You are on page 1of 114

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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]
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]
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.

so was Lord Bryce. TC Beirne School of Law 99. through the right of exit. [Geoffrey. the New South Wales government was a plaintiff in the successful High Court challenge to that legislation. “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism. Australian federalism has proved its worth in this respect. For example. That road leads to chaos.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 4 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Shell – Tyranny Impacts C. Although he was definitely no friend of federalism. a protection of individual liberty. 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. 480) However. D. and the end of all human aspiration.” Australian Law Journal. Thomas Jefferson was very emphatic about that. In fact. who said that ‘federalism prevents the rise of a despotic central government. he did have to admit that federalism was.14.34/Senate/pubs/pops/pop35/c02. Wake Forest University. and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare. In sum. absorbing other powers. then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. Every invasion of freedom must be rejected with undying spirit Petro. was the perhaps the greatest advance in Australian political liberty since federation. Ask Solzhenitsyn. one may still insist.” 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.pdf] The fifth advantage I want to put before you is that federalism is a protection of liberty. despotism. Federalism prevents despotism and protects individual freedoms Walker. Ask Milovan Djilas. I would suggest.81. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from http://202. I mentioned earlier that a federal structure protects citizens from oppression or exploitation on the part of state governments. echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty. tyranny. But federalism is also a shield against arbitrary central government. it was the premiers and other state political leaders who led the struggle against the 1991 political broadcasts ban. and menacing the private liberties of the citizen. if one believes in freedom as a supreme value. p. . professor of law.’27 The late Geoffrey Sawer of the Australian National University in Canberra was a very distinguished constitutional lawyer. and that decision. 74 (Sylvester. 1999 p. Even in its rather battered condition. TOLEDO LAW REVIEW. Spring.” Thus. in itself.

to create political autonomy while preserving freedom of movement and individual rights. Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization. other countries continue to model American-style federalism. June. the Middle East. Eastern and Western Europe. 2008 (Benjamin. obviously. but beyond that it is a partnership that requires trust. What is striking is the present number of countries and regions where deep-seated problems could respond to a new focus on federalism. is to create structures that preserve necessary economic links while providing economic independence. by instituting creative forms of federalism. then." n26 Given such trends. 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. Adjunct Assistance Professor at the Virginia PI and University in Blacksburg VA Wrote a book. 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. Spain. 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. Jan-Feb 1992. and Nigeria have all based parts of their government structure on American federalism. this is it. v3 n1 p20(5) No word in political theory more consistently causes eyes to glaze over than “federalism. or Kazakhstan would be uplifting for French Quebecois. accessed July 13. Ethnic pride and self-identifica tion are surging in many places around the globe. Creating an independent Quebec. federalism. .S. and Kazakhs but terrifying for the large numbers of minorities who reside in these same territories. not sufficient by itself to eliminate the economic and social disparities between the North and the South. Good ones can be the basis for building trust. Despite the federal guarantees built into the Constitution. it seems likely that other countries may model American environmental federalism.. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 5 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Shell – Modeling Impacts C. L. Add to this the easy availability of weapons. n24 The "American experience with . Stanford Environmental Law Journal. which can range from a federation that is tightly controlled at the center to a confederation having autonomous units and a loose central authority. Federalism stops global wars Norman Ornstein. The American Enterprise. Trust can’t be forged overnight by formal arrangements. and allowing as much self-government as possible. India. Croats. There are also economic considerations: simply breaking up existing nation-states into separate entities cannot work when economies are interlinked in complex ways.” Yet no concept is more critical to solving many major political crises in the world right now. American Environmental Federalism is modeled globally Sovacool. 27 Stan. And there are humane factors. D. Germany.S. Envtl." writes John Kincaid. the divisive questions of states’ rights dominated political conflict from the beginning and resulted ultimately in the Civil War. constitutional arrangements. choosing to decentralize power by adopting constitutions that are more federalist than the ones that they have replaced. Yugoslavia. But if ever there was a time to apply the lessons that can be drawn from the U. while also protecting minority interests. too. instability. The United States pioneered federalism in its Union and its Constitution. and to respect ethnic identity while protecting minority rights. The former Soviet Union. It has also enabled us to meliorate problems of regional and ethnic discontent. Croatia." n25 Mikhail Gorbachev even stated that "the phenomenon of federalism affects the interests of the entire global community. No provinces or territories are ethnically pure. and Canada are suffering from problems that could be solved.. preserving ethnic and regional identification and sensibilities. and you have a potent mixture for discontent. Turkey. Russian Federation. 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 Republic of Austria. and violence. If this is the case. PhD in Science and Technology. resident scholar in social and political processes at American Enterprise Institute. federalist structure was. "may have useful implications for an emerging federalist revolution worldwide. 2008) Third. Federalism is not a sexy concept like “democracy” or “freedom”. The American form of federalism fits the American culture and historical experience—it is not directly transferable to other societies. if solutions are possible. But the federal system did keep conflict from boiling over into disaster for 75 years. experience or to create new federal approaches. 397. but bad arrangements can exacerbate hostilities and tensions. The only way to begin to craft solutions.J. The U. Each country has unique problems that require different kinds of federal structures. South Africa. Federalism starts with governing structures put in place by formal.

