to sabotage the government for their personal interest and illegal acts. There are people, who presenting themselves as a spokesperson or a representative of a party, misuse the name of the north and announce that the north demands federalism; describe a government move as an abuse to northern leaders; demand a fragmentation of the north and pretend that they own a land beginning from the Salang mountains and ending in the mountains of Fariab. Speaking on behalf of a huge number of people, they challenge the government of Afghanistan and call for federalism and fragmentation. I clearly state that no one can alone speak about the northern provinces or demand federalism or fragmentation. We believe in a strong central government. We believe in a united, unique and strong Afghanistan.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

65 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Brink (1/2)
Rise in insurgent population and NATO + US troops and growing tensions mean the fighting in Afghanistan is poised to escalate. LA Times 08 April 13 Afghan Fighting Poised to Escalate
http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2008/april/apr132008.html#12 KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — For weeks now, the men in black turbans have been coming. They travel in pairs or
small groups, on battered motorbikes or in dusty pickups, materializing out of the desert with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers slung from their shoulders. With the advent of warmer weather, villagers say, Taliban fighters are filtering back from their winter

shelters in Pakistan, ensconcing themselves across Afghanistan's wind-swept south. "Every day we see more and more of them," said Abdul Karim, a farmer who had sent his family away for safety. The insurgents aren't the only ones girding for battle. At the country's main NATO base outside Kandahar, nearly 2,300 U.S. Marines have arrived in the last two months, their presence heralded by the nonstop thunder of transport aircraft and the sprawling tent city springing up on a newly cleared minefield. The Marine force's final elements arrived days ago and last week began
deploying, aiming to bolster British, Canadian and Dutch troops who have been bearing the brunt of fighting in the country's south, considered the conflict's strategic center of gravity. The conflict in Afghanistan recently has loomed increasingly large in policy debate. It dominated discussions at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit last month, where President Bush pledged to send more troops and pointedly urged allies to do likewise. Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates heard urgent appeals for reinforcements from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, who forecast a substantial upsurge in fighting. In Afghanistan, where presidential elections are due next year, opinion surveys consistently suggest that a solid majority of the population supports the presence of foreign forces. But people don't want them to stay on indefinitely, and an inconclusive spring "fighting season" could try public patience. The firsttime arrival in the south of a large force of Marines, the 24th Expeditionary Unit based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., has provided what commanders say is a much-needed infusion of firepower. The Marines have doubled the coalition's air capacity; Harrier jump jets, lumbering cargo planes and combat helicopters line the freshly laid tarmac. Just as crucially, commanders say, Marines' deployment may at last give NATO-led troops the muscle and reach to choke off the flow of Taliban fighters and weaponry into neighboring Helmand province, consistently the

It is the country's epicenter of opium production and narco-trafficking, whose enormous profits help fuel the insurgency. In this unforgiving environment, British troops, considered to be among the alliance's most effective fighters,
most violence-racked in Afghanistan. have been forced to confine their efforts largely to the province's northern tier, making the south of Helmand, with its plethora of infiltration routes from Pakistan, a likely zone of

the Taliban professes unconcern. "We have heard all about these Americans, and we are waiting -- let them come," said a Taliban field commander, reached by phone in the Panjwai district outside Kandahar. "They will learn what others before them have learned." The insurgents boast that they will blend tried-and-true methods with deadly refinements. Beaten badly in previous large-scale frontal assaults on NATO-led troops, Taliban fighters vow to harry them with more powerful and sophisticated roadside bombs, unrelenting suicide attacks and methodical targeting of Afghans who are helping the coalition forces. Coalition commanders are well aware that the Taliban will try to steer the conflict toward small-scale hit-and-run strikes, but say it is they, not the insurgents, who will seize the initiative. "They definitely don't want to go toe-to-toe with us," said Col. Peter Petronzio, commander of
deployment for the Marines. Although allied commanders express satisfaction with the battlefield edge the Marines will bring, the Marine expeditionary force now operating out of the Kandahar base. NATO officials like to point out that even during a period of resurgence over the last two years, Taliban fighters have failed to seize substantial population centers or hold large swaths of territory for long. But it's not clear whether the insurgents want to do so; instead, they rely on the classic guerrilla tactic of scattering when confronted, then reappearing when it suits them. Many Taliban fighters are essentially part-timers; villagers say the ranks of locally recruited insurgents will swell in coming weeks after the opium poppy crop has been planted. With seemingly one major worry for the coalition is civilian casualties, which spiked during combat last spring. At that time, human rights groups charged that Western troops sometimes too readily called in airstrikes when under attack, obliterating village compounds that might not have contained only insurgents, if any. Coalition commanders, in turn, have expressed continued frustration with what they describe as insurgents' willful endangering of civilians by launching attacks from within their midst, combined with what they say is the common practice of reporting their own battle dead as civilians. During the winter months, with harsh weather bringing a relative lull in fighting, the coalition has made a concerted effort to hunt down Taliban field commanders, either capturing them or killing them in pinpoint airstrikes. They describe the mid-level to upper leadership ranks as having been decimated by this campaign. But senior Western military officials acknowledge that many of these


poised to escalate,

"It's a new generation we are seeing, capable of the worst kind of atrocities," said Brig. Gen. Carlos Branco, spokesman of the NATO-led force. Last week, insurgents slaughtered 17 Afghan road workers in neighboring Zabol province. In response, Afghan and coalition forces hunted down and killed two dozen Taliban blamed for the attack, military officials said Saturday. Part of the
leaders have been swiftly replaced, in some cases by younger and even more ruthless commanders.

Western alliance's overall strategy is to turn more of the fighting and policing over to the long-troubled Afghan security forces. American trainers believe they are turning a corner. Recruitment, pay and morale are all up, they say. But although Afghan security forces

have played a more prominent role in policing and battlefield engagements over the last year, serious problems remain. For example, Afghan forces are assigned whenever possible for house searches, an intimate and culturally charged encounter that has inflamed resentment when carried out by foreign troops. However, commanders acknowledge that without careful monitoring, looting sometimes occurs during such Afghan-conducted searches. Moreover, the Taliban find Afghan police a "softer" target than coalition troops and have killed scores in suicide strikes. Senior police officials matter-of-factly say they believe the insurgents have marked them
for death. "The Taliban have warned me so many times to leave this job," said Haji Saifullah, the district police commissioner in Maywand, a district of Kandahar province that borders Helmand and has become an insurgent stronghold. "They want to plant a roadside bomb, or send a suicide bomber, or shoot me," he said. "So far they haven't succeeded." Longtime observers of the conflict say that even if the insurgents' strength is flagging, a protracted battle probably lies ahead. "I think the Taliban are not as strong as in the past," said Haji Dad Mohammad, a Kandahar-based former militia leader who sometimes serves as an intermediary between the government and insurgents. "But still,

the fighting will go ahead."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

66 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Brink (2/2)
Killings in Afghanistan will escalate over this year. Afghanistan war is just beginning, not ending. The Herald Sun 08 January 19 Afghanistan War is Just Beginning:
Reporthttp://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23075709-5005961,00.html THE Taliban has seriously rejoined the fight in Afghanistan, an NGO security group said in a report that concluded the country was at the beginning of a war, not the end of one. The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) said the Taliban's "easy departure" in 2001, when a US-led invasion drove them from power, was more of a strategic retreat than an actual military defeat. "A few years from now, 2007 will likely be looked back upon as the year in which the Taliban seriously rejoined the fight and the hopes of a rapid end to conflict were finally set aside by all but the most optimistic," ANSO said. About 1980 civilians were killed in 2007 - half by insurgents and the rest almost equally by soldiers or criminal groups, the group said. Abductions and killings were likely to escalate this year, with growing links between insurgents and criminal gangs increasing the threat, ANSO said. It said the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is helping the government fight insurgents, is "in fact just now entering a period of broad and deep conflict, the outcomes of which are far from certain." ISAF may number about 41,000 soldiers but "realistically" could not have more than 7000 for combat, with the rest mostly support staff or prevented from fighting because of national restrictions, the group said. The size of the Taliban force was unknown, but estimates ranged from 2000 to 20,000. "There would not appear to be any capacity within ISAF to stop or turn back anticipated AOG (armed opposition groups) expansion," the report said. "In simple terms, the consensus amongst informed individuals at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning of a war, not the end of one."

The conflict in Afghanistan is constantly escalating and shows no signs of stopping. Khan 08 Amina, from the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad Afghanistan: Still at a Standstill
http://www.osservatoriopakistan.org/afghanistan/afghanistan-still-at-a-standstill.html Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the state of affairs in Afghanistan have constantly deteriorated, with a marked increase in violence, fatalities, casualties and a growing/ budding Taliban insurgency that has gained immense momentum and continues to escalate. Till date, more than 7,000 people have been killed in international military action against the Taliban. Regardless of US and NATO claims of achieving progress and development in Afghanistan, the year 2007 has been Afghanistan’s ‘most violent’ year since the ouster of the Taliban. Despite seven years of intervention, and the US’s so-called campaign of ‘liberating Afghanistan’, the country continues to be entrenched in turmoil and bloodshed with no visible decrease in insecurity and violence.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

67 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Terrorism Impacts
Instability in Afghanistan causes terrorism The Nation, 04
(http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1296553/Afghanistan-Pakistan-The-Coming-Challenges.html, p. 5, date accessed: 7/16/08) In Afghanistan, the US-backed regime of President Hamid Karzai is trying to prevent a resurgence of the Taliban in parts of the country, which in some ways reflects the inability of the US to deliver on its promises of prosperity. If disorder is allowed to spread in Afghanistan, it is certain that the country will revert to its former status as a breeding ground for terrorism.

Terrorism culminates in extinction Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 03
(Yonah, WASHINGTON TIMES, August 28, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030827-0842568999r.htm, date accessed: 7/16/08) Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.

Afghanistan instability sparks terrorism and accusation of WMDs Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs, and Sanders, Russia specialist, 03
Geoffrey, Paul, Nixon Center, “AMERICA, RUSSIA, AND THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST,” November, http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/monographs/US_Russia_ME.pdf, date accessed: 7/16/08) In contrast, if the U.S. bails out of Afghanistan or Iraq, after losing control of events on the ground or becoming bogged down in endless and costly wars of attrition, the negative consequences would be very serious. Such a development would embolden jihadists in the region and elsewhere and make talk of American weakness again fashionable in radical circles. This would obviously only encourage more terrorism and mayhem and could threaten all major U.S. interests in the greater Middle East, including the security and control of energy supplies. Furthermore, if terrorism is not controlled, the already serious threat of proliferation may become much worse. Indeed, the nightmare scenario that has confronted the Bush Administration since 9/11 is that of hostile terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

68 Federalism DA

Afghanistan spills over to Central Asia
Afghanistan instability spills over into the rest of central asia. RUSSIA WEEKLY, 02
(“WINDS OF THE WAR ON TERROR LEAVE CENTRAL ASIA AT RISK,” September 11, http://www.cdi.org/russia/222-7.cfm, date accessed: 7/16/08) As Wolfowitz’ concern suggests, the Pentagon has acknowledged the risks inherent in letting Afghanistan founder. Wolfowitz says the US no longer objects to broadening ISAF’s mission, but it refuses to send troops in as lead peacekeepers. No matter who runs ISAF, though, Afghanistan will sit in the eye of a political storm. Central Asian states also face the risk of instability. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have hosted Western military forces for the war in Afghanistan, and have used their geographic importance as a convenient excuse to step up repression of their political opponents. Without a vision guiding regional policy, American agreements with Central Asian states can do little to discourage or punish repression. The collapse of one or more Central Asian regimes, in the absence of democratic alternatives and a solid professional class, could create an opening for the establishment of new command and control centers for terrorists. If Washington continues to support corrupt regimes without placing stronger pressure on those regimes, the region’s gross political and economic imbalances could worsen. Young people in the region have grown more frustrated as reforms and incomes have stagnated. The Arab and Muslim world have been decidedly unimpressed with the United States’ lack of resolve in Afghanistan. The Muslim world’s rejection of Bush’s promise to overthrow Saddam Hussein connect to fears that Washington has no long-term strategy for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or for stabilizing Iraq. Looking at Central Asia, many Muslims see a belligerent United States, unwilling to rebuild countries or exert influence over dictators allied to Washington. To effectively make war on terrorism, the United States must develop and then earn a new image in the region.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