It's federalism in action. meaningful immigration reform place themselves at a "competitive disadvantage" economically -. Numerous reports indicate that illegal aliens are leaving the state.. The illegal immigration debate is about a whole lot more than just economics. and protecting taxpayers from waste. it is fully within Congress's power to decide that states' experience and comprehensive law should find effect in federal enactments. the federal government has allowed the states leeway to be laboratories of experimentation. basic human dignity and the immorality of exploiting cheap illegal-alien slave labor. “OUT OF THE MOUTH OF STATES: DEFERENCE TO STATE ACTION FINDING EFFECT IN FEDERAL LAW. Oklahoma state representative. 08. and requiring businesses to verify employment eligibility of workers or face serious legal and financial consequences. 2008. a necessary byproduct of its utilization of entities outside itself. terminating taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens. preempting all state action within its constitutional reach. n13 This is the way the constitutional baseline operates: Congress creates the law. 08. Executive Articles Editor. state action will be given federal effect by courts n9 unless the state action is repugnant to the [*431] framework of the federal statute. the judiciary uses tools of statutory interpretation to determine Congress's most likely meaning. utilization of state action has long been a mechanism through which the federal government has implemented a significant portion of federal law. However. education. the judiciary primarily strives to give effect to Congress's meaning and intent. empowering purely state action to have widespread federal effect. the judiciary does not generally defer to other institutions. [*432] applies only when Congress delegates to federal administrative agencies n16 and not when it delegates to or relies on state action. Arizona and Georgia are taking the lead. n11 However. -- and doing what the people elected us expect us to do. Some naysayers claim states that unilaterally enact real. 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. 2008. our new law tackles this issue by cracking down on identity theft. the judiciary is less likely to make itself the sole determiner of the ambiguity. This issue is also about elected officials going to the Capitol -.the same argument once used to defend the subjugation of an entire group of people through the institution of slavery. n12 When a statute is ambiguous. 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 -. Those critics miss the point.” USA TODAY. n8 Under these types of federal statutes. but is instead open to the possibility that deferring to agency interpretations of federal law may be the surest route to implementing congressional intent. The overwhelming majority of Oklahomans -.especially in the areas of health care. Instead of expounding every minute detail. Just as states paved the way for welfare reform in the 1990s. such as agencies. . 10A. fraud and abuse. April 16. “Oklahoma is doing its job. empowering state and local law enforcement to detain illegal aliens for deportation. Federalism high.C. Even more important. From a state perspective. the judiciary interprets it. New York University Annual Survey of American Law. in interpreting federal statutes. [David B. in which case the state action will be per se invalid. n6 Specifically. this type of deference by the judiciary.whether it's in Oklahoma City or Washington. welfare and corrections. It's about fundamental principles and values: respect for the rule of law. Pg. and I am confident national polls would generate similar results. It is traditionally the province of the judiciary to interpret the law.federalism is high Edwards. n10 Unlike Congress.immigration reform Terrill. it is indisputable that illegal immigration is a net financial drain. n7 This holds true even when Congress acts prospectively without knowing the details of future state action. no one should be surprised that states such as Oklahoma. [Randy. In our law. which has been willing to rely on state action. However. 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. to fill in the particulars of a general statutory framework. n15 Under current law. n14 When federal administrative agencies are involved.more than 80% -. D. Oklahoma's law appears to be achieving its intended purpose. they are pointing the way on immigration reform. upholding our state and national sovereignty.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 6 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – General Congress is deferring to the states in the squo. however. Congress is often intentionally ambiguous.” New York University Annual Survey of American Law. referred to as Chevron deference. Accessed 7/15/08 from Lexis] Given Washington's inability or unwillingness to address the issue.

Limiting the Scope of Congress's Powers From 1937 until 1995. n21 the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. embraced federalism as limits in several ways. (2) "the instrumentalities of [*1770] interstate commerce" and "persons or things in interstate commerce". He was convicted under the law. But this changed with the Rehnquist Court. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. was caught with a gun at school. under the Commerce Clause. 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. .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 7 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – Court Rulings The case of United States v. the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions. "Looking Backward. Accessed 7-7-8) To be more specific. Although the decisions are familiar. 06 (Erwin. Congress may regulate only: (1) "the channels of interstate commerce". and (3) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Stanford Law Review. particularly those in the decade between 1992 and 2002. 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. The Court held that. and (2) to facilitate the discussion in the next Part about the underlying assumptions of the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions. not one federal law was invalidated as exceeding the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause authority. A. Countless criminal and civil laws were enacted under this constitutional power. an 11th grader at a San Antonio high school. Lopez sets a recent precedent for limited federalism and states' rights Chemerinsky." 4-06. it was by far the most frequent source of authority for federal legislation. a federal law that made it a crime to have a firearm within 1000 feet of a school. In United States v. Alphonso Lopez. 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. Lopez. 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.

Seed Magazine. But in the past five years. while Republicans insist on a leaner one and support states’ rights. Glenn McGee. “In effect.php?page=2. that have expanded the power of a rightist and growing federal government. more powerful federal government. passing a litany of bills from No Child Left Behind to the Patriot Act. open their civics textbooks and learn one of the cardinal rules of American politics: Democrats are for a stronger.” Pundits have insinuated that the federal government’s tendency to avoid the issue of embryonic stem- cell research is a maneuver aimed at handing expensive. 7-6-8) Every year kids across the U. .com/news/2006/01/the_new_federalism. an exception to this paradigm shift. "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. Republicans have set about shattering this distinction. 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. Writer and Editorial Assistant for Seed Magazine.” says Dr. There is. however. “I think it’s clear that on certain pivotal issues in science and medicine. 06 (Josh. http://seedmagazine.S. unwieldy and ethically tricky science-funding issues to industry and individual states.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 8 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – Bush States' rights are on the rise now due to Bush administration's policies Braun. director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College. the Bush administration is using the rhetoric of states’ rights.

“It’s been argued that we’re seeing the emergence.” . 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.php?page=2. Writer and Editorial Assistant for Seed Magazine. it is clear that the synergy between agendas is likely to thwart new federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research in the near future. [Additionally. “If you have no influence on federal policy.” says Joanna of a kind of federalism embraced by populists because they themselves see advantages in a federalist structure. the state level may be a better option. Now.] 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.” Whether the reservations of the Bush administration or individual members of Congress have to do with a pro-life stance. “There’s the very clear right-to-life orientation of this particular administration and its unwillingness to engage in much debate about that. 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. Democrats find themselves in support of an unfamiliar and perhaps uncomfortable idea: They’re calling for more states’ rights. http://seedmagazine. for the first time since the Kennedy administration.” says McGee. a predilection for smaller government or both.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 9 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – Democrats Democrats and populists are beginning to support states' right in new paradigm shift Braun. 06 (Josh. 7-6-8) “I think it’s a meeting of two political minds. but can make a difference at the state level. It’s two interests that are coming together very opportunely.

Overall. and disease management. Second. which when fully implemented would cover about one-half the population of the United States. Vermont and Maine have enacted universal access while Massachusetts has enacted universal coverage. In addition. states are setting renewable portfolio standards for public utilities and are establishing renewable fuel standards for transportation and heating fuels. to terrorism. including biomass. the next administration and Congress will face huge international challenges that could dominate the agenda. Arizona. Since WCI’s founding. First. the governors of Utah and Montana.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 10 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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.C. may slow dramatically or even be reversed. mandatory market- based cap-and-trade program. Two reasons will drive this change. ranging from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. hydropower. the long-term trend of increased centralization of authority in Washington.. Canada. Canada. California. energy and climate change.stateline. Energy – Governors are leading efforts to conserve energy resources while also seeking to diversify supplies by expanding renewable resources. about 35 states have enacted major reforms. I sense that we are at a major turning point in the role of the states in our intergovernmental system. 08 (Raymond C. In short. on many of the domestic issues such as health care. D. New Mexico. the next administration and Congress will have to focus more on international issues. Climate Change – There are now three major regional climate change initiatives. geothermal. Executive Director of the National Governors Association. "Will the 2008 election improve state-federal relations?" 7-9-8. and the premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba and Health Care Reform – During the last several years. Other states are upgrading new building standards and setting standards for state automobile fleets and state government buildings. including coverage expansions. insurance market reforms. 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. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions for power plants in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states through a regional. Many of these efforts also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. solar and wind. http://www. They also are focusing on quality improvement and the development of electronic data exchange to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care. 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. have joined. states and governors have been providing national leadership over the last decade. Essentially. Meanwhile. Oregon and Washington have formed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). small business pools. 7-10-8) Federalism by Default While it is always risky to look into the crystal ball.. Stateline. .