69 Federalism DA

Russia Models US Federalism (1/2)
The US model of federalism shapes the development of Russian federalism- specifically in preventing the formation of ethnically divided regions
Lynn and Nivokov, Center for the Study of Federalism, 97, [Nicholas and Alexie, “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia,” Publius, Spring 1997, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p187. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest.com] The first of these models envisages a strictly spatial division of power. This can be achieved by either a fundamental reorganization of the administrative-territorial composition of Russia into a federation of a smaller number of larger regions, or an equalization of the existing eighty-nine units (and the removal of any expression of national self-determination from Russia's federal structure). One of the best-known plans for a reorganization of the Russian Federation into territorial units was Oleg Rumyantsev's (1990) proposal for establishing twenty regions (zemli) on the lines of the Landers of the Federal Republic of Germany. Rumyantsev was the secretary of the Constitutional Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, and his ideas had wide influence. He adopted the liberal democratic view that the federal government should establish a constitution that guaranteed basic individual rights and freedoms: a constitution that established a "contract between the individual, society and the state."'5 Early constitutional drafts were strongly influenced by liberal writers (like the former dissident Andrei Sakharov) and by ideas about federal evolution in the West. Many proponents of a territorial principle looked to the United States as a model of successful federalism. Gavril Popov (at that time mayor of Moscow), for example, was one of several leading "reformers" who proposed a system of territorial federalism in Russia that adhered to a United States type model. He called for the creation of 10-15 large-scale regions and for the abolition of Russia's ethnofederal hierarchy. In order to provide for the right of national self-determination, Popov also proposed the formation of Councils of National Communities at both the regional and the federal levels for organizing policies on non-Russian language education and the "development" of non-Russian cultures, for example." Another advocate of a Lander-based model of Russian federalism was the nationalities minister, Sergei Shakray, who supported the creation of a dozen administrative units. His "February Thesis" in 1993 proposed an eleven-point nationalities policy which stressed the importance of tackling national questions outside of the federal structure of the Russian state.'7 Another, but less tolerant, view of territorial restructuring was also provided by the leader of the "Liberal Democratic" party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who proposed abolishing all the republics and national-formations in 1991.18

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

70 Federalism DA

Russia Models US Federalism (2/2)
The US system provides the fundamental basis for federalism around the world- this basis is key to the formation of liberal democracies
Lynn and Nivokov, Center for the Study of Federalism, 97, [Nicholas and Alexie, “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia,” Publius, Spring 1997, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p187. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest.com] This article distinguishes between federalism as an idea, or philosophy, and federation as an organizing principle for state structures around the world. In terms of the latter, Daniel J. Elazar has detailed the great institutional variety of contemporary federations, such as formal federations, confederacies, and decentralized unions.3 Most writers have identified two distinguishing legal characteristics of federal systems: (1) that there are two separate and self-standing orders of government; and (2) that each order of government has its own unique areas of decision-making and authority. The idea of federalism, however, is far less concrete and is rooted in a specific type of liberal democratic thought (typified by the work of the founders of American federalism). Federalism is a philosophy that accommodates both diversity and unity. It is a dynamic, shifting, and complex relationship that is driven by a range of different processes over space and time. It contains a degree of flexibility and ambiguity, even though as a legal structure, it may seem determined and fixed in a written constitution. Successful federalism also requires a political culture that is conducive to popular democratic government, has a tradition of political cooperation, and prefers compromise to coercion. The concept of political culture is certainly important in terms of understanding the process of establishing a stable and peaceful federal system in Russia, because of the way it links the notion of federalism to democracy through the construction of political attitudes and beliefs. Since the collapse of the USSR, there has been an explosion of empirical (survey) work carried out in Russia in order to uncover shifts in popular political cultures.5 Rather than focusing on changing mass political attitudes, however, we examine intensively specific aspects of mainly elite political discourses, through newspapers,journals, government newsletters, academic and specialist reports, and the like, in order to investigate the changing idea of federalism in Russia since 1991. As such, we make a distinction between elite and mass political debates about federalism and the actual implementation of federal-type institutions and practices in Russia. Although both debates and implementation involve shifts in political cultures, we focus on the implications of the former for the construction of successful federalism in Russia in particular. Many different philosophies and models of federalism have been proposed in Russia by politicians, academics, constitutionalists, and others in Moscow and the regions.6 Although individual influence on the organization of political power is limited, it is important to comprehend the nature of these debates in order to understand the shape that federation has taken in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even though political frameworks in Russia are in constant flux and turmoil, the debates examined here are indicative of the transformation of ideas in political life in Russia today.

Federalism in Russia is extremely fluid and easily impacted because of the lack of a concrete constitutional definition of federalism
Lynn and Nivokov, Center for the Study of Federalism, 97, [Nicholas and Alexie, “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia,” Publius, Spring 1997, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p187. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest.com] The idea of federalism in Russia remains dominated by a focus on the constitutional importance of central state power and the political and economic importance of regional and local governments. Although the Russian president has a great deal of responsibility for making and enforcing the law, which can impinge on the decision-making authority of regions and republics, the organization of federal functions is also complex, and there is a great deal of confusion over central, regional, and republican spheres of responsibility.49 Crucially, federation in Russia is based on a series of treaties and agreements between the center and its constituent units rather than on an effective constitution that binds the center and regions together, which has produced a bureaucratic and asymmetrical system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

71 Federalism DA

Russia headed toward Federalism
Russian federalism is edging towards real federalism. Sharlet, Oxford University Press Stable, 1994
(Robert, Spring, The Prospects for Federalism in Russian Constitutional Politics, Pp. 115-127, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330725 Accessed: 12/07/2008 13:35) For most of the twentieth century, Russian "federalism" has meant some cultural autonomy, marginal economic decentralization, and strong central control over policymaking and implementation through a one-party authoritarian regime. As Russia in the 1990s edges toward real federalism, the equation includes cultural freedom for non-Russian ethnic minorities as well as more space for local economic initiative, but a lingering tendency to practice political control from Moscow.

Russia is headed towards federalism. Sharlet, Oxford University Press Stable, 1994
(Robert, Spring, The Prospects for Federalism in Russian Constitutional Politics, Pp. 115-127, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330725 Accessed: 12/07/2008 13:35) For Russia at the end of the twentieth century, the road back to absolute unitarism seems effectively closed. Russian society has undergone too many irreversible changes in the past decade for a return to past practice. Thus, the country seems destined to move forward toward federalism, although the journey ahead is likely to be arduous and long. Negotiating and legislating looser center-periphery relations, implementing the results, and ultimately forging durable relationships will not be easy. Finally, while Russia has changed significantly in the direction of civil society and a more open, pluralistic political culture, both of which are prerequisites for viable federalism, neither of these necessary developments will be sufficiently strong to support "constitutionalized power-sharing, the essence of federalism"42 for some time to come.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

72 Federalism DA

Russia Federalism Good – Stability
The balance of federalism in Russia is at a crucial turning point- federal conflicts in Russia escalate into full-scale wars extremely easily- Chechnya proves
Lynn and Nivokov, Center for the Study of Federalism, 97, [Nicholas and Alexie, “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia,” Publius, Spring 1997, Vol. 27 Issue 2, p187. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest.com] A process of refederalization has been taking place in Russia since 1991, whereby the regions, the republics, and the central authorities have tried to establish a system of intergovernmental relations characterized by a degree of cooperation, balance, and compromise. This involves a shift away from the pseudo-federalism of the Soviet era and comprises a fundamental aspect of Russia's more general democratic transition from authoritarian rule. To a certain extent, the different parties appear to have been successful in refederalizing center-region relations. The process of regional disintegration, which continued after the 1990 parade of sovereignty, has largely diminished, and the bitter disputes between regional legislatures and governors that dominated Boris Yeltsin's first term as Russian president also appear to have died down somewhat. However, the ease with which the conflict in Chechnya was blown up into a full-scale war highlights the tensions still inherent in post-Soviet Russia's federal relations, and the political crisis in the Primorskii region in the Russian Far East reveals the very real limits that exist on federal authority during the transition period.' At this stage of the process, therefore, Russia has reached something of a "crossroads."2 It faces a choice between different models of federalism and federal relations. It is our aim to investigate its potential options by examining the nature of debates over the idea of federalism in Russia itself.

Russian rejection of democracy can lead to dangerous nuclear alliances with Iran, Syria, and China Frum, Senior Editor at The American Prospect, Previously a Senior Writer at The Washington City Paper, 07 (David, National Post, "Russian democracy is dying," 3-10-7, LexisNexis, 7-15-8)
But this explanation goes only so far. Even in the mid-1990s, only 25% of Russians regarded Western democracy as the ideal system for Russia. Russians have been debilitated by 70- plus years of communism into feelings of personal helplessness that leads them to crave a strong boss. Virtually every Russian surveyed, 94%, said they felt they had zero influence on events in their country; 82% felt they bore no responsibility. It's as if they are saying: Let Putin kill his enemies -- there's nothing we can do, and so it's not our fault. As an institution, Russian democracy is dying. Inside the minds of the Russians, it is already dead. We have no shortage of things to worry about in our troubled world: Islamic extremism, Chinese aggression, European weakness, American isolation. Now add one more. A potentially great power, endowed with vast energy wealth and inheriting a vast nuclear arsenal, is deliberately and with the approval of the majority of its people turning its back on democracy and freedom. Instead of joining the West, Russia is finding its way to dangerous alliances with Iran, Syria, China, and who knows what other sinister forces. This grouping of anti-democratic states is extending its reach around the world -even perhaps to the suburbs of Washington D.C.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

73 Federalism DA

Russian Instability Impacts (1/2)
Internal war draws in the Russian military, which would probably side against Moscow David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, 99. [Stephen R., Jan/Feb 1999, “Saving
America From the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign Affairs Vol. 78, Issue 1 npg.] A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support.

Russian civil war causes nuclear proliferation and spread, causing the greatest threat David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, 99. [Stephen R., Jan/Feb 1999, “Saving
America from the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign Affairs Vol. 78, Issue 1 npg.] Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much materiel. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.

Threats to territorial integrity result in launch of Russian nukes- the threshold is very low now and instability lowers that threshold further Alden, research analyst, The American Partisan columnist, 00. [Diane, “Russia on the razor's edge,”
entetstageright.com, January 10, 2000. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0100russia.htm] In a recent article in the Army publication Parameters, Dr. Walter Parchamenko, an expert on the Russian military maintains that: " The poor state of Russia's conventional forces necessarily means a greater reliance on strategic nuclear forces and, consequently, a much lower nuclear threshold for Russia." Russian Defense Minister Sergeyev outlined the new reality in late October 1998. While speaking at the National Defense Academy in Beijing, he stressed that the role of nuclear deterrence has grown, given the virtual collapse of Russia's conventional forces. The declaratory policy enunciated explicitly: "In case of direct threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state owing to an external aggression against Russia, [it would be] possible and legitimate to use all available means, up to and including nuclear weapons, to counter this threat." Put simply, this means that nuclear deterrence has now become the backbone of Russia's defenses and that nuclear weapons might be used to counter any threat to Russia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is a very serious development."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

74 Federalism DA

Russian Instability Impacts (2/2)
Russian disintegration would result in civil war and a great probability of nuclear launch and lessened security for Russia’s nuclear arsenal Roberts, Institute for Defense Analyses, United States Department of Defense, 00. [Brad, “Nuclear Multipolarity
and Stability,” Institute for Defense Analyses Document D-2539, November 2000. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2000/d2539dtra.doc] NATO’s European members appear to be generally “relaxed” about nuclear matters today.43 Their perceptions of nuclear security have been greatly enhanced by the passing of bipolar confrontation, the deconstruction of the Soviet nuclear threat to Europe, and the radical reduction of U.S. nuclear deployments on the continent. But there are nuclear shadows. One is cast by the possibility of nuclear acquisition by states along NATO’s southern flank; Turkey, for example, is not quite as relaxed about the nuclear situation, given the neighborhood in which it lives. Another shadow is cast by the possibility of further Russian disintegration, and with it a more massive “loose nukes” problem and even the possibility of a civil war in Russia with the employment of weapons of mass destruction. Another shadow is cast by the possibility of Russian resurgence and the effort to use nuclear threats to reassert influence over the buffer states in Eastern Europe; NATO’s three new Central European members are not nearly as “relaxed” about matters nuclear as their allies to their West. Another shadow is cast by possible Russian and Chinese reactions to U.S. national missile defense. Some Europeans fear that Russia and China will increase support for proliferation in the Middle East in response to NMD. Some also fear a breakdown of the bilateral U.S.Russian riskreduction process as trilateral U.S.-Russian-Chinese offense/defense competition takes over. And especially in Britain and France there is concern that U.S. NMD will lead to stronger Russian defenses, thus eroding their national deterrents. The core nuclear issues in the transatlantic relationship today are whether extended U.S. deterrence remains necessary in its current guise (with forward-deployed assets) if at all, and whether it remains credible for the new threats of localized wars that are virtually by definition an attack on one, but not on all. Long-standing concerns about whether the United States is sufficiently “coupled” to Europe to ensure its engagement in time of crisis have informed European reactions to the movement toward missile defenses in the U.S. strategic posture. NMD again accentuates the perception of possible U.S. disengagement in time of crisis. On the other hand, some accept NMD as a necessary price to pay for U.S. engagement in WMD confrontations, even if it is also destabilizing in other ways to the European security environment (as suggested above).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

75 Federalism DA

Russia Nuclear Terrorism Impacts
A collapse of Russia federalism results in nuclear terrorism Hahn, visiting research scholar with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, 03. [Gordon, “The past,
present, and future of the Russian federal state,” Demokratizatsiya, Summer 2003, p.1-19. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200307?pnum=19&opg=n9282060&tag=artBody;col1] Growing tension in Russian-Muslim relations and the federation's weakness or collapse would have grave international security implications. On the most obvious level, the fate of Russian federalism touches on the political stability and integrity of a nuclear power. But it also impinges on issues such as the successful integration of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Russia into Western and other international economic and security structures; the threat of Islamic terrorism; and the proliferation of weapons and other means of mass destruction. Russia is vulnerable to illegal as well as legal infiltration of Islamists from abroad. The titular Muslim republics border on and/or maintain close business, educational, and cultural ties to Chechnya, the Transcaucasus, and Central Asian states. Russia's own borders are extremely porous. Thus, these republics are subject to infiltration by and lending support to revolutionary Islamists from Muslim and Arab states. On 28 June Russia's Federal Migration Service reported that Russia is now a major transit corridor for illegal international migration and hosts from 1.5 to 5 million illegal immigrants. With Wahabbi infiltration among Russia's Muslims, Putin's support for the U.S.-led war against terror, and the pressure that federative reforms are putting on federal-regional and Russian-Muslim relations, Russia is less stable and provides more fertile ground for the support of Islamic terror. A small number of militants can cause great havoc. It is well known that Russian sites holding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials are far from fully secure. There have been several attempts to penetrate such sites and seize weapons or materials. Several years ago, Chechens claimed responsibility for leaving a small quantity of nuclear-grade uranium in several Moscow parks. In April 2002 a team of journalists made their way into a high-security zone near a nuclear material warehouse to highlight lax security. In mid-June, a resident of Tatarstan was detained carrying two kilograms of uranium in the upper Volga republic of Udmurtia.

Nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat to American national security- a detonation could kills hundreds of thousands Sneider, Mercury News, 04. [Daniel, “Our biggest threat: nuclear terrorism,” ransac.org, 9/12/2004. Accessed
7/16/08 from http://www.ransac.org/Projects%20and%20Publications/News/Nuclear%20News/2004/914200493946AM.html#2] Three years after 9/11, there is no consensus on whether we are safer. But presidents and would-be presidents, along with a raft of experts, agree on one thing. The greatest danger is that Islamic terrorists will steal or acquire a nuclear warhead or the highly enriched uranium to construct a crude device. They would smuggle the weapon into a city and explode it, potentially killing hundreds of thousands of people. Given that threat, I posed a question to a wide range of experts on nuclear terrorism, some of whom have served in senior government posts. Imagine, I said, that terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in some Western city. The president immediately convenes a national security council meeting and asks, before any hard data is in, what are the most likely sources for the weapon. Two suspects topped all lists -- Russia and Pakistan. Others making most lists included North Korea and former Soviet republics such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Russia's vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and its scattered stores of bomb-quality uranium and plutonium are vulnerable to theft and terrorist assault. Two years ago I investigated Russia's arsenal of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. These are smaller bombs to blow up bridges or fit in artillery shells, many of them portable enough to fit in the trunk of a compact car.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

76 Federalism DA

Russia Nationalism Impacts
Instability causes Russian nationalism Kupchan, 3/10
Charles, Senior Fellow for Europe Studies, CFR, Kupchan: Recognizing Kosovo Least Bad Option for United States, http://www.cfr.org/publication/15688/pragmatism_on_kosovo.html?breadcrumb=%2F
In terms of where Medvedev will take Russian foreign policy, there are two alternative ways to see things. On the one hand, he is someone who doesn't bring to the office a background as a KGB officer in the security services. He has a business background and a law background, and he has spoken over the last several months about his desire to strengthen rule of law, and to try to bring back a level of liberalism to Russian politics that disappeared under Putin. And so his natural instincts may be toward a domestic policy and

it's clear that there will be some jockeying for position once the new government takes office. Putin and Medvedev have to figure out their relationship. There will be factional infighting in the Kremlin as Putin insiders are threatened by those people that Medvedev brings in. And in general, when democratizing states go through periods of political instability, nationalism and hard-line policies tend to win out because they're the ones who are taking advantage of chaos and the political uncertainly to rally support. That would argue that even if Medvedev's instincts might be more liberal, he will have a hard time bringing them to bear on Russian foreign policy given the political landscape inside Russia.
a foreign policy that loses the sharp edges of Putin's rule. On the other hand,

Nationalism causes nuke war Israelyan, Soviet Ambassador, diplomat, arms control negotiator, and leading political scientist, Winter, '98
[Washington Quarterly, Russia at the crossroads: don't tease a wounded bear, vol. 21, No. 1, pg. L/N] The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force, including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and short-range missiles
such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would, according to In this scenario, Russia's military planners would shift Western countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is underway already. proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as

Some will object that this scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's wouldbe authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to
to have an influence on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become

one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with
uncontrollable. In this context, Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until we all fall down together." n12 The new military doctrine has actually reversed the pledge never to use nuclear weapons first. Earlier this year, Ivan Rybkin, secretary of Russia's Security Council, said, "Everyone must know that in case of a direct challenge our response will be fully fledged, and we are to choose the use of means." n13 Later, in an interview, he said that parliamentary ratification of START II has become "almost impossible." n14 The Duma has again postponed the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russian military planners are claiming that the only feasible military response to NATO expansion is the redeployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons closer to Russia's borders.

There are signs indicating that this scenario is emerging.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

77 Federalism DA

Russia-China Impacts
Russia civil war would provoke an attack by China, spillover fighting, environmental destruction, and creates the possibility of a tyrannical Russian regime David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, 99. [Stephen R., Jan/Feb 1999, “Saving
America From the Coming Civil Wars,” Foreign Affairs Vol. 78, Issue 1 npg.] Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime.

Russia and China are working together to counteract US hegemony in the squo but Russian devolution disrupts this partnership Roberts, Institute for Defense Analyses, United States Department of Defense, 00. [Brad, “Nuclear Multipolarity
and Stability,” Institute for Defense Analyses Document D-2539, November 2000. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2000/d2539dtra.doc] Russia similarly values partnership with China as a counterweight to U.S. influence. But it too is ambivalent. China’s rise is threatening to Russia’s stature in Eurasia and globally. China is seen by some in Moscow as ready to pounce should some further devolution of the Russian state put Siberian resources within its reach. Politically, the two are neither adversaries nor allies. They are neighbors with a growing appreciation of some common interests and who act in parallel when it serves their interests. Their primary common interest is in mutually reinforcing their efforts to react to the preeminent role of the United States. In many public and private statements the impression comes through that the two share a common view of the United States as exploiting its singular status at their expense. Their cooperation particularly intensified in the wake of NATO’s campaign in Kosovo. They find Washington’s commitment to gain “freedom from attack...and freedom to attack” (as elaborated in the U.S. defense strategy) as signifying its attempt to escape the restraints of the balance of power and promising punitive interference by the United States in their domestic affairs in service of America’s human rights ethic.20 These perspectives are not mere sloganeering of the kind to which Americans became accustomed in the Cold War—they convey something more palpable in their political convictions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

78 Federalism DA

Russian Centralization Bad – Tyranny
Greater centralism threatens the stability of the Russian government and reduces the check on presidential authority
Heinemann-Gruder, senior research analyst at the Bonn International Center for Conversion , 02. [Andreas, “Is Russia’s Federalism Sustainable?” Perspectives on European Politics and Society, vol. 3 iss.1, 2002, p68-86. Accessed 7/10/08 from EBSCOhost] Comparing Putin’s federalism with the German or Austrian federations, his reforms are still a far cry from the unitarism exposed there. The picture would look differently if one compared Russia with the model of competitive and dual federalism in the US. In contrast to US federalism, intergovernmental relations in Russia are likely to be shaped by the overlapping of governmental functions, significant financial dependence from the centre, interdependence of intermediary and regional levels of governance and a hierarchical authority pattern. From a constitutional persepective, Russia’s federalism is thus most endangered by centralism rather than a confederation. In the long run, Russia’s federalism will be challenged by a presidential regime which is perceived as existing beyond the federal division of powers. The Russian presidents’s role as the guarantor of the constitituion, his powers by the rule of decree, and his profession as head of an undivided executive hierarchy is inversely amounts to constitutional permission to fuse powers. The power of the presidency is inversely related to deficits of “societal federalism”- there is still a void of horizontal self-coordination of regions and cities, of federal parties anchored in regions and of efficient inter-regional branch associations. The race between Putin’s presidentialism and “societal federalism” is uneven, but still open.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

79 Federalism DA

***Aff Answers***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

80 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Bush is sacrificing federalism
Bush's recent sacrifices of federalism indicate a new trend Conlan et al, Professor at George Mason University, 07 (Tim, Publius, "Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the Transformation of American Conservatism," 4-25-7, http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/3/279, 7-6-8)
Most recent Republican presidents have proposed signature federalism initiatives intended to devolve power or sort out federal and state functions. The Bush administration has not propounded an explicit federalism policy of this sort, but its approach to federalism can be gleaned from analyzing presidential advocacy of legislation and constitutional amendments, fiscal policies, administrative actions, and judicial policies. What emerges from this analysis is an administration that has been surprisingly dismissive of federalism concerns and frequently an agent of centralization. In one sense, Bush is merely the latest in a string of presidents who have sacrificed federalism considerations to specific policy goals when the two have come in conflict. However, the administration's behavior is somewhat surprising, given the president's background as a governor and the fact that he has been the first Republican president to enjoy Republican control of Congress since 1954. Our explanation for the Bush approach begins with the president's lack of any philosophical commitment to federalism and explores the changing status of federalism concerns within conservative ideology. Any explanation for the Bush approach should account for this shifting political dynamic, which has seen Republicans in recent years become increasingly supportive of exerting federal authority on behalf of their economic and social objectives, encouraging Democrats at times to become more supportive of state authority.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

81 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Federal Control Now (1/2)
Federal government has been regulating energy since the 1970s Go Solar California, 2006
(Go Solar California, http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/solar101/history.html) 1970s & 1980s In 1978, Congress passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act or PURPA. It established the right for independent power producers to interconnect with the local utility distribution system. PURPA allowed large utility scale applications of PV and other solar electricity systems. Among other things, this federal legislation required utilities to buy electric power from private "qualifying facilities," at an avoided cost rate. This avoided cost rate is equivalent to what it would have otherwise cost the utility to generate or purchase that power themselves. Utilities must further provide customers who choose to self-generate a reasonably priced back-up supply of electricity. For small systems, such as a residential rooftop PV system, however, these protocols did not help the growth of small systems. The Energy Tax Act (ETA) of 1978 (Public Law 9-618) was passed by Congress in response to the energy crises of the 1970's - the Arab Oil Embargo and the taking of U.S. hostages in Iran. The act encouraged homeowners to invest in energy conservation and solar and wind technologies through tax credits. A federal energy tax credit of up to $2,000 was given for devices installed on people's homes on or after April 20, 1977 and before January 1, 1986. Solar space and water heating carried a 40% tax credit, while weatherization, insulation, and similar conservation activities carried a 15% tax credit. However, the incentives were phased-out in the mid-80's as a result of Reagan administration policies to leave energy conservation and renewable energy decisions up to market conditions. The federal tax credits, however, spurred the creation of new utility-scale solar and wind electricity systems. Wind turbines sprouted on California's windiest hillsides, and companies began investing in solar technologies. In 1979, ARCO Solar began construction of the world's largest PV manufacturing facility in Camarillo, California. ARCO Solar was the first company to produce more than 1 megawatt (MW) of PV modules in one year. Four years later, ARCO Solar dedicated a 6 megawatt PV facility in central California in the Carrissa Plain. The 120-acre unmanned facility supplied the Pacific Gas and Electric Company utility grid with enough power for about 2,500 homes. ARCO Solar built a 1 MW PV power plant with modules on over 108 double-axis trackers in Hesperia, California. Solar One began the first test of a large-scale thermal solar tower, power plant. Solar One was designed by the Department of Energy (DOE), Southern California Edison, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and the California Energy Commission. It was located in Daggett, California, which is about 10 miles east of Barstow. Solar One's method of collecting power was based on concentrating the sun's energy to produce heat and run a generator. A total of 1818 mirrors, or heliostats, would track the sun across the sky and reflect the sun's light to the top of a large tower. A black-colored receiver, on top of the tower, transferred the heat to an oil heat-transfer fluid. The heated oil was then used to boil water, which turned turbines and generators. Solar One produced 10 MW of electricity. It was completed in 1981 and produced power from 1982 to 1986. In 1984, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District dedicated a 1.0 MW photovoltaic power plant to operate near the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant south of Sacramento. That was later expanded to two megawatts. In 1986, the world's largest solar thermal electricity facility began to be built in California's Mojave Desert. The LUZ Solar Energy Generating Stations (or LUZ-SEGS) contains rows of mirrors that concentrate the sun's energy onto a system of pipes circulating a heat-transfer fluid. The heated transfer fluid is used to produce steam, which powers a conventional turbine to generate electricity. All told, more than 300 megawatts of solar thermal electricity were built before the company had financial difficulties and was sold. They are still producing power today, 20 years later!

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

82 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Federal Control Now (2/2)
Nonunique- The federal government already intervenes in local environmental problems
Adler, associate professor, Case Western University School of Law, 05. [Jonathan, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism," New York University Environmental Law Journal 14, no. 1 (2005), p130-45. Accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.com] The federal government is intensely involved in myriad environmental problems that are truly local in character. Drinking water, underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste sites are all problems that lack the features that would justify federal regulation, yet federal requirements for such intrastate concerns are sometimes more stringent than mandates to prevent interstate harms.100 Even where a federal role can be justified, as in the case of air pollution that may drift across jurisdictional lines, the federal government’s involvement does not correspond with the federal government’s interest. Current federal air quality regulations focus far more on whether a given metropolitan area meets national ambient air quality standards, and state plans to meet such standards.101 Moreover, those provisions targeted at spillovers are infrequently invoked.