January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn.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. [Kristin.] Today. [Kristin.” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 07. As a global problem resulting in part from the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases around the world. “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental] Just as the federal government has failed to resist poking its nose into local environmental issues. 07. the states (or at least many of them) are the environmental leaders while the federal government is bringing up the rear. much less a metropolitan area. In addition to what is widely considered backpedaling on environmental standard setting.A.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 11 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (1/3) State autonomy high now because of state energy regulations Engel. and even international. January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn. University of Arizona James E. in view of the federal government’s deregulatory and passive approach toward environmental regulation115 and the environmental leadership being demonstrated by many states. 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. Rogers College of Law. 06-37. Perhaps the most radical example of this is the recent surge in state and local government initiatives addressing climate change. the externalities of the activities producing greenhouse gases cannot be internalized within the boundaries of a single state. University of Arizona James E. issues. the states have found it difficult not to extend their reach to national.40 According to the “matching principle” discussed in Part I. . the assumptions underlying the cooperative federalism framework are being questioned. and thus may be justified on the sole basis of those local benefits.116 It seems the tables have turned.117 the federal government is being accused of preventing the states from enacting more stringent environmental standards through legislative and administrative preemption. “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law.” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 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. however. Rogers College of Law.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 12 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (2/3) States are the de facto national leaders of energy policy in the SQ Prah. Accessed 7/7/08 from http://www. “States Power Renewable-Energy Push. 2007. 2007 (Pamela. Sateline. Barry Rabe. Accessed July 7. States are in rebellion over Washington's actions . such as coal or natural gas. Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal. Federal government does not need to undermine states. June 14 2006. John Energy_Push-WSJ-6. Eric Kelderman. 2008) The bottom line is that sound energy policy is. 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. That brings to 26 the states that require a percentage of their electricity to come from sources that do not burn fossil fuels.14. "it becomes a de facto national policy. a significant priority of both the States and the Federal Government. Daniel C. It is also important that the Federal Government not needlessly usurp the longstanding authority and role of the states on this issue. opportunities for innovation and conservation cannot be ignored. The effort has helped launch $475 million in energy projects. such as demand side management and conservation be part of the package of alternatives considered when planning for expected energy needs. and should continue to be. However." he explained. [John. while still respecting state autonomy. States are in rebellion over Washington's actions ." said Republican Gov. Dec 31) Making electricity more environmentally friendly passed in Illinois. With enough states creating their own regional systems. 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. such as wind and solar power.” Wall Street Journal. 06.states are exercising the ability to pass energy policy and experiment with alternative energy concepts Fialka. (April 25. noting that both the Bush administration and Congress have rejected a federal program. Reliable and affordable energy is a key component of economic development.and inaction . 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.cleanenergystates.and inaction. There's this disconnect. a professor of public policy and author of the study. "These states have had very little contact with federal officials. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses and I yield back the remainder of my time.06. 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. It is appropriate to require that solutions. 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. Maine. The 2005 Energy Policy Act understood and shared this goal. .pdf] Twenty-two states have passed laws requiring that a growing percentage of electricity come from renewable-energy sources. Federalism is high.on some of the nation's most pressing problems. Vock and Pauline Vu. Oregon and New Hampshire. Minnesota. Christine Vestal. Disgusted with federal gridlock. US Fed News.

Professor of Law. But despite the beneficial environmental and national defense implications of this state-subsidized push into a renewable power future.greatly increasing the decentralization of power in the US Ferrey. by far the fastest growing source of new electric power in the U. . AND STATES’ RIGHTS. including every large state except Florida. energy system against attack and failure in the post-September 11 era.S. “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY. Suffolk University Law School. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 13 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – Energy Policy (3/3) States are driving the switch to renewable energy.8 These state policies drive American energy policy into the twenty-first century.S. This energy transition has profound effects on the decentralization of power in America.7 The socalled “renewable resource portfolio standard” is adopted in most of these deregulated states. are deregulating their electric power sectors.5 The leverage for these renewable power resources is fulcrumed at the state level by a host of renewable electric power subsidies and requirements. 04. 2004.9 there are serious Constitutional tripwires lurking before some of these innovative state] We are embarked on a significant and ultimately inevitable transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy resources. as is the renewable energy system benefit charge trust fund subsidy. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.6 Eighteen states.” NYU Environmental Law Journal. [John. It diversifies and strengthens the U.

the development and transmission of energy.2008) First. transit buses. state governments are increasingly engaged in establishing standards linked to renewable or alternative energy sources or vehicle emissions. the regulatory standards which will govern this development and transmission. accessed July 9. vehicle manufacturers must pay attention to its demands.000 cars. and the disposal of waste linked to the use of energy. transmission lines. Fry. Various states will not permit new electrical generation facilities to be built on their territory. with 60. The Impact of Federalism On the Evolution of the North American Energy Sector. and trucks already operating on natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas and another 13. U. The Impact of Federalism On the Evolution of the North American Energy Sector. State governments are establishing standards on alternative energy. nor will they allow pipelines. Fry.000 vehicles on electricity. 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. 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. Professor of Political Science and Endower Professor of Canadian Studies Brigham Young University. 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 and local governments continue to exercise significant control over the extraction of natural resources. California has the toughest vehicle-emission standards in the nation and because it is the most populous state with the largest gross state product.2008) Thirdly. . 2004 (Earl.S. Several states have also mandated that renewable energy sources must comprise an increasingly larger segment of their overall energy market. 2004 (Earl.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 14 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – States leading on Alternatives now (1/2) State governments take the reign in development of alternative energy. Nevada continues to fight the federal government’s efforts to turn Yucca Mountain into a repository site for nuclear waste. Professor of Political Science and Endower Professor of Canadian Studies Brigham Young University. accessed July 9.

and residential energy consumers. Professor of Political Science and Endower Professor of Canadian Studies Brigham Young The federal government has limited explicit powers in this arena. states would rank in the top10 measured by GDP. development. deployment.2008) In the United States. accessed July 9. 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. (e) cost-effective advanced energy efficiency. constitution is very clear in providing Washington. The Impact of Federalism On the Evolution of the North American Energy Sector. one should not underestimate the capacity of state.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 15 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. (f) the management of certain federal energy research. with a “big stick” linked to the commerce and supremacy clauses and to its overall preemption powers. provincial.C. (d) energy-related environmental goals. The U.S. The Impact of Federalism On the Evolution of the North American Energy Sector. Fry. However. (b) the needs and issues of industry. accessed July 9.2008) Nevertheless. The National Governors’ Association emphasizes that states deal with (a) electric and gas utility industry restructuring.S. 2004 (Earl. and other clean energy technologies. 22 states within the top NAFI – EGAP – Comexi: Forging North American Energy Security 5 . Among the 200 nation- states in the world today. and (g) energy conservation. Professor of Political Science and Endower Professor of Canadian Studies Brigham Young University. and demonstration programs. but state and local governments do have significant day-to-day authority in determining the terms of access to energy for their citizens. and local governments in North America to influence the course of future continental energy relations. business. Fry. 3 U. The state government has a key say in the future of alternative energy. (c) energy efficiency. renewable energy. D. and does not even have direct authority to regulate the reliability of the nation’s electricity transmission lines. federalism is more centralized than within Canada. 2004 (Earl.