Congress trounces the balance of powers through issues like the Marriage Protection Act 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) Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum offers a critical examination of the proposed Marriage Protection Act (MPA), which would strip the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over any [*633] case challenging or interpreting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). n95 Kroll-Rosenbaum first examines the two pieces of legislation in question. n96 She finds that DOMA, which provides that no state shall be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state, does little to change existing law. n97 Historically, states have been free to decline to recognize out-of-state marriages that are inconsistent with their own policies. n98 Given the limited legal impact of DOMA, Congress could easily have concluded that the MPA was unnecessary. n99 Kroll-Rosenbaum contends that members of Congress were driven to consider the MPA by their fear that federal courts will require all states to accept samesex marriages. n100 As it is currently drafted, the legislation would not, however, bar all same-sex marriagerelated claims from the federal courts. n101 Kroll-Rosenbaum then argues that the MPA is unconstitutional. n102 She contends that even if Article III gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a category of constitutional claims, and even if it also gives Congress the power to strip the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over those claims, "Congress does not have the constitutional authority to simultaneously strip both the original jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over DOMA-related cases or controversies because constitutional rights are at stake." n103

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

83 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Environmental Federalism Low (1/2)
Nonunique- Environmental federalism is low now- US vs. Atlantic Research case proves Aronovsky, Associate Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School , 08. [Ronald, “A PREEMPTION
PARADOX: PRESERVING THE ROLE OF STATE LAW IN PRIVATE CLEANUP COST DISPUTES,” New York University Environmental Law Journal New York University Environmental Law Journal, 2008. Accessed 7/15/08 from LexisNexis] But while Atlantic Research eliminated the uncertainty created by Aviall, it also created its own uncertainty about a significant environmental federalism question. Courts now must determine the extent to which the CERCLA cleanup cost remedies reinvigorated by Atlantic Research preempt state law tort, contribution, and statutory cleanup cost claims potentially applicable to contaminated property litigation. n13 Some state law claims provide remedies that track those available under CERCLA; n14 others permit different remedies that embrace alternative policy choices for cleaning up contaminated property. n15 Even before Atlantic Research, the lower courts had wrestled with the extent to which CERCLA preempts state law in private cleanup cost litigation. n16 The result had been a jumble of often under-reasoned, inconsistent decisions that varied based on how a particular court viewed the role of CERCLA in a federalist system. n17 Courts viewing CERCLA as creating a national paradigm or blueprint for how cleanups must be conducted and cleanup costs allocated gave it a broadly preemptive effect on differing state law cleanup cost claims. n18 On the other hand, courts viewing CERCLA as ensuring the availability of a private cleanup [*229] cost remedy whether or not state law also provides a remedy gave it narrow preemptive effect, n19 limited to circumstances presenting a direct conflict between a state claim and a federal order n20 or federal statutory requirement. n21 Far from resolving this confusion about CERCLA preemption, Atlantic Research has exacerbated it. Much is at stake. Simply put, resolution of the preemption issue will affect how much voluntary cleanup n22 of the nation's hundreds of thousands of contaminated sites n23 and urban [*230] brownfield redevelopment n24 will take place. Moreover, expansive CERCLA preemption of private cleanup cost claims has significant federalism implications by needlessly marginalizing the independent substantive interests that state law protects and undermining the traditional role that state law plays in tort liability and land use regulation. n25 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

84 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Environmental Federalism Low (2/2)
The Bush administration has already crushed environmental federalism- California lawsuit proves Rechtschaffen, professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, 03. [Clifford,
“Sidestepping Regulations On environment, Bush ignores federalism, ” San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 18, 2003, pB17. Accessed 7/15/08 from http://www.progressiveregulation.org/articles/SF_Chron_Federalism_Op_Ed.pdf] For many years, California’s environmental laws have been among the toughest in the nation. Indeed, state laws are often harder on polluters than the federal government’s. Our auto-emissions standards are an example: They are so much stricter than those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s that auto manufacturers design their products with California’s standards in mind. Until recently, the federal government had not objected to California establishing its own, stricter environmental guidelines. But the Bush administration, from which one might expect a healthy respect for federalism, has shown no such deference. A recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco tells the tale. In the 1990s, California adopted rules requiring that by 2003 (later extended to 2005) a small percentage of the cars each manufacturer sells in the state had to be "zero-emitting vehicles" -- in practical terms, either electric cars or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. California was on solid legal ground in adopting the standard, because the federal Clean Air Act expressly allows California to adopt emission controls stricter than federal limits. But the industry believed California’s standard would cut into profits and challenged it in court -- not surprising. What is remarkable, however, is that the Bush administration entered the case on the side of industry, arguing that the state was barred from adopting more protective standards because regulating fuel economy is a federal function. (On Tuesday, the automakers dropped their suit, bringing a temporary respite in the battle and signaling that the industry would meet the so-called ZEV standard.) The issues in these cases reflect a larger battle over how much autonomy states have in regulating pollution within their borders. Most federal environmental laws mandate minimum federal standards, but allow states to adopt more stringent requirements, a model known as "cooperative federalism." Bush came to office pledging greater flexibility for state governments in carrying out federal environmental programs. But as the zero-emissions case demonstrates, state efforts to ratchet up environmental protections were not what he had in mind.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

85 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Court shifting toward FG power
More federal power is emerging; the era of states' power embodied by the Rehnquist court is on the decline Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
When historians look back at the Rehnquist Court, without a doubt they will say that its greatest changes in constitutional law were in the area of federalism. Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has limited the scope of Congress's powers and has greatly expanded the protection of state sovereign immunity. In 1995, for the first time in sixty years, the Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power. n1 For only the second and third times in sixty years - and the first time, the case was expressly overruled - the Court invalidated a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. n2 At the same time, the Court has used federalism to enlarge the states' sovereign immunity in federal court for violations of federal statutes. n3 These decisions have spawned hundreds of lower [*1764] court decisions concerning federalism and have ensured that federalism will be a constant issue before the Supreme Court for years to come. Virtually all of the decisions protecting federalism were by a 5-4 margin, with the majority comprised of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. In the last few years of the Rehnquist Court, however, the federalism revolution waned as the Court consistently ruled in favor of federal power. n4 While the Court did not overrule or undercut its earlier decisions, the pendulum did not swing any further in the direction of the federalism revolution. Strikingly, some of its decisions in favor of federal power - such as Tennessee v. Lane n5 and Central Virginia Community College v. Katz n6 - were 5-4 decisions with Justice O'Connor in the majority. Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs n7 was a 6-3 decision, with both Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor in the majority.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

86 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (1/3)
Federalism is cyclical; polarized shifts in the past 15 years prove 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)
Between the turnover of Supreme Court justices, the conflict between the Court's Federalism Revolution and counter-Revolution cases, and the doctrinal tension inherent in weakening affirmative Congressional powers while strengthening preemption jurisprudence, a Federal Courts scholar could be forgiven for asking in exasperation, "What on earth is going on?" I do not pretend to have an answer to that question - and indeed, I strongly suspect that none of the individual Justices has an answer either. It is not a judge's job "to decide cases in a way that [*623] establishes broad rules for the future and that also gives deep theoretical justifications for outcomes," but rather to decide one case at a time based on the specific facts before him or her. n28 Still, those of us who earn our living trying to draw straight lines through judicial meanderings like to believe that there is some order in the workings of our highest court.

Historically, the US shifts between two models of federalism; one limiting the federal government and the other empowering it Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
Part I of the Article argues that, throughout American history, the Supreme Court has shifted between two models of federalism: (1) federalism as empowerment and (2) federalism as limits. The former seeks to empower government at all levels to deal with society's problems. A core feature of federalism as empowerment is that it broadly defines the scope of federal power to equip the federal government with authority to take socially desirable actions. Initially articulated by John Marshall, n8 this was the vision of federalism during the nineteenth century and from 1937 until the 1990s. The alternative vision sees federalism as a means of limiting federal power, especially to protect the authority of state governments. This was the vision of [*1765] federalism from the late nineteenth century until 1937. Part II argues that, until its last few years, the Rehnquist Court followed the latter vision of federalism as limits. This was manifest in three sets of doctrines. First, the Court limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause and under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Court revived the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power by holding that Congress may not compel state legislative or regulatory activity. Third, the Court greatly expanded state sovereign immunity by limiting Congress's power to authorize suits against state governments and by holding that states may not be sued in state courts or federal agency proceedings.

Federalism is cyclical- US history proves Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
It is, of course, familiar to note that over the course of American history, the Supreme Court has shifted between two models of federalism. For the first century of American history, the Court expansively defined federal power and did not once declare a federal law unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congress's powers or as violating the Tenth Amendment. n9 From the late nineteenth century through 1936, the Court shifted to a very different view of federalism, narrowly defining the scope of Congress's spending power and invalidating laws as violating a zone of activities reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. n10 From 1937 until the early 1990s, the Court shifted back to upholding federal power; not once during this time was any law struck down for exceeding the scope of Congress's commerce power, and only once was a law found to violate the Tenth Amendment, but that case was overruled nine years later. n11 Since the early 1990s, the Court again has used federalism to limit federal powers.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

87 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (2/3)
Interpretations of federalism are cyclical within overarching shifts between empowering and limiting Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
Another aspect of the Rehnquist Court's federalism revival has been its use of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power. In the first third of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment reserves a zone of activities for exclusive state control. In Hammer v. Dagenhart, n53 for example, the Court struck down a federal law prohibiting child labor on the ground that it violated the Tenth Amendment. After 1937, however, the Court rejected this view, and the Tenth Amendment was no longer seen as a limit on federal power; rather, it was just a reminder that Congress could not act unless there was express or implied constitutional authority. Professor Laurence Tribe remarks that "for almost four decades after 1937, the conventional wisdom was that federalism in general - and the rights of states in particular - provided no judicially-enforceable limits on congressional power." n54 In 1976, the Court appeared to revive federalism as a limit on Congressional powers in National League of Cities v. Usery, n55 in which the Court invalidated a federal law that required state and local governments to pay their employees a minimum wage. The Court, in an opinion by then-Justice Rehnquist, held that Congress could not regulate states in areas of "traditional" or "integral" state responsibility. But just nine years later, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, n56 the Court expressly overruled National League of Cities. Justice Rehnquist, in a short dissent, wrote that he believed that his view would again triumph on the Court. And indeed it did. In two decisions, the Rehnquist Court revived the Tenth Amendment as a constraint on Congress's authority. In New York v. United States, n57 the Court - for only the second time in fifty-five years and the first since the overruled National League of Cities decision - invalidated a federal law as violating the Tenth Amendment. The federal law at issue, the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, n58 created a statutory duty for states to provide for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes generated within their borders. The Act provided monetary incentives for states to comply with the law and allowed states to impose a surcharge on radioactive wastes received from other states. Additionally, and most controversially, to ensure effective state government action, the law provided that states would "take title" to any wastes within their borders that were not properly disposed of by January 1, [*1776] 1996, and then would "be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred." n59 The Supreme Court ruled that Congress, pursuant to its authority under the Commerce Clause, could regulate the disposal of radioactive wastes. However, by a 6-3 margin, the Court held that the "take title" provision of the law was unconstitutional because it gave state governments the choice between "either accepting ownership of waste or regulating according to the instructions of Congress." n60 Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said that it was impermissible for Congress to impose either option on the states. Forcing states to accept ownership of radioactive wastes would impermissibly "commandeer" state governments, and requiring state compliance with federal regulatory statutes would impermissibly impose on states a requirement to implement federal legislation. n61 The Court concluded that it was "clear" that, because of the Tenth Amendment, "the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

88 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (3/3)
Federalism is extremely fluid Edwards, Executive Articles Editor, New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 08. [David B., “OUT
OF 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] The particular powers of a segment, level, or branch of government are almost never static. The "hydraulic" pressure inherent within each of these governmental units exerts influence on the others. n66 Consequently, powers arguably not originally intended to be exercised by their new masters bleed over time from one unit to the other. n67 The history of the Interstate Commerce Clause n68 gives the most concrete example of this pressure. Originally the clause was fairly circumscribed, but has now, with very rare exception, become a nearly unlimited congressional power. n69 Other examples include the judiciary's asserting itself through judicial review, n70 the executive's attempting to become more prominent through reliance on the Vesting Clause, n71 Congress's utilization of the Necessary [*441] and Proper Clause to increase its reach, n72 and the states' claiming their stake through the police power. n73 There are two basic forms of power-bleeding: between branches of the same level of government (horizontal) and between different levels of government (vertical).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

89 Federalism DA

Federalism NUQ – Coercive Federalism Now
The US has practiced coercive federalism since the mid-90's; states' input is considered irrelevant 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)
Here’s a crucial question for the presumed presidential nominees – Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama – and all the candidates for the next Congress. Are you happy with the status quo in federalstate relations? States have long served as laboratories for creating and testing policies and programs that drive positive change nationally. Yet for more than a decade, the federal-state relationship has been under stress. Looking forward, the nation faces many challenges, and states can play a key role in providing leadership. However, whether governors and states provide separate, independent leadership or leadership within a stronger federal-state partnership will depend on which brand of federalism the next administration and Congress adopt. Cooperation vs. Coercion Federalism scholars often point to two recent periods in which federalism was defined very differently. Between 1980 and 1996, there was “cooperative” federalism, an era ushered in by the Reagan administration and marked by a genuine partnership between states and the federal government. President Reagan engaged in discussions and negotiations with the nation’s governors over a huge swap proposed for domestic programs in which the federal government would take responsibility for all Medicaid and states would take responsibility for transportation and other domestic issues. Although this dialogue did not lead to any major legislative changes, both sides embraced a real federal-state partnership. Cooperative federalism continued through the early years of the Clinton administration, which saw passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995, and welfare reform in 1996. Both the Republicans in Congress and the Democratic president worked cooperatively with governors to enact these two bills. Welfare reform not only turned an individual entitlement program into a block grant, but it also gave states substantial authority to tailor the program to the needs of their citizens. From the mid-1990s through the present, we have been in a period of “coercive federalism,” where the federal government more often just tells the states what to do. It does not ask for advice or enter into serious negotiation with the states. The best example is the Real ID legislation, enacted in 2005. This law, which in essence requires states to convert their driver’s licenses into de facto national ID cards, will cost states more than $4 billion to implement and is being opposed by a significant number of state legislatures. Despite the fact that they will bear the brunt of the costs, states were not consulted about how the requirements could impact them or how best to build new security features into their existing systems for issuing licenses and IDs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