alternative energy for the production of electricity. Connecticut and Vermont were in a tie for the top ranking on the scorecard. But the bottom 26 in the ACEEE rankings "have done far too little to advance energy efficiency. 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. Petersburg. acting executive director of ACEEE and co-author of the scorecard report. and to encourage federal action to catch up. Staff Writers.BC Monitoring South . 2007 (Progress Energy Florida Signs Contract for Second Waste Wood Plant. such as building codes and appliance standards." Prindle said. Prindle said." Prindle said. St. Washington state. "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 the promotion of clean. So what is wrong with letting states chart their own course on energy and efficiency matters? Nothing.000 homes. New York." said Glenn Farris. Rhode Island and Minnesota round out the top 10.and the nation -. With Congress considering legislation on numerous energy issues and state regulators looking to trim electricity demand." said Bill Prindle." and given the stakes of global warming and spiraling energy costs. Staff Writers. Petersburg. ACEEE said. At a time when states' rights are dominant in the political landscape. Dec 20) California. New Jersey. In July. "it is important to document best practices and recognize leadership among the states so that other states follow.which is enough to power 170. Progress Energy has signed contracts to add nearly 300 megawatts of renewable energy to its system -. "Through the leadership of companies like Progress Energy. the state of Florida continues to lead the Southeast -. "we're entering a new era" in the energy industry and "the age of cheap energy is over." In the past two years. providing clean and sustainable energy resources to assist with the state's future power needs. "it is not sufficient to let some lead while others lag. States spend three times as much money on alternative energy than the federal government. States spend about three times as much on energy efficiency programs as does the federal government. St. if a majority followed the leading states. president and CEO of Biomass Gas and Electric. the company issued a request for renewables in an effort to continue to expand its alternative-energy portfolio. and are leading the way on efficiency gains in many areas. followed by Massachusetts and Oregon to make up the top five." ACEEE said in the report.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 16 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – States outspend the FG on energy now Florida takes lead in the nation for alternative energy.

nyu. February 1st 2006 p1-53. while other states. Volume 14. and New York. “STATE COMPETITION AS A SOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www. such as California.”NYU Environmental Law Journal. [Barry. the ways in which states approach the climate change issue differ markedly and are in considerable flux. New Mexico. 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. continue to pursue and expand fairly aggressive climate change policies. such as Alabama and Michigan. University of Michigan. Professor of Environmental Policy. At the same time. 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? .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. Some states. 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. have taken few if any such dobelis.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 17 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – States leading on GHG regulation States are taking the lead in limiting the production of CO2 emissions Rabe. 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.

Sovacool. 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. 27 Stan. the federal role in environmental protection began a slow transformation that has been described as "creeping federalization. n41 But for the most part Congress continued to support local and state autonomy. PhD in Science and Technology. accessed July 13. 2008) After World War II. 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. Adjunct Assistance Professor at the Virginia PI and University in Blacksburg VA Wrote a book. L. the federal government cancelled construction of Echo Park Dam on the Upper Colorado River. Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to study and report on the quality of the nation's parks and forests." 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. n40 In 1958. "In 1956. citing concerns that it would harm fish stocks and degrade the natural environment. Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization. Envtl. June. n44 . 397. and Welfare to conduct a five-year research program on the effects of air pollution.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 18 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism UQ – FG not intruding on states now Federal government supports state and local autonomy on alternative energy. Stanford Environmental Law Journal. Congress provided funding for the construction of municipal sewage treatment plants over President Eisenhower's veto. Education." n38 Congress became more active in encouraging states to respond to environmental problems as increased industrial production intensified interstate pollution problems. n42 Similarly. continuing to emphasize that pollution control was a state responsibility. The 1955 Air Pollution Control Act merely directed the Department of Health. 2008 (Benjamin. n39 That same year.J.

Those communities most affected by past. 2008. evaluation.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 19 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Environmental Federalism Now States are free to make their on environmental policies outside of federal legislation. Collin. and future environmental impacts will need monitoring before any type of sustainability assessment. Writer for Environmental Law. n16 The role of communities is increasing presently and in the future as environmental policies begin to mature. Collin. state. accessed July 7. The strength of the environmental justice mantra "We Speak for Ourselves" lies both in its authentic voice and in the needs for future global. However. or policy can begin. and local environmental policies to be based on accurate and complete information. Because of this environmental federalism. . Spring. 2008) US environmental policy is rapidly developed by federal agencies enacting federal legislation. states are not preempted by federal environmental laws except in narrowly defined cases. 2008) As environmental policy matures and includes more citizen monitoring and involvement. the role of communities will increase. 2008. Environmental Justice in Oregon: It’s the Law. accessed July 7. states are free to pursue cleaner. Spring. Writer for Environmental Law. (Robert. Environmental Justice in Oregon: It’s the Law. (Robert. domestic. and smarter environmental policies. cheaper. present.

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. Raich. both Nevada Department of Human Resources v. n11 the Spending Clause. 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. n17 Moreover. n12 and the Eleventh Amendment. the Gonzales decision is hardly an anomaly. the strong rhetoric that the Court used in those cases has faded away and has been replaced by much more cautious. For example. n16 two counter-Revolution cases. n7 In more recent years. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms. language. this past term in Gonzales v. n8 the Court not only passed up an opportunity to further reduce the scope of Congress's powers. Since 2003." Accessed 7-7-8) In truth. however. 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.taking upon itself the task of ensuring that the national legislature did not encroach upon the proper authority of the states. the Supreme [*617] Court engaged in a Federalism Revolution .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). New York Law School Law Review. 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. Hibbs n15 and [*619] Tennessee v.. n18 .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 20 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA A2: Federalism NUQ Balance of power and federalism still remain despite counter-revolutionary shift away from states' rights Morgan. Even this apparent reversal of fortunes is uncertain. In the 1990s. have been distinguished more than they have been extended in the lower federal and state courts . in cases dealing with the Commerce Clause. but Justice Scalia . Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. For example. Lane." n9 Moreover. the Court's federalism jurisprudence was in flux even before the recent personnel changes. While commentators have both hailed and assailed the Court's counter-Revolution cases as the end of an era. n10 Section 5 of the Fourteenth [*618] Amendment. 06 (Denise C. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. perhaps even counter-Revolutionary.