90 Federalism DA

SQ Environmental Federalism = Race to the Bottom
There are tensions between states and federal government. There is a danger in the race to the bottom to compete between states jeopardizing the environment in the long run. Collin, Writer for Environmental Law, 2008, (Robert, Environmental Justice in Oregon: It’s the Law, Spring, accessed July 7, 2008)
There is still major tension between states and the federal environmental agencies over regulatory standards. Some fear that letting states control environmental policy will result in a "race to the bottom." Politically, this means that elected and appointed government officials would reduce environmental regulations to gain support of industry and compete with each other to do so. Even if environmental regulations were not reduced, some states may audit or privilege environmental information n18 or otherwise deflect citizen complaints and demur enforcement. Any so called "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation would tend to jeopardize environmental justice communities.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

91 Federalism DA

No Link – Federalism is Flexible (1/2)
American Federalism is protean; multiple definitions exist and interpretations shift with the ruler power 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)
The first four pieces in this volume, which were presented at the Federal Courts section panel at the 2005 AALS convention, ask some version of the Federal Courts scholar's distressed query. My colleague, Professor Edward A. Purcell, Jr., opens the volume by putting that question into a broader historical and theoretical context. His article asks: Whether, and to what extent, it is possible for "federalism" to serve as a meaningful and independent norm in the nation's constitutional enterprise. In other words, are the provisions of the Constitution that establish the federal structure, sufficiently clear, specific, and complete to direct those who construe them to "correct" decisions or, at least, to eliminate wide ranges of discretion in such decision making? n29 Can an examination of history set us on the proper path prescribed by the Constitution, or, when it comes to American federalism, are we condemned to muddle through, always wondering, "What on earth is going on?" Professor Purcell's interrogation provides some lessons and yields some insights into the "true" nature of American federalism, but more fundamentally, it "reveals disagreement, uncertainty, conflict, and change." n30 Indeed, he contends that federalism has been, remains, and always will be a contested issue, in part because "some of our most basic conceptions and assumptions about the federal system have changed substantially over the years." n31 In sharp contrast to the work of Federal Courts scholars who propound [*624] clear cut prescriptive theories of federalism, n32 Professor Purcell concludes that "the idea of 'constitutional federalism' - that is, federalism as a directive constitutional norm - [is] deeply problematic." n33 Each of the sections of Professor Purcell's article examines one of the moving parts of American federalism: our ideas about the proper role of the Supreme Court in the federal system; our ideas about the values of federalism; our understanding of the nature of federalism as a structure of government; and our ideas about the nature and meaning of the Constitution itself. He finds that even the founding generations had at least five conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of the Supreme Court and judicial review. Moreover, "although the five views were distinct, they were also frequently intermixed in the minds of the founders." n34 Professor Purcell traces those different understandings of the Court's proper function from the ante-bellum period to the modern era and attributes our failure to settle on one dominant conception to the fact that "neither the Constitution nor any other authoritative source unequivocally defined such a system or such a role." n35 Professor Purcell contends that discussions of the values of federalism - "usually described as including protecting liberty, encouraging diversity and innovation, ensuring political accountability, promoting democratic participation, and protecting local values and interests" - are similarly unhelpful in identifying clear lines between state and federal authority. n36 Indeed, he asserts [*625] that those conversations, which began to proliferate in the late twentieth century, were driven by an anxious sense that many "traditional" lines ostensibly separating national and state power were no longer sound, easily detectable, or even operationally plausible. Some kind of functional analysis seemed necessary to justify the existence of the states as independent governing units, to assure Americans that those state governments actually produced public benefits, and to identify useful and intelligible lines that could be drawn between federal and state authority. n37

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

92 Federalism DA

No Link – Federalism is Flexible (2/2)
Preferred definitions and applications of federalism evolve with cultural and social standards over time 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)
Professor Purcell offers as an example the fact that the notion that states should serve as laboratories of democracy does nothing to distinguish between those social experiments that the Constitution permits and those that it prohibits. Professor Purcell next argues that the national conception of federalism as a structure of government has evolved over time. He points out that the founding generation did not have much of a choice about adopting a federalist structure - given the political reality of the states, federalism was "a working compromise necessary to allow [them] to forge a new and more 'energetic' central government." n38 Professor Purcell contends that different theories of federalism, like dual federalism, cooperative federalism, and competitive federalism, have emerged over time "from the processes of social change and reflected the ideas, values, and challenges of new generations confronting new historical contexts and new political alignments." n39 As such, no one theory can claim greater constitutional legitimacy than any other.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

93 Federalism DA

No Link – Federal/State power are not Zero-Sum
No tradeoff between state and federal regulation of global warming
Rabe, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of Michigan, 06. [Barry, “STATE COMPETITION AS A SOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION,”NYU Environmental Law Journal, Volume 14, February 1st 2006 p1-53. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol14/1/v14_n1_rabe-romandobelis.pdf] The examples outlined above show a dynamic relationship between state and federal (or generally, superjurisdictional) law, policy, and politics. Despite the interstate externalities that are inherent in climate change policy, climate change initiatives can succeed at the state level in the absence of superjurisdictional regulation. But in each case where state regulation has occurred, the promise or threat of action outside of the jurisdiction, whether via superjurisdictional or merely extrajurisdictional regulation, has been a factor. State and federal regulation, far from being an either-or proposition, interact in complex and varied patterns and combinations. Federal regulation provides the backdrop for state competition, as states base their policy decisions in part on the parameters and rules by which they must abide. But these complex interactions are brought to the foreground as states and local interests attempt to manipulate or change the federal regulatory system as a competitive strategy. Climate change is truly a global policy issue that implicates almost every person and government on the planet; it is also subject to brutal collective action problems that thwart simple solutions at the subnational level. In the U.S., these same collective action problems have likewise thwarted a national consensus on the proper extent and methods of regulation, leaving a policy hole at the federal level. This has not stopped states from considering and taking action on this policy issue. Most importantly, it has not stopped states from predicting future federal or international regulation, and acting based on these predictions. Thus, for example, even states that are unwilling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions themselves are seen to fund technological industries that could turn a profit as a result of such regulations.

Even if there have been tradeoffs between state and federal authority in the past, there is now a more fluid dynamic between states and the federal government which isn’t a zero sum game
Rabe, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of Michigan, 06. [Barry, “STATE COMPETITION AS A SOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION,”NYU Environmental Law Journal, Volume 14, February 1st 2006 p1-53. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/envtllaw/issues/vol14/1/v14_n1_rabe-romandobelis.pdf] The federal/state choice in environmental regulation is not an “either/or” proposition as it was sometimes cast in the environmental federalism debate of the mid-1990s.137 Those studying environmental law and policy today must contemplate a fluid system of relationships, in which influence can pass from the federal to the state level, from the state to the federal level, or from state to state, via mechanisms ranging from the political process to the legal process. The inter-state competition framework developed here should be useful in this study, and also for those seeking to influence U.S. environmental law and policy. For both scholars and practitioners, dynamics such as those observed above may form helpful guideposts.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

94 Federalism DA

Turn – Incentives increase State innovation
Turn- incentives like the plan actually encourage more state regulation
Adler, 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 Studies Working Paper, May 2006 p. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.com] Federal policies that directly influence state regulatory decisions are only half of the picture. Just as the federal action may encourage or discourage state regulatory action directly, federal action may indirectly, or even incidentally, encourage or discourage state regulatory action. Federal policies will facilitate greater state regulation where such actions reduce the costs of state implementation, such as by subsidizing necessary research, or where federal policies increase the demand for given regulatory policies at the state level so as to alter or “set” state policy agendas. Federal policies will discourage state regulatory action where they “signal” that state regulatory action is excessive or unnecessary or where they reduce the marginal benefits of adopting state regulatory programs – benefits either to the general welfare, those interest groups demanding state regulatory activity, or to the policymakers responsible for adopting the relevant policies

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

95 Federalism DA

Turn – State control over electricity strips Federal power
State regulation of electricity production violates the constitution and oversteps states’ rights
Ferrey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, 04. [John, “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, AND STATES’ RIGHTS,” NYU Environmental Law Journal, 2004. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn.com] As eighteen states deregulate their power sectors and implement these various renewable trust funds and portfolio standards, what is often overlooked is whether these plans pass legal requirements. Deregulation measures may overstep state powers and discretion. Also, the state schemes may violate provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The next two Parts analyze commerce clause and federal preemption issues. A. Commerce Clause Requirements The specific mechanism for structuring any state renewable subsidies must not run afoul of Constitutional requirements. The regulation of utilities is a traditional function of local police power in the states.397 The generation and transmission of electric energy is an activity particularly likely to affect more than one state.398 Under the Federal Power Act of 1935, the federal government exercises regulatory power over the wholesale power market, while the states are left alone to regulate most retail transactions.399 While the Commerce Clause grants affirmative powers to Congress to regulate in a variety of areas, the so-called “dormant Commerce Clause” also is interpreted as a limitation on the power of states to regulate in particular areas. The Commerce Clause provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power . . . [t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.”400 In creating this power, the framers sought to “avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation.”401 Although the Commerce Clause is an affirmative grant of power, the Supreme Court has also interpreted it as limiting the States’ ability to “unjustifiably . . . discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce.”

Banning or restricting the importation of electricity by the states is a violation of the constitution
Ferrey, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School, 04. [John, “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, AND STATES’ RIGHTS,” NYU Environmental Law Journal, 2004. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn.com] The most common source of potential Commerce Clause violations is direct state regulation of aspects of commerce. Similarly, all-out bans against the importation of certain goods may handicap out-of-state competitors.424 The Supreme Court prohibits a state statute banning the importation of out-of-state goods as violating the Commerce Clause.425 From Supreme Court jurisprudence, where a regulation is facially discriminatory by protecting in-state entities at the expense of out-of-state entities, the statute is virtually per se invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause. The Court consistently strikes down state rules that expressly discriminate against interstate commerce.426 Invalidation is not automatic, however. The Court has granted exceptions where the state employs the measure for a purpose unrelated to economic protectionism.4

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

96 Federalism DA

A2: Federalism/Constitutional Strike Down
Originalist theory in regards to federalism in paradoxical in the fact that it was used to change precedent ab initio 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)
This section critiques originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation on methodological and pragmatic grounds. Moreover, Professor Purcell contends that "beyond those analytic problems ... looms the embarrassing fact that, as a practical political matter, originalist theories were used primarily as purposeful instruments of constitutional change and doctrinal innovation. Originalism was the natural tool of those who sought justifications for overthrowing existing doctrines, precedents, and practices." n41 Seemingly resigned to the "incomplete, ambiguous, and ambivalent nature of American constitutional federalism" and the inevitability of historical change, Professor Purcell concludes that federalism will continue to be contested - and that we will have to look elsewhere for the clarity that we seek.