Bush's next selection for the Court. Improbable as it may seem. had no record that would betray her leanings in federalism cases. Supreme Court has breathed life into what appeared to be a moribund.. . Federalism has become relevant and everyone has something to say about the proper balance of power between the federal and state governments. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. n5 Judge Samuel Alito. the U. 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. n6 Since Justice Alito is now a member of the Supreme Court. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms. Bush's next pick to fill a Supreme Court seat." n4 Harriet Miers. 06 (Denise C." 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.S. technical area of law. suddenly it is cool to be a federal-courts junkie. Norton. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 21 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Brink – Supreme Court transition With the Supreme Court in flux. abstract. however. who played a strong leadership role in the Court's federalism cases. New York Law School Law Review. n1 But the sexiness of the new federalism has come at the price of confusion and instability.gone are both Chief Justice William Rehnquist. the definitions of federalism and state power are undecided Morgan. however. President George W. The most obvious example is that the composition of the Supreme Court is changing for the first time in eleven years . only time will tell if a new Court majority will coalesce to police strictly the boundaries of federalism. n3 Then- Judge Roberts. Everything about the area of law now seems to be in flux. LLC v. written when he was a circuit court judge. Chief Justice John Roberts's dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo. 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. 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.S. and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. another consistent member of the States' Rights Five.

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. such as wealth. particularly insofar as such influences are felt indirectly. The 1990s. however. In effect. it should be evident that federal policy decisions should have some effect on state policy choices concerning the existence. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn.common denominator national standard in their] Just as federal action may indirectly encourage greater state regulatory activity. the adoption of a federal regulation may “crowd out” state regulatory measures by reducing the net benefits provided by additional state measures. is that through the process of reaching federal consensus. 08. federal action may discourage state regulatory action. Case Western University School of Law. Federal energy incentives reduce state policy action in 2 ways. 06.”Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies Working Paper. a strong case can be made for federal governance to preempt state initiatives that have proliferated on the RPS and climate change fronts.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 22 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Link – Federal Action trades off with States (1/3) State and federal action on energy policy trade off Sovacool.perception of irrelevance and reduction of net benefits Adler. At the same time. 21-31. University of Arizona law professor Kirsten Engel has noted that in the 1970s. The concern. some of the most aggressive and meaningful state programs will be preempted. These effects can occur whether intended or not. associate professor. 06. the adoption of federal regulation may induce state policymakers to lower comparable state protections. associate professor. federal preemption was prompted by the desire to impose stronger federal programs than states themselves would impose. Accessed 7/6/08 from Proquest. Nonetheless. The federal influence can be both “positive” – resulting in greater levels of state regulation – or “negative. The influences of federal regulation on state regulatory choices. May 2006] Some of the factors that influence state regulatory decisions are readily apparent. Indirect influences may be less obvious. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn. measures are unnecessary. Jul/Aug 2007. This can occur in at least two ways. saw a turnaround in which industry interest groups are advocating federal preemption to eliminate aggressive state standards. 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. the existence of federal regulation may discourage the adoption of additional state-level regulatory protections in the future. Vol. As a result. 6. the adoption of a federal regulatory standard may “signal” that more stringent state regulations are unnecessary. and contours of state regulatory programs. May 2006 p. First. leaving a watered-down. federal action may even preclude or discourage welfare-enhancing initiatives at the state and local level.”Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies Working Paper. “Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies. “WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation. senior research fellow at the Network for New Energy Choices. . [Jonathan. including conditional preemption and conditional spending. lowest. may be less obvious. For all of the reasons just cited. [Jonathan. Case Western University School of Law. but are no less important. [Michael. In some instances. Direct influences include federal preemption and the creation of various incentives and penalties for state action or inaction. scope.36 Federal action on energy policy trades off with state influence Adler. Iss. “WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation. however. and more stringent scientific research insofar as different entities pursue different research methodologies to address emerging environmental problems. the federal standard may be seen as evidence that a given level of regulatory protection is sufficient to safeguard relevant public interests. As a result. In addition. pg. Such a concern is not merely academic.” Federal influence can also be direct or indirect.” Environment. This article suggests a framework for categorizing and analyzing how federal policy decisions can influence state regulatory choices. knowledge and interest-group pressure.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 23
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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]
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
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]
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
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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]
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, 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
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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,, 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 Phoenix-
Tucson region in Arizona, parts of the Pacific Northwest, and the San Francisco Bay area.

federal preemption. 06-37. 07.preemption is the most effective way to prevent state regulation and autonomy on policy issues Engel. . January 2007 accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn. The best tool for preventing subsequent policymaking at the state level is. “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic Federalism in Environmental Law.132 It leaves the responsibility of generating policy ideas to the federal government alone.” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 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] From the vantage point of dynamic federalism. Nevertheless. of course. 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 cuts short the lawmaking process and products of an entire level of democratic government. [Kristin.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 26 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Link – Federal Action Preempts the States Federal action unintentionally preempts state policymaking. University of Arizona James E. Consistent with the idea that our dual system provides multiple points of entry to persons and groups. Federal preemption can be considered an unpleasant by-product of interest group lawmaking. but federal preemption. once viewed in this manner. 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. 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. As others have recognized. Moreover. the real concern is not overlapping jurisdiction. federal preemption is less appealing than it might be if considered as purely the effect of a conflict between federal and state regulatory schemes. Rogers College of Law.

[Steven. as long as the price paid is not more than the general market or administratively set price. 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. plan disrupts Ferrey. 403] States can segment the market to promote renewable energy. p. Suffolk.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 27 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Link – Electricity Grid is State jurisdiction Federal alternative energy incentives undermine state jurisdictional control of the composition of the energy market. 2004. New York University Environmental Law Journal." 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. While states may not violate federal law." This provides a means. they retain jurisdiction to structure the resource composition of the power supply market. law professor at NYU. 04. FERC expressly acknowledged a state's ability to promulgate regulations favoring particular generation technologies over others. .

in my home state. the mindset with which we approach energy management challenges. but also that the new transmission line will minimize adverse impacts on the scenic assets. will these issues be given due consideration? . State statutes are set up to balance the interests of their citizens who are equally consumers of energy. Accessed July 7. when the State Corporation Commission reviews an application of a new transmission line. With respect to state autonomy. historic districts. (April 25. states have been in charge of the approval process for new transmission lines from the beginning. If a utility applies to FERC. 2007. and consumers of the environment. Federalism/ State autonomy issues and 2. land owners. they are bound to consider not just need. For example. 2008) My concern over Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act springs from two sources: 1. and the environment of the affected area.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 28 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Link – Transmission Lines Federal regulation of Transmission lines violates federalism US Fed News.

http://www. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 29 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism Link – Cars EPA's auto decision hurts state's efforts Associated Press. Bill Ritter planned to approve them.rockymountainnews. an environmental group said Friday. and Gov. energy advocate for Environment Colorado. "The EPA has turned a blind eye to science." said Keith Hay.Colorado car dealers have said their industry would suffer if the state sets tougher emissions standards rather than offer incentives to consumers. 2008 (March 1. law and the critical role that the states are playing in tackling global warming. so a waiver wasn't justified. Twelve other states had adopted California's restriction. .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. Johnson said Friday that problems with global warming aren't unique to California.

the state’s stated purpose for a particular regulation. economic development. such as protectionism. national security or economic development Ferrey.550 The purpose of a renewable trust fund can be justified by energy source diversity. in part. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.551 while a milk tax is justified by a narrower and more parochial set of] In some instances. some renewable energy trust funds are expressly predicated. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn. and made central to its reasoning. and national security goals. .” NYU Environmental Law Journal. on a goal to encourage the continued survival of the state’s renewable energy industry. 2004. the Court has deferred to. While trust funds can be justified on a variety of purposes. “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY. AND STATES’ RIGHTS. Suffolk University Law School. environmental. 04. Professor of Law.549 The underlying purpose of the milk subsidy was to promote in-state milk production against cheaper out-of-state competition. [John.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 30 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA A2: State control now steals Federal power State regulation of energy consumption is justifiable on non-protectionist reasons like energy diversity.

serve as a laboratory. n173 . Dissenting from New State Ice Co. if its citizens choose. 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. however. This allows for experiments without harming the country as a whole. often correctly pinpointing problems and finding new solutions before the federal government does. Liebmann. and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. 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. 2007 (Nick. v. Research has shown that wealthier states tend to be more innovative although local political situations are in large part determinative as well. Robinson. 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.2008) First. Akron Law Review. Foreign Relations Law and the Decentralization of Foreign Policy.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 31 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism solves the aff – Innovation Low federalism can help foster more diverse policies and more choices for the idea policy. thereby leading to the distribution of public goods in an optimal manner. not all localities perform equally well at developing and adapting new policies.S. It is one of the happy incidents of [*680] the federal system that a single courageous State may. n172 With these limitations in mind. Citizens Not Subjects: U. n170 Certainly. localities are remarkably adaptive. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. federalism allows for and fosters a greater diversity of policies. accessed July 6. 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. In a similar vein.

. wind and other clean power sources. which serves 1. to cut the use of coal and natural gas and spur greater U. Jeff Bingaman. Xcel's quick success reflects. including some utilities and industries. Xcel Energy. seven years earlier than previously required by state law. predicts Anna Aurelio. D-N. Opponents. the abundance of solar power and wind in Colorado. 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." He points to the intermittent reliability of wind and solar power. Bill Richardson proposed last month that the state increase its current requirement that 10% of electricity come from renewable sources by 2011. . In Washington state. is studying how it could attain a higher percentage. http://www. spokesman Tom Henley says state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff..htm?csp=34. In Senate testimony last year. Ted Kulongoski is developing a legislative package calling for 25% of electrical power from renewable energy by 2025.S. a national environmental group. Progress in the states could spur Congress to enact a federal standard. •New Mexico Gov. solar and other renewable energy sources. The Senate in 2005 approved a 10% mandate that failed in the House. 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.usatoday. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law in September that accelerates the timetable for 20% of electricity to come from solar. in part. In Colorado. The compliance date is now 2010. In October.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 32 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism solves the aff (1/2) States are taking action against climate change and may be sparking a national movement Kenworthy. has said he will try again." 11-23-6. "Growing number of states requiring alternative energy. 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. That makes 20 states and the District of Columbia with such requirements. Power plants fueled by natural gas pollute the air with sulfur dioxide. Gov. which is not the case everywhere. incoming chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. according to the Department of Energy. voters approved a measure Nov. Former Denver-based correspondent for The Post and USA Today. such as geothermal and biomass. . •Oregon Gov. USA Today. That's "something we're looking at. Henley says. and Sen.S.. 7 mandating that 15% of electrical power come from renewable sources by 2020. Xcel was moving toward large-scale purchases of renewable electricity before the 2004 vote. director of the Washington office of U. Two others states — Illinois and Vermont — have non-binding goals on using renewable energy sources. senior fellow at Western Progress. 06 (Tom. the state's largest utility.M. More states are forcing utilities toward wind. Burning coal produces greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change. announced it will meet the 10% target by next year.3 million customers in Colorado.-elect Bill Ritter made renewable energy a centerpiece of his campaign. "Colorado ought to be a leader in this field. The only question is whether it would be prudent. "This is a huge opportunity right now. Other states taking action: •California Gov. Xcel. say the switch will be costly for consumers and businesses. "We're going to move aggressively" on increasing the use of solar and wind power. energy independence. He wants utilities to produce 15% of their power from renewable sources by 2015 and 25% by 2020. PIRG." Colorado voters in 2004 approved a referendum requiring that the state draw 10% of its electricity from renewable sources. and it's been lapped by more aggressive states." Aurelio says. Stateline. Since WCI’s founding. have joined. Oregon and Washington have formed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).climate change action and other domestic initiatives prove Scheppach. Energy – Governors are leading efforts to conserve energy resources while also seeking to diversify supplies by expanding renewable resources. Overall. and the premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba and Quebec. Executive Director of the National Governors Association. Canada. on many of the domestic issues such as health care. and disease management. New Mexico.stateline. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 33 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism solves the aff (2/2) States' rights on energy policy is key to tackling the crisis. 08 (Raymond C.. states are setting renewable portfolio standards for public utilities and are establishing renewable fuel standards for transportation and heating fuels. including biomass. mandatory market-based cap-and-trade program. including coverage expansions. hydropower. energy and climate change. states and governors have been providing national leadership over the last decade. small business pools. Arizona. . 7-10-8) Second. insurance market reforms. solar and wind. They also are focusing on quality improvement and the development of electronic data exchange to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care. which when fully implemented would cover about one-half the population of the United States. California. Many of these efforts also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. geothermal. Meanwhile. Other states are upgrading new building standards and setting standards for state automobile fleets and state government buildings. In addition. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) will reduce carbon-dioxide emissions for power plants in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states through a regional. about 35 states have enacted major reforms. Health Care Reform – During the last several years. Vermont and Maine have enacted universal access while Massachusetts has enacted universal coverage. "Will the 2008 election improve state-federal relations?" 7-9-8. http://www. Climate Change – There are now three major regional climate change initiatives. the governors of Utah and Montana.