Courts empirically rule unpredictably between supporting federal versus 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)
Professor Lynn Baker's piece, The Future of Federalism?: Pierce County v. Guillen as a Case Study, uses the Supreme Court's decision in Pierce County v. Guillen n42 as a jumping-off point in her attempt to make sense of the Court's recent Spending Clause jurisprudence. n43 The Spending Clause gives Congress its most substantial powers to impinge upon state autonomy, and South Dakota v. Dole gives Congress considerable leeway in conditioning federal spending on state compliance with federal regulations. n44 But, despite the fact that the broad scope of Congress's Spending Clause authority "does not provide Congress an eternally available means of circumventing those limitations on Congress's other Article I powers that the Court has recognized," the Court has yet to attempt to more strictly police that power. n45 The Guillen case, in which the Supreme Court of Washington struck down a federal statute that conditioned the states' receipt of federal highway safety monies [*627] upon their agreement to shield certain accident reports and highway safety data from discovery and introduction into evidence in state court proceedings, offered the Court an opportunity to bring its Spending Clause jurisprudence more in line with its Commerce Clause and Section 5 case law. n46 Professor Baker's article asks the question: "Why did the States' Rights Five forego this rare opportunity to strengthen or re-affirm the significance of existing spending power doctrine which is so central to any meaningful 'federalist revival?'" n47 The Guillen case is indeed intriguing. As Professor Baker

points out, "each member of the States' Rights Five was on record as having been willing to invalidate a federal statute under the doctrine set out in Dole." n48 Indeed, the amicus brief Professor Baker and her colleague Mitch Berman submitted in the case argued that the statute violated both the Spending and Commerce Clauses. n49 Given the Federalism Revolution, it seemed to her a slam dunk that the Court would use the opportunity presented by the Guillen case to further trim Congressional authority. n50 The Court, however, unanimously upheld the federal statute under the Commerce Clause and chose not to reach the Spending Clause issue. n51 Professor Baker attributes the Guillen decision to the fact that the Justices employed categorical federalism, n52 attempting to discern whether the core activity at issue was a traditional and appropriate area of federal or state regulation. n53 Indeed, she contends that "the recent Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the States' Rights Five, like their spending power jurisprudence, is driven by a (sometimes) unstated inquiry into whether the federal statute would regulate an area 'where States historically have been sovereign,' or whether it instead involves a traditional and appropriate federal function." n54 Since the Court viewed the Guillen statute as [*628] regulating highway safety - an area traditionally regulated by the federal government - and not state court rules of evidence, it upheld the statute under the Commerce Clause. n55 In closing, Professor Baker notes the
irony of the fact that the Court appears to have revived sub rosa the late Justice Rehnquist's traditional function test from National League of Cities v. Usery n56 that the Court subsequently declared unworkable in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. n57

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

97 Federalism DA

Protecting States’ Rights reduces Individual Rights
Despite call for states' rights, courts' increase in power has denied the rights of individuals 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)
With federalism jurisprudence in such an unsettled state, and with the Supreme Court accepting certiorari on and deciding only about 80 of the more than 27,000 cases that were terminated on the merits by twelve circuit courts and the more than 26,000 cases decided by the highest courts of the states in recent years, n19 it is the lower federal courts that most often have the last word on the scope of Congress's powers. Given that Republican Presidents committed to shrinking the federal government appointed the majority of the judges in ten of the thirteen circuits, n20 it is likely that as long as those judges continue to dominate the federal bench, the echoes of the Federalism Revolution (more than the echoes of the counter-Revolution) will continue to reverberate in the lower federal courts. Finally, the unsettled state of the Court's preemption doctrine only adds more confusion to the already muddy picture of Revolution and counter-Revolution. One might expect a Court concerned about states' rights to be particularly attentive to minimizing the [*621] preemptive effects of federal statutes. That was not the case, however, with the Rehnquist Court. n21 Indeed, that Court strengthened preemption doctrine by encouraging strict textual (as opposed to contextual) determination of Congressional intent, n22 narrowly reading savings clauses in preemption provisions, n23 showing increased concern that the response of businesses to the risk of liability under state common law actions would affect federal regulatory schemes, n24 and evincing little concern for states' ability to regulate their traditional areas of concern. n25 The combination of those [*622] cases and the Federalism Revolution curtailed Congress's powers to protect individual rights in the name of federalism, while cutting back the states' powers to protect individual rights in the interest of respecting Congress's proper sphere of operation - creating an antiregulatory void. n26 The result has been the inhibition of private litigation aimed at promoting the accountability of government and business. n27

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

98 Federalism DA

Tyranny does not outweigh
Preventing tyranny and preserving states as laboratories are ineffective values when determining the issues regarding federalism Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University, 06 (Erwin, Stanford Law Review, "Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor," 4-06, Accessed 7-7-8)
Part III argues that the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions rest on a series of unsupported assumptions. In particular, I identify seven assumptions: 1. It is for the judiciary to impose limits on Congress in the name of
protecting federalism and the authority of state governments; the political process, with minimal judicial review, is not adequate for this purpose. 2. There is a meaningful and desirable distinction between economic and noneconomic activities in terms of Congress's authority to regulate commerce among the states. 3. Federal laws that compel state and local governments to comply with federal mandates undermine accountability by confusing voters as to whom to hold responsible. 4. Congressional expansion of rights is not "enforcement" of rights within the meaning of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 5. Sovereign immunity is a constitutional principle beyond the scope of the Eleventh Amendment, and it outweighs in importance government accountability as a constitutional principle. 6. The desire to protect the authority of state governments does not require a narrow preemption doctrine. 7. The social desirability of federal legislation does not matter in evaluating whether laws violate principles of federalism. These assumptions have many striking characteristics. All are reasonable, but the opposite assumptions are equally reasonable. In fact,

the prior era of Supreme Court decision-making largely rested on the opposite assumptions. Moreover, none of these assumptions provides a sound basis upon which to rest federalism decisions. Some are empirical in nature, yet they lack an empirical foundation. Some are based on definitions. Others are based on value judgments that are not justified. Part IV argues that getting past these assumptions requires a different approach to federalism, one that reasons from the underlying goals of federalism. Part of the reason for the heavy reliance on assumptions is that the traditional values asserted for federalism preventing tyranny and protecting states as laboratories for experimentation - are not useful and have nothing to [*1766] do with the actual decisions. Two values should be key: advancing liberty and enhancing effective government. Other values include: efficiency, as sometimes it is more efficient to have action at the
national level and sometimes at the local; participation, as sometimes national action better engages involvement and other times localism does so; community empowerment, which is sometimes a benefit of decentralization; and economic gains, as sometimes national action is needed to deal with externalities. Constructing a meaningful theory of federalism must be based on these values and not on unsupported assumptions. My goal in this Article is not to construct such a theory, but rather to point to what its foundation must be.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

99 Federalism DA

No one is modeling US Federalism
Geographical reasons forbid countries from turning to Federalism. Maragay, Staff Writer, Manila Standard, 2008
(Fel, Its too Early to Shift to Federal Govt.- Ramos, accessed July 10,2008) Former President Fidel Ramos is in favor of a shift to the federal system of government but is doubtful if moves to change the Charter will prosper before the 2010 elections. The federal system can come in time. But before 2010, I doubt it very much, the former president told Standard Today. Ramos said he would welcome the adoption of a federal system--as opposed to the existing unitary system of government)--which is now being espoused by the opposition. The shift to a federal system is made more difficult by the fact that the country's geographical areas are spread over so many islands unlike countries like the United States, Germany, Australia and India, which all have a federal system, he said.

No US modeling now
Stepan, Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University, 99. [Alfred, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model,” Journal of Democracy Vol. 10, No. 4 (1999) pp. 19-34. Accessed 7/8/08 from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/fspub/6_7_Stepan_1999_Federalism_J_of_Dem.pdf] Finally, many of the new federations that could emerge from the currently nondemocratic parts of the world would probably be territorially based, multilingual, and multinational. For the reasons spelled out in this article, very few, if any, such polities would attempt to consolidate democracy using the U.S. model of "coming-together," "demos-constraining," symmetrical federalism.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

100 Federalism DA

US model is not key
Alternate causality, other countries look to multiple sources for federal models. Lugemwa, Secretary of Uganda Federal Project, The Monitor, Africa News, 2008 (May 18, Uganda: Federo War Goes International, accessed July 8,2008)
We examined the root causes of the chronic conflict in Uganda and the way to a stable and prosperous Uganda since the year 2001. We studied and discussed federal models operating in different parts of the world, including Germany, United States of America, Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, South Africa, Belgium and Switzerland. The discussions resulted in a comprehensive document that was submitted to the Constitutional Review Commission recommending, among others, a federal model of governance that was agreed on as the most suitable for Uganda. The London Federalism Conference is intended to consolidate and move the conversation on to realizing the Federal Project in Uganda. We are working to a target that by 2016 Uganda will be a federal state.

States that base their model off the United States have to start off as autonomus. New Vision, Africa News, 2008, (May 14, Uganda: Intercultural Dialogue Can Iron Out Our Fears, accessed July 8, 2008)
In constitutional language, however, emphasis is not on ordinary definitions but on models and formulations. Thus, for example, we have the American federal model which was based on the 11 independent colonies which came together under a compact they called a constitution to form the United States of America under one federal government to which they surrendered segments of their independence. All states which have followed the American model have been previously autonomous starting with the five Australian colonies which formed the Australian union. Likewise, the provinces of Canada, India and South Africa which formed those countries' federal statehood had been autonomous. The original states of Nigeria became self-governing in 1949 before they formed the federal union in 1960 and the Malaysian union was formed by the autonomous British territories of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawaka and Sabah although Singapore left two years later. The same formula was followed in the federal unions of Germany, Switzerland and Brazil, among others. This means that if we are to introduce the American model of federalism in Uganda, parliament will first have to grant autonomy to the regions which want it before those regions as autonomous units formed a union with Uganda. This is what was done in 1962 when the British government granted independence to Buganda on October 8, 1962, before Buganda as a federal state pursuant to its 1961 agreement with the British formed a union with independent Uganda on October 9, 1962.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

101 Federalism DA

Federalist Model Bad – Ethnic nationalism/civil war
A federalist framework of government leads to territorial debates which empirically end in ethnic cleansing or ethnocide
Schetter, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 05. [“Ethnoscapes, National Territorialisation, and the Afghan War,” Geopolitics, 10:50–75, 2005. Accessed 7/9/08 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=15&sid=91519a6e-f6b8-4b39-928dd1ecbb16c7af%40sessionmgr7] The territorialisation of national ideologies emerged as one of the most significant prerequisites for the use of violence in the name of a nation or an ethnic group. On the one hand, beginning in the nineteenth century the practise of ethnic cleansing gained ground all over the world as a means of creating ethnically homogenised territories and achieving the unity of nation-state and territory.24 On the other hand, the establishment of nation-states and the politics of territorial homogenisation were often enough accompanied by the emergence of political counter-movements. Ethnic elites excluded from access to state power competed with national elites by stressing ethnic counter-ideologies reflecting their own perceptions of ethnoscapes. Once political thinking in terms of the nationstate had attained global primacy, ethnoscapes laid the groundwork for territiorialised claims ranging from rights of territorial autonomy and selfdetermination in a federalist framework to demands for independent territorial nation-states. These ethnoscapes were not in conformity with national territory, since they usually pointed to current or past patterns of settlement and migration or to the territorialisation of ethnic symbols such as battlefields, places of pilgrimage, etc. The rhetorical disputes between protagonists of the nation and rival ethnic groups often culminated in the question: who arrived here first? In many conflicts the belief in a certain ethnoscape was perceived by people as an axiomatic fact that called for certain courses of action: in escalating violent conflicts, for instance, spatial perceptions of national and ethnic identities have again and again provided the immediate legitimacy for acts of violence such as ethnic cleansing and ‘ethnocide’.25

Empirically, the use of the federal model in emerging democracies is bad- ethnic conflict
Stepan, Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University, 99. [Alfred, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model,” Journal of Democracy Vol. 10, No. 4 (1999) pp. 19-34. Accessed 7/8/08 from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/fspub/6_7_Stepan_1999_Federalism_J_of_Dem.pdf] For those of us interested in the spread and consolidation of democracy, whether as policy makers, human rights activists, political analysts, or democratic theorists, there is a greater need than ever to reconsider the potential risks and benefits of federalism. The greatest risk is that federal arrangements can offer opportunities for ethnic nationalists to mobilize their resources. This risk is especially grave when elections are introduced in the subunits of a formerly nondemocratic federal polity prior to democratic countrywide elections and in the absence of democratic countrywide parties. Of the nine states that once made up communist Europe, six were unitary and three were federal. The six unitary states are now five states (East Germany has reunited with the Federal Republic), while the three federal states--Yugoslavia, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia--are now 22 independent states. Most of postcommunist Europe's ethnocracies and ethnic bloodshed have occurred within these postfederal states.

Federalism will not work in diverse societies such as Nepal. Kathmandu, Kantipur, 2008, (Jan 13, British envoy denies saying federalism will fail in Nepal, accessed July 8, 2008)
Dr Hall also cautioned that there is a serious debate to be held over how federalism will work best in Nepal's highly diverse, multi-ethnic society where resources are unequally distributed between different regions. "I urge you to promote understanding and discussion of the issues - I certainly have no wish to impose any views of my own on that debate," he added.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

102 Federalism DA

Iraq won’t model Federalism
Iraq gives up and postpones plans to transition to federalism after succession of the south and violent opposition. Paley and Ibrahim, Washington Post Staff, Washington Post, 2006, (Amit and KI, Federalism Plan is Dead, Section A pg 11, Says Iraqi Speaker Sunni Legislators Others Had Balked, Sept 13, accessed July 7, 2008)
The speaker of the Iraqi parliament said Tuesday that a controversial plan to partition the country into three autonomous regions is politically dead. Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said in an interview that legislation to implement a concept known as federalism, which threatened to collapse the country's fragile multi-sect government, would likely be postponed indefinitely after a meeting of political leaders on Wednesday. The federalism plan would create a Shiite region in southern Iraq much like the autonomous zone in the north controlled by the Kurds. Sunnis have generally opposed the plan, on grounds that it would leave them only with vast swaths of desert in the country's middle, devoid of the oil reserves in the other regions. The constitution that Iraq adopted last fall allows for a form of federalism. Sunni parties supported the charter only reluctantly and joined the current government on condition of a resumption of federalism discussions, in which they hoped to kill the concept. "If federalism is to be applied now, it will lead to the secession of the south and the establishment of an Islamist extremist state in the center of the country," said Mashhadani, an outspoken Sunni Arab who is the third-ranking official in the government. "It is not possible to venture or to start the application of federalism now."