06 (Erwin. and Political Science. so was Lord Bryce. but often overlooked aspect of the Supreme Court's federalism decisions is the unquestionable importance of the laws that were invalidated. “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism." 4-06. I mentioned earlier that a federal structure protects citizens from oppression or exploitation on the part of state governments. and menacing the private liberties of the citizen.pdf] The fifth advantage I want to put before you is that federalism is a protection of liberty. Stanford Law Review. Harris that proclaim the importance of "Our Federalism" as a major limit on federal judicial authority. 2008) A striking. Thomas Jefferson was very emphatic about that. Typical of this approach are cases like Younger v. 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. TC Beirne School of Law 99. and allowing recovery for infringements of patents.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 34 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism solves Tyranny (1/2) Prevention of tyranny and laboratories of experimentation are benefits of a states' rights approach to federalism Chemerinsky. I would suggest. But federalism is also a shield against arbitrary central government. requiring background checks for gun ownership.14. 1999 p. this approach provides state governments with sovereign immunity so as to protect their dignity and finances. was the perhaps the greatest advance in Australian political liberty since federation. n18 Federalism decreases the likelihood of federal tyranny and enhances democratic rule.81. never answers this question. absorbing other powers. Imas. n93 and allows states to be laboratories for new ideas. Australian federalism has proved its worth in this respect. 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. Justice O'Connor (and the Court). "Looking Backward. n15 Also. Cleaning up nuclear wastes. University of Southern California. University of the Pacific. through the right of exit. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. who said that ‘federalism prevents the rise of a despotic central government. Legal Ethics. Spring. Most Supreme Court decisions protecting federalism say relatively little about the underlying [*888] values that are being served. it was the premiers and other state political leaders who led the struggle against the 1991 political broadcasts ban. For example. McGeorge Law Review. a protection of individual liberty. he did have to admit that federalism was. Even in its rather battered condition. Although he was definitely no friend of federalism.34/Senate/pubs/pops/pop35/c02. Those who defend this view of federalism see enforcement of limits as crucial to prevent government tyranny that can occur with centralization of power. n94 Federalism prevents despotism and protects individual freedoms Walker. In fact. which ultimately benefits all of society. all are compelling government interests.’27 The late Geoffrey Sawer of the Australian National University in Canberra was a very distinguished constitutional lawyer. keeping guns away from schools. in itself. and that decision. n92 enhances democratic rule by providing government that is closer to the people. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. 2001 (McGeorge School of Law. The key question is why safeguarding states is more important than these objectives. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from http://202. n17 Additionally. When the Court does speak of the values of federalism. the New South Wales government was a plaintiff in the successful High Court challenge to that legislation.” Australian Law Journal. it usually does little more than present conclusions that federalism is desirable because it decreases the likelihood of federal tyranny. states are seen as laboratories for experimentation. [Geoffrey. . creating a remedy for women who suffer gender-motivated violence. accessed July 7. Professor of Public Interest Law.

then. 1007-8] "The accumulation of all powers . Rather. Federalism is absolutely key to protecting individual liberties HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL. Federalism is not a dysfunctional anachronism. executive. and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments." as Madison put it. . at the same time that each will be controled by itself. . 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. 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. Federalism. 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. [James. 2002 (January. .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 35 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism solves Tyranny (2/2) Federalism is a necessary check on tyranny. State University of New York. n14 As with the horizontal separation of powers that divides governmental power into its absence it is much easier for a tyrant to take control Gardner. is submitted to the administration of a single government. is a creation of the national Constitution. and then the portion allotted to each. the power surrendered by the people. 433-4) I have a different perspective. It is not the result of a fortuitous series of agreements reached one by one by the separate peoples of the original thirteen states. p. in the same hands. when properly viewed and applied. and judicial branches. pp." nThe result is a compound federal republic in which power is deeply fragmented. The different governments will control each other. not state constitutions." wrote Madison "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Professor of Law. it must be borne in mind. on the contrary. power must be divided. it is crucial to preservation of individual liberty and a valuable device to preserve a healthy balance of power among governmental institutions. 03. federalism represents the deliberate decision of a single national polity to divide governmental power for the purpose of protecting the liberty of all. "must be made to counteract ambition. June 2003. GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL. each level of government in this vertically fragmented system is given the power and incentive to struggle against the other: "Ambition. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. a nostalgic symbol of a pre-industrial America." To protect liberty. Federalism serves this guiding principle of American constitutional design by parceling out government powers among different levels of government. In the compound republic of America. all the power surrendered by the people. subdivided among distinct and separate departments. is first divided between two distinct governments.

Akron Law Review. if localities are not involved in and do not accept the validity of international agreements.2008) A second critique of federalism is that if localities are given too much power they will pursue narrow- minded or unjust ends. n183 Indeed. In 1869 the Wyoming territory accorded women equal rights with men to vote and hold office. n185 By 1917. For example. 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. An examination of American history shows a number of notable examples where state and local governments took the lead in protecting basic human rights. Citizens Not Subjects: U. They claim that localities' actions not in line with these commitments can only weaken the high standards of these international regimes. Second. the Constitution initially entrenched a system that would favor the continuation of slavery. these agreements can seem hollow and illegitimate no matter how just their goals purport to be.had full suffrage for women. which was adopted in 1920. Localities also pushed women's suffrage before the national government. northern states banned its practice and worked towards its national abolition. 2007 (Nick. and implementation of these agreements. contestation. Foreign Relations Law and the Decentralization of Foreign Policy.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 36 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA A2: Federalism = tyranny by the states Empirically.S. Many have argued for international human rights and trade regimes so that people and markets under localities' control are not subject to parochial policies. history has shown localities were often on the forefront of causes of justice. International agreements and the norms they promote are not as likely to be successfully internalized without local involvement and participation in the development. accessed July 6. .all in the west . 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. 11 states . n186 Suffrage advocates used the example of these states to successfully lobby for the 19th amendment. There are at least two reasons to doubt the validity of this criticism. n184 While the federal government actively condoned slavery. First. and in 1890 it entered the United States as the first woman-suffrage state. state and local power does not cause tyranny Robinson.

Accessed 7-7-8) The Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions obviously reject this view that the political safeguards of federalism are adequate. But now. health care. Indeed.. weigh heavily the extent to which the individual legislator votes in a manner that serves the interests of the state as an entity. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. states chose senators and thus were directly represented in Congress. be precisely those that advocate an extension of the federal power to the disadvantage of the states. limiting the ability of Congress to authorize suits against state governments is also based on this assumption. Indeed. 06 (Erwin. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. why believe that the states' interests as states are adequately protected in Congress? n76 The assumption must be that the voters. United States. For example. The focus of the attention is on the interests of the voters.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 37 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Judicial Protection is key to preserve Federalism Constitutional safeguards for states' rights are not adequate. Similarly. United States n72 and Printz v. 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. and the personalities of the candidates." 4-06. Certainly. it may well be that "the primary constituencies of the national representatives may . with popular election of senators. "Looking Backward. Yet. judicial intervention is necessary due to changes in government since America's founding Chemerinsky. n75 At the time the Constitution was written. n73 is based on the assumption that the political process is inadequate to safeguard state governments and that the courts must do so instead. its use of the [*1778] Tenth Amendment as a limit on congressional power. such as in New York v." n77 . not on the institutional interests of state and local governments. simple observation of congressional elections shows that the issues at stake are usually basic ones about the economy. the assumption that states' interests are adequately represented in the national political process could be challenged. Stanford Law Review. in choosing representatives and senators. never did the Rehnquist Court even acknowledge that it was rejecting the Court's express conclusion in Garcia..

has adopted the Irish approach and has benefited from economic growth at 8 per cent a year. State purchasing preferences tended to fragment supply and add to costs. the Australian Constitution was supposed to be about freedom of interstate trade). 2007 (Alan. Such measures were always of dubious validity (after all. How to slash housing costs. But it took the competition reforms over the past decade for these practices to be abolished. the location for a new Porsche vehicle plant. Some of the newer EU members are following similar paths. Pg. . June 15. regulatory excesses are undermining the state's advantages in spite of it being the centre of the world's hi-tech industry. Slovakia. 28) Planning restraints reduce housing affordability. Competitive federalism in the European Union has been an important growth propellant. But not all competition between states is bad. Courier Mail. Ireland has seen its average income levels grow to be a quarter above those of the United Kingdom. from rags to riches. In California. These same elements are seen within other federal systems. Moran. This policy has been the fairy godmother that has transformed Ireland. Nations that have reduced taxes and regulations have risen above the rather ordinary economic performance of the area as a whole. Europe's Cinderella. This was not before time. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 38 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism key to Economic Growth Competitive federalism is key to economic growth.

cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1398&pubType=HI_Articles ] Fourth. nor the federal polity it created. Amendments adopted after the Civil War (186 1 -65) altered the federal-state balance. Spain. the United Arab Emirates. the United Kingdom. Russia. continuing. there is no question that the United States will maintain its extraordinary leadership. which we do not have in similar quantities. an independent judiciary. the separation of powers. Americans believe that the nation's success owes much to the brilliance of the Constiution's drafters. Indeed. “Everyone’s crisis is America’s crisis. Abaya. Not long ago several Hudson Institute scholars had the opportunity to spend some time in Indonesia. Manila Standard. Ethiopia. Yet neither the Constitution. When one talks about some sort of example—a model of human rights. and we found that Indonesia does not turn for its models to China or Japan. Alan Tarr. especially confederalism. rule of law. (Antonio. Besides. Alan Tarr “United States of America” appearing in John Kincaid and G. Montreal and Kingston: 2005 pg 382] The United States of America is the world's oldest. Nepal and Nigeria for federalist leadership. South Africa. which has a population of only 107.hudson. constitutionalism. 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. 80 percent of its population are foreigners. US domestic federalism modeled London. Fifth and last. 2008. the rest of the world looks to the United States for answers. as distinct from ancient forms of federalism. The UAE is. . 2001 http://www. structure and change in federal democracies” McGill Queen’s University Press. a situation unique to the UAE. and the authorization of a federal income tax in the Sixteenth Amendment (1913) greatly augmented the fiscal power of the federal government. US federalism modeled now Tarr. Very recently. President of the Hudson Institute and Professor Emeritus at NYU “The Enemy Within” April 1st. but it cannot be a model for this country since that wealth is due solely to oil and gas. The new Indonesian president is very keen on establishing a form of federalism. subsidiarity. Herzegovina. 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. It is the model. fabulously wealthy. has remained static. The US Constitution has been influential as a model of federal democracy. Federal Role Models?) Additionally. modern federal democracy. editors Constituional Origins. the framers of the United States Constitution are widely regarded as the inventors of modern federalism. The Constitution has also both influenced and been influenced by political and social developments. What does he look to? The American Constitution. and the Federated States of Micronesia from Reader Faelnar's list. President of the Hudson Institute 2k [Herbert I. 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).Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 39 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA US Federalism modeled – Generic (1/2) Countries look to Bosnia. after removing Belgium. Ethiopia. and key principles of the Constitution . Nepal and Nigeria. Malaysia. it looks to the United States.” Why? Because the world looks to the United States as its model.have gained acceptance worldwide. 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.such as federalism. Chair of the Department of Political Science at Rutgers University 2005 [G. As a consequence. and property rights—the United States stands alone. an American deputy secretary of state said. And what can we possibly learn from Micronesia. of course. and individual rights . what does he have left as role models to entice us with to federalism? Bosnia and Herzegovina. the United States possesses a sense of moral universalism that exists nowhere else.000 at low tide? So.

Argentina. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from http://202. Calabresi. 1999 p. December. Law Professor.81. some of which once might have been thought of as pure nation states. the Russian Federation. ‘political leaders. Belgium became a federation in 1993 and Poland is heading in the same direction.pdf] Worldwide interest in federalism is probably stronger today than at any other time in human history. all the world’s physically large countries are now federations. the Federal Republic of Germany. As one Canadian authority says. Thus. [Geoffrey. liberating and positive form of organisation. and Mexico. Spain. When East Germany was released from the Soviet Union.34/Senate/pubs/pops/pop35/c02. 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. and Nigeria all have decentralized power by adopting constitutions that are significantly more federalist than the ones they replaced. all are basically alive and well today. except for China—and even that country has become a de facto federation by devolving more and more autonomy to the provinces. . 759 60) At the same time. Thus. Northwestern. for example.S.’2 With the move of South Africa toward a federal structure. 1995 (MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW. India. the Republic of Austria.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 40 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA US Federalism modeled – Generic (2/2) Federalism modeling is on the rise around the world Walker. p. the federalist constitutions of Australia. style constitutional federalism has become the order of the day in an extraordinarily large number of very important countries. leading intellectuals and even some journalists increasingly speak of federalism as a healthy. U. And you can see the same trend in countries that are not so big. Many other nations that had been influenced long ago by American federalism have chosen to retain and formalize their federal structures.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. Canada. TC Beirne School of Law 99. creative experiment and liberty.14. Brazil. coordinated national government and diversity. Countries model the federalist structure of the US Steven G.” Australian Law Journal. “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism.

81.pdf] The seventh advantage is stability. “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U. Model.34/Senate/pubs/pops/pop35/c02. in my judgment. 10. Nigeria. Stable government enables individuals and groups to plan their activities with some confidence. Professor Brian Galligan of Melbourne University supports this assessment. 99.34 And the people obviously prefer that. while at the same time overlooking the stabilising effect of the Constitution. In fact. with his observation that the traditional literature on Australian politics has exaggerated the radical character of the national ethos. Accessed 7/8/08 from https://netfiles. Galligan says. 4 (1999) pp. as we can see from their votes in constitutional referendums. other things being equal. Russia. it does. So in that sense a stable government is more democratic than an unstable one. [Alfred. [Geoffrey. and a general standard of equality among their citizens. TC Beirne School of Law 99. No.33 Why is it more stable? The federal compact. 19-34. 1999 p. suggest that federalism may help these countries manage the problems that come with ethnic and linguistic diversity. by breaking up national majorities and pitting institutions against one another. Canada. Spain.pdf] In addition to the strong association between multinational democracies and federalism.” Australian Law Journal. if