Iraqi’s boycott parliament because of federalist intentions. Paley and Ibrahim, Washington Post Staff, Washington Post, 2006
(Amit and KI, Federalism Plan is Dead, Section A pg 11, Says Iraqi Speaker Sunni Legislators Others Had Balked, Sept 13, accessed July 7, 2008) Support for the plan began to erode after a vast array of Sunni, Shiite and secular groups boycotted parliament on Sunday to protest the plan. Mashhadani said Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, had ordered Shiite politicians to back off from the plan in order to prevent bitter infighting. Mashhadani said the country is not prepared for federalism because its government is not strong enough to provide security and services, and because of troubled relationships with some neighboring countries. "The United States is a federated system and it is leading the world. But this was after the Civil War," Mashhadani said. "So must we go through a civil war in order to achieve federalism?"

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

103 Federalism DA

Iraq won’t model US Federalism
Iraqi leaders are basing their federal system of that of Canada’s Cobb, Writer for Canwest News Service, 2008 (Chris, July 11 Canada is a role model, says Iraqi minister, accessed July 15, 2008)
OTTAWA - Canada's political system and social structure are models for Iraq as it re-builds into a democratic, multicultural society, a leading Iraqi government minister said this week. "Canada is an important country," said Iraqi Water Resources Minister Latif Rashid. "Iraq can learn a lot and gain a lot from Canada and the Canadian experience of federalism, power sharing, multiculturalism and accommodation of languages. "We are going to learn how you did that - how do you use two languages in one university and your methods of election. All these are important to the process we are going through in Iraq." Rashid, a Kurdish engineer who moved back to Iraq from exile in the United Kingdom after the U.S.-led invasion five years ago, has been in Montreal and Ottawa this week meeting with business and political leaders and giving lectures at Carleton University and the University of Ottawa, where he also discussed plans for academic and student exchanges in order to "engage Canada in the future development of Iraq." Iraq has bought machinery from Canada as part of its effort to rebuild its water infrastructure. Canada also has much to teach Iraq about water management, added Rashid. "Today, universities, schools and hospitals and shops are operating normally. Ordinary people are walking around until 12 o'clock at night in most parts of Iraq." While there are still terrorist organizations, he says there's no comparison between now and even a year ago, when it appeared that Iraq was headed toward civil war. Iraq still lacks a strong internal security system, and until it has fully developed its army and police forces the American-led multinational force - or at least a portion of it - is needed.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

104 Federalism DA

Iraq Federalism Bad – Civil War
A federalist structure in Iraq would cause conflict over oil- Nigeria proves
Brancati, visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University, 04. [Dawn, “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. 7–21. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www.twq.com/04spring/docs/04spring_brancati.pdf] The situation in Nigeria, also with abundant oil reserves, illustrates the potential problems the division of oil revenue could pose in a federal Iraq. Oil-rich regions in Nigeria have complained vociferously that they have incurred various economic and environmental costs in producing oil and, thus, deserve a greater share of the oil revenue. These demands have erupted into violence, with guerrilla groups even sabotaging oil pipelines to draw the attention of the national government. In response, the Nigerian government promised the oil-rich regions at least 13 percent more of the country’s oil revenue than the oilpoor regions. Unfortunately, there are no checks in Nigeria on how this revenue is spent. So, intense and often violent competition for control of this revenue has occurred in the oil-rich region of the Delta as well as for control of the illegal bunkering of oil in the region.

A turn to federalism by Iraq would lead to conflicts without an end. Mutlaq intervied by Nakuzi, Head of Iraqi National Dialogue Front, BBC Monitoring Middle East, 2008 (Salih and Elie, January 20, Iraqi Dialogue Front head comments on the US presence ties with Kurds, security, accessed July 10,2008)
Continuing, he says: "I believe that the people of Iraq in general do not accept federalism. Also I believe that most of the people present today in the bloc we are talking about do not believe in federalism. They do not want federalism even if some of them do not publicly say so at present. They will say it publicly some other time. There is consensus that if federalism is implemented, it should be federalism for the governorates and not regions. I accept federalism for the governorates if it means decentralization in administering these governorates. But there should be no federalism in the governorates if this leads to looting the wealth of these governorates. This will be unacceptable." He then says "the solution in Iraq lies in having a decentralized system of government that gives larger powers to the governorates so that they can administer themselves, but this should be done gradually with the building of cadres and state institutions in these governorates. We can then call this federalism or any other name like the united state. We should not concentrate on the idea of federalism the way they want to establish it today. The result will be more conflicts in this country and these will have no end." In response to another question on the federal system of government in the regions of Iraq, he says: "I consider this plan destructive. The regions in Iraq will be a fertile soil for the foreign intelligence services of this and that country. Countries will interfere and these regions will become weak. The Kurds will become weak and will be exposed to pressure from neighbouring countries. The Shi'is and Sunnis will also be exposed to pressure by neighbouring and other countries. There will be a conflict. The conflict will not necessarily be a Sunni-Shi'i one. It could be Sunni-Sunni, Shi'i-Shi'i, Kurdish-Kurdish, or a mixture from all these sides. Unless this country is united and strong, all in it will be weak."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

105 Federalism DA

Imported Federalism Fails in Iraq
Federal models will not solve until there is a determined model of government structure specifically for Iraq. Cameron, 2006 (David, Dec 1, The Times, Two lessons from Iraq, be honest be realistic, Features Pg 23, accessed July 15, 2008)
There is a great deal of discussion about the various models of federalism that might make sense for Iraq. But what matters more than the precise model of governmental structure is the need for a fundamental political accommodation between the different communities that will be required to underpin it. Without that, any structure, no matter how cleverly designed, will fall apart. To achieve this, Iraq will require a great deal of external political support, both from its neighbours and the wider international community. This will require both honesty and humility on our part: honesty about the situation as it really is; humility in acknowledging the mistakes that have been made. That is why we have proposed the establishment of an international Contact Group for Iraq, bringing in members of the Security Council and others, including Iraq's neighbours. This should not be a talking shop. Nor should it attempt to impose an outside solution on the Iraqis. To succeed, it will need to have Iraqi leadership prominent throughout.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

106 Federalism DA

Middle East Conflict Coming Now
American action is fueling the potential middle eastern conflict Ward, Staff Writer, 07 (Olivia, The Toronto Star, Feb 3, “Domino effect worries analysts: Three hotspots
could flare up at once, boosting Iran’s influence; Amerd foes stalk streets of Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, leaving them on the brink of civil war”, http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/94633, 7/16/08) James Dobbins, a RAND Corporation analyst and former diplomat under Bush's and president Bill Clinton's administrations, says that alarm bells are ringing for a confrontation between Iran and the U.S. "Given the exceptionally tough tone of the president's latest remarks regarding Iran and Syria, the military moves he has just directed at them, the administration's intensified efforts to build and arm an anti-Iranian coalition and the president's often-repeated determination to deny Iran a nuclear capability, there is growing danger that the current U.S.-Iranian confrontation could escalate in the coming months from harsh rhetoric and economic sanctions to military action," he wrote in the International Herald Tribune. Dobbins concludes, "when one adds ... reports that the administration has begun promoting surrogate funding for 'contra' militias to challenge Hezbollah and Hamas for control of the streets of Beirut, Ramallah and Gaza City, one is faced with a nightmare scenario of an unbroken string of civil wars and failing states stretching from the Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean." By challenging and confronting Iran and Syria, while engaging in an increasingly catastrophic war in Iraq, analysts say the U.S. is set on a collision course whose impact will spill over to yet more instability and war. "What we are lacking is an overall strategy for the Mideast as a whole," says Robert Hunter, a RAND senior advisor and former U.S. ambassador to NATO. "(Officials) are ignoring the connections. The Middle East conflict and what's happening in Lebanon are not on their agenda."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

107 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Federalism Fails
Western models of federalism would fail in Afghanistan Tremblay, Chair of the Department of political science at Concordia University, 01. [Reeta Chowdahari, “A
federal arrangement for Afghanistan,” Federations, October 2001, npg. Accessed 7/15/08 from http://www.institutefor-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/Federalism/Federations%20Magazine%2010-26-01.pdf] Federalism just might be the most suitable arrangement for Afghanistan. But federalism needs to take a particular shape in this country. It will not do simply to emulate the traditions and conventions of Western federal systems. The Western discourse on federalism has been traditionally formulated within the framework of center-state relations, focusing on centralization and decentralization. In the case of Afghanistan, we need to make a departure and view federalism as both a territorial and nonterritorial project. As a territorial project, federalism addresses the fragile equilibrium to be maintained between indestructible union and indestructible units. As a non-territorial project, federalism is directed to the issues of cultural representation and identity in a multicultural society.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

108 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Federalism Bad – Ethnic Cleansing (1/2)
Federalism in Afghanistan would cause massive instability, war, ethnic conflict and tyranny Roashan, Institute for Afghan Studies and author of The New Beginning, 02 [G. Rauf , “Pros and Cons of
Federalism in Afghanistan,” December 08, 2002, accessed 7/15/08 from users.tns.net/~mroashan/politics/countrycorner/CCorner2/ProsAndConsOfFederalismInAfghanistan.pdf] Omar Zakhilwal of the Institute for Afghan Studies has a definitive stand on the issue and in his paper on Federalism for Afghanistan writes: " Many who know the ground reality in Afghanistan would agree that federalism is not only unnecessary under the circumstances, but it would serve as a recipe for deeper divisions among diverse ethnic groups in Afghanistan and would lead to a subsequent disintegration of the country." He further refers to the fact that: "Though ethnically diverse, politically and socially Afghans have mingled into one distinct entity: 'Afghan'. It is this distinction-as-Afghans- that has enabled them to remain living in one integral country." Another paper on "The Regional and International Context: Are Peace and Cooperation Possible?" by Amir Hassanpour says: "The people of the region are fed up with despotism, both Islamic and secular, and with the wars and massacres that inevitably accompany various forms of despotism." He further writes: It is difficult to reconcile the conflicting interests that Western powers and the states of the region pursue in Afghanistan. It may be more realistic, instead, if they accept and safeguard the neutrality of a democratic state in Afghanistan, which in turn does not allow its territory and citizens to be dragged into war, terrorism, and conspiracy."

Adopting a federalist model in Afghanistan is seen as impossible by those on the ground, and risks armed conflict Roashan, Institute for Afghan Studies and author of The New Beginning, 02 [G. Rauf , “Pros and Cons of
Federalism in Afghanistan,” December 08, 2002, accessed 7/15/08 from users.tns.net/~mroashan/politics/countrycorner/CCorner2/ProsAndConsOfFederalismInAfghanistan.pdf] Jan Mohammad of the Institute for Afghan Studies in a personal note to this scribe detailed his views as such: "How can Afghanistan be divided into internally autonomous regions without compounding the hardships Afghanistan has suffered in its recent years of war?" He further states: " The fact that proponents of federalism in Afghanistan think that dividing Afghanistan into autonomous regions will give all ethnic groups a chance to take control of their own destiny suggests that Afghanistan should be divided along ethnic and linguistic lines. However, the ground realities suggest that dividing Afghanistan based on ethnic and linguistic criteria is not possible. The Tajiks are mostly scattered from Kapisa province all the way to Herat in western Afghanistan. The Hazaras live side by side with the Pashtuns in Ghazni, Wardak and Uruzgan provinces; the Uzbeks live side by side with the Tajiks, Hazaras, Turkmans and Pashtuns in northern Afghanistan. Realistically, it would be impossible to divide Afghanistan along ethnic and linguistic lines." "An even bigger issue," he writes, " would be who is going to decide what regions goes to what ethnic group without sparking further armed conflict?"

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

109 Federalism DA

Afghanistan Federalism Bad – Ethnic Cleansing (2/2)
Federalism in Afghanistan would cause ethnic cleansing
Schetter, Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 05. [“Ethnoscapes, National Territorialisation, and the Afghan War,” Geopolitics, 10:50–75, 2005. Accessed 7/9/08 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=15&sid=91519a6e-f6b8-4b39-928dd1ecbb16c7af%40sessionmgr7] Seen in the context of ethnic perceptions becoming increasingly spatial, several political leaders claim for an ethno-federal system in Afghanistan. On the one hand warlords such as Isma’il Khan and Rashid Dostum are in favour of such a system to defend their political autonomy. On the other hand representatives of nearly all ethnic minorities advocate ethno-federalism worried about the re-establishing of a Pashtun dominated state. However this much-discussed option 89 should be approached with scepticism. Because of the irreconcilability of the various ethnoscapes the implementation of ethno-federalism could well lead to an intensification rather than an alleviation of the conflict and might in addition shift the ethnic difficulties from the national to the federal level: at member-state level the practice of ethnic intolerance by members of the ethnic group in power could quickly become established so that incidences of ethnic cleansing would scarcely be avoidable. 90 Furthermore, minority elites would be strongly tempted either to tamper with provincial boundaries or to form their own federal states. The introduction of ethno-federalism is all the more questionable because ethnically homogeneous areas do not exist in Afghanistan and most valleys and villages are highly ethnically diverse.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

110 Federalism DA

Russia’s constitution doesn’t support Federalism
The Russian Constitution is not written for federalism. Sharlet, Oxford University Press Stable, 1994
(Robert, Spring, The Prospects for Federalism in Russian Constitutional Politics, Pp. 115-127, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330725 Accessed: 12/07/2008 13:35) If a genuine federal system is to develop and eventually supersede the Russian unitary state, it will initially do so under the penumbra of the Yeltsin constitution. To understand the possibilities as well as the potential limitations, it is necessary to conceptualize and analyze the Constitution in several ways: (1) as text, (2) as fundamental law, and (3) as metaphor. As text, the Yeltsin constitution is not particularly promising for federalist development. This is not surprising, given the mood and concerns of the presiden- tial draftspersons during the interregnum. Nearly all feared a replication of the Soviet collapse. The theme running through center-periphery discussions at the summer Constitutional Convention, and again at the reconvened fall sitting, was the need for stability and for maintaining the unity and integrity of the Russian state.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

111 Federalism DA

Russia Rejects Federalism
Russian government rejects Western models of democracy; public opinion supports Frum, Senior Editor at The American Prospect, Previously a Senior Writer at The Washington City Paper, 07 (David, National Post, "Russian democracy is dying," 3-10-7, LexisNexis, 7-15-8)
But we do know that over the past half dozen years, Vladimir Putin's government has extinguished all of Russia's independent broadcast media and severely curbed most print media. We do know that Putin has ended elections for local government and centralized all power in the Kremlin. We do know that he has used administrative powers to seize some of Russia's largest corporations and transfer ownership to his supporters -- and to confiscate gas fields leased to foreign investors. And now we have a clearer idea of how Putin has been able to get away with these dangerous moves toward dictatorship: The Russian people support him. Last week, the EU-Russia Centre released the results of a major new survey of Russian public opinion. Only 16% of those surveyed identified the "Western model" of democracy as the ideal. More than twice as many, 35%, said they "prefer the Soviet system before the 1990s." Only 10% of Russians regarded their country as belonging to the West. 71% said that Russia was not part of Europe. Almost half of Russians, 45%, regard Europe as a threat. The pollsters read a series of words to respondents. They asked: Did those words have positive or negative associations. Only 33% of Russians had positive associations with the word "freedom." Even the word "democracy" had surprisingly strong negative associations: Up to one quarter of less affluent and less educated Russians associated "democracy" with concepts like (to use the pollsters' words): "chaos, demagoguery and pointless chattering." The EU-Russia Centre notes that Russians responded much more positively to democracy and freedom in the mid1990s than they do today. But those first post-Soviet years also suffered a collapse of living standards and political chaos -- unleashing Soviet nostalgia in many Russians. Putin's authoritarian rule, by contrast, has coincided with a time of rising prices for Russian oil and gas, and thus with improving living standards.

Russia rejects the US's call for democracy, citing hypocrisy in foreign relations regarding energy and peace BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 8
("Russian ministry source sees hypocrisy in words of USA's new envoy to Moscow," 6-21-8, LexisNexis, 7-16-8) Text of report by Russian state news agency RIA Novosti Moscow, 21 June: The Russian Foreign Ministry hopes that the work of new US ambassador to Russia John Beyrle will help to strengthen bilateral relations without any prior conditions imposed by the USA, a source in the ministry has told RIA Novosti. During a hearing in the US Senate on Thursday [19 June] to confirm his appointment to the diplomatic posting, Beyrle said that the USA recognized Russia's important role in the world as a great power and had an interest in cooperating with Russia, but at the same time would trust Russia more if it became a democratic country. "We work from the assumption that the new ambassador, in line with the duty of any ambassador, will work to help US-Russian relations to develop positively, which will help increase mutual trust between us. But at the same time there should be no 'if - then' type conditions," said the source. "Frankly, it grates to hear reproaches from Mr Beyrle that the USA would trust Russia more if it were a democratic and market country," he added. "Several issues immediately come to mind," he said. "That's to say, one can understand that trust is made dependent on the American assessment of our democracy and market. One way or the other, one gets the sense that the view of these issues is distorted by a negative prism," he added. "But if we consider some of Mr Beyrle's advice that Russia should use its influence so as 'not to heighten regional tension, and make a contribution to peace and stability,' or 'make energy deals on a transparent, market-based and mutually advantageous basis', then that cannot help but provoke certain associations," said the source. The USA is hardly an ideal model of this for us, he said. "We do not think, for example, that the military campaign in Iraq against which we offered honest warnings was a 'contribution to regional stability'. The way US firms win energy contracts there can hardly serve as a model of transparency," he added. He continued: "And of course, we are developing democracy and a market based on our own national interests and the needs of our country and society, certainly not for the sake of various assessments imposed from abroad. We hope that objective reality will be visible - it's clearer in Moscow than from Capitol Hill."

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

112 Federalism DA

No Russia Civil War
Russia is internally united- a civil war is highly unlikely Sui, Research Center of Contemporary World, 07
(Yu, China Daily/Financial Times, Dec 14, “Russia on Road to Rejuvenation Under Putin”, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2007-12/14/content_6320935.htm, 7/16/08) Russia has made great strides on its path to economic rejuvenation this year and shows more confidence on the diplomatic front. Russia's State Duma election ended earlier this month with 63.78 percent of 108 million registered voters casting their ballots for candidates representing 11 political parties. As widely expected, United Russia, the party President Vladimir Putin backs, emerged victorious by bagging 64.3 percent of the votes, which gave it a 315-seat majority in the 450-seat lower house of parliament. The Communist Party, Liberal Democratic Party and Fair Russia trailed far behind with 11.57 percent, 8.14 percent and 7.74 percent of the votes respectively, which translate into 57, 40 and 38 seats. The other seven parties all failed to gain a seat because none of them won more than 2.5 percent of the ballots. The State Duma election was in a sense a public endorsement of Putin's achievements in his eight years as Russian president, as he said: "United Russia's triumph is a stamp of approval for me by the people." In order to remain in power, albeit in a different role, after his term of office ends next year, Putin has called for the presidential election to be held in March next year, almost on the heels of the parliamentary election. At a mass rally held in Moscow on November 21, Putin hit out at both ends of the political spectrum in a lengthy speech, slamming the rightwing alliance for "passing unbalanced and irresponsible budgets year after year that caused the economy to collapse and people's living standards to plummet" when they were in power in the 1990s. He also criticized the Communist Party, saying its policies "left people with few basic services and consumer goods in the 1980s" after decades as the ruling party and "led to the disintegration of the Soviet Union". He called on voters to support the United Russia party, saying that would allow the country to "maintain the current development principles and pace of economic growth and lead Russia into the top five major economic powers (in the world) within the next 10 years". His speech was very effective, as United Russia garnered over 10 percent more votes than public opinion polls showed before election day. There is no doubt United Russia owed its sweeping victory to the achievements of Putin's administration and people's trust in the president. And there are three reasons that analysts believe Russia is headed in the right direction. First, "managed democracy" and "sovereign democracy" has kept the political situation stable. Second, strong showing by the energy sector has pumped up overall economic growth. Third, refusal to give in under outside pressure has reinforced Russia's esteem as a major power. "Managed democracy" is a reply to the bitter fruits that uncontrolled democracy brought Russia; while "sovereign democracy" is one free of foreign interference.

Russia’s three pronged approach to governance assures stability Sui, Research Center of Contemporary World, 07
(Yu, China Daily/Financial Times, Dec 14, “Russia on Road to Rejuvenation Under Putin”, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2007-12/14/content_6320935.htm, 7/16/08) The more successful Putin is the harder it is for the CP to be the main opposition. However, there is also a downside to this, the two sides' overlapping relationship, and separate efforts to infiltrate each other. Putin's top concern is to "ensure the continuity of national policies". These "national policies" comprise three aspects. The first is a "managed democracy" aimed at keeping the political situation stable and the society harmonious, a socialist market economy characterized by emphasis on efficiency and equal attention to fairness, and diplomacy based on the fundamental principle of balance. The second is "administrative strategy", which is centered on national interests to make the nation powerful and the people rich, economic development with national spirit as the motivation, unity of the whole society with past mistakes as a reminder, and regaining its major power status. The third is a set of values, which consists of three factors that exist in Russian society today - liberalism, socialism and nationalism. The idea is to combine the three and apply them in economic, political and foreign policies. All these strategic moves characterize Putin's path.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

113 Federalism DA

Russia Stable
No political instability now AP, 3/6
Russia's Medvedev May Be Junior Partner, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2bSjcmcLkpFUqyZRt7DVjILmyKwD8V842803 Dmitry Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center believes the Medvedev-Putin administration could work smoothly, with Putin serving in the short-term as a "regent-cum-mentor-cum-tutor," giving Medvedev on-the-job training. Neither does he think that Medvedev needs to imitate Putin in order to be a successful president. "Where Putin was in some ways a man of war, the new guy is more of a man of peace," Trenin said. "Putin had to fight against those snakes and dragons in the marshes of Chechnya and the oligarchy." The analyst said Medvedev's challenges — which include restoring the independence of the courts, parliament and political parties, all brought to heel by Putin's Kremlin — may take a different form of leadership.

No instability- Medvedev Indian Express, 3/3
HE WHO HOLDS THE KREMLIN, lexis Dmitry Medvedev's election as president opens an era of political partnership in Russia - though for the time being, Vladimir Putin will serve as senior partner. The arrangement ensures that Russia will remain politically stable, at least for the near term, and that its economy will continue to expand, generating more opportunities for foreign investors.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

114 Federalism DA

No impact to Russia Nationalism
no impact to nationalism Rachman, 3/3
[Gideon, Financial Times, Medvedev will not declare cold war, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/380bda96-e93d-11dc8365-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1]
This sounds frightening – but it raises two important questions. First, do the Russians really want to "harm us"? Second, could they really do it, even if they wanted to? The answers to both questions are more reassuring than the apostles of the new cold war would have it. It is true that you do not have to talk to Russian officials for long to uncover a strong sense of antagonism towards the US and the European Union. The Kremlin line is that the west ruthlessly exploited Russian weakness in the 1990s. Now the Russians are

Russian interests are too deeply entangled with the west to make a straightforward policy of confrontation feasible – particularly when it comes to business and trade. The Russian state now effectively controls the most "strategic" bits of the Russian economy. But using this power as a political weapon is harder than it sounds. The main instrument of revived Russian power is the country's reserves of oil and gas. It is the rising price of
determined to push back. But energy that has made Russia rich and given the Kremlin the sense that – at last – it has a powerful lever in its hands. The EU fears that, in some future political conflict, the Russians will use this leverage. At present, the EU gets some 30 per cent of its gas from Russia. As if to underline Europe's vulnerability, Mr Medvedev is taking office just as Gazprom has cut gas supplies to Ukraine by 25 per cent, as part of a pricing dispute. A threat to turn off the heating in the middle of winter would certainly give a new meaning to the idea of a cold

Russian energy is a difficult weapon to deploy. Almost all of Russia's energy cut-offs to date – and there have been several – have been brief, aimed at their immediate neighbours and have been ostensibly driven by business concerns. To use the denial of energy as a long-term strategy, aimed at the heart of the EU for explicitly political ends, would be a huge and improbable escalation of this tactic. Russia can only really exploit its energy wealth by selling its gas and oil. All Gazprom's major pipeline routes head west. The Russians know that if they ever actually attempted to freeze western Europe into servitude, they would ruin their reputation as suppliers for ever. EU efforts to lessen energy dependence on Russia have been pretty feeble so far. But they would become much more determined if a Russian energy war ever looked feasible. It is not just the Russian state that has a powerful interest in maintaining a working commercial relationship with European customers. The deep connections between politics and business in modern Russia mean that the country's most powerful people often have a direct personal stake in the continued prosperity of western Europe. They have business relationships to maintain, investments to protect, houses in the south of France, children at school in Britain. Russian investment in "strategic" EU assets will inevitably be carefully monitored. But while Russian investors might seek to influence business decisions in a way that suits the Kremlin, they are unlikely to choose a policy of outright confrontation. To buy into the European economy and then deliberately to provoke conflict with the EU would be self-defeating. This does not mean that western Europeans can relax completely. Over-dependence on any single supplier of energy
war. But – Russian or otherwise – would be a mistake. Even if the Russians never use energy as a political weapon against the EU, low productivity and investment may well mean that Russia will become a less reliable supplier over the next 20 years. So the search for alternative sources of energy remains urgent. There is no doubt that Russia Inc exists. Mr Medvedev's career path from Gazprom to the presidency is a perfect illustration of that. So is the disconcerting habit of some state officials to hand out two cards: one for their government job and

the entanglement between Russian business and the Russian state is not necessarily bad news for the rest of the world. Resurgent nationalism in the Kremlin is a real worry. But people with international business interests tend not to be nationalists. They cannot afford to be.
one with their business affiliation. But

Nationalists won't force confrontation Rostovsky, 3/14
NATIONAL DISINCLINATION; Why the Russian elite will never kick up a quarrel with the West DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia), lexis It is this domestic policy that actually defines foreign. Interests of the ruling elite insist on a combination of anti-Western rhetoric and caution so as not to foment a genuine confrontation with the West. The image of a powerful external enemy is probably the best means of keeping the situation in hand and steering it in the necessary direction invented so far. Needless to say, the ruling class in Russia has been using this political technique with gleeful abandon. Meanwhile, everything is certainly different in the so called Real Politik sphere. The West is a major consumer of Russian power resources. Selling Russian oil and gas to the West, the Russian elite pockets most of the dividends. The West is where Russian businessmen and officials stash their fortunes. Last but not the least, it is in the West where the Russians (the ones who can afford it, that is) take their well-deserved R&R and send their children to study in. Shall we act surprised therefore that in the matter of Kosovo the Russian authorities stopped cold just short of the red line beyond which a bona fide confrontations would have been inevitable? All considerations of fairness aside, we should be happy to have so egotistical an elite. Policy of the latter does promote national interests of the Russian Federation in this particular case.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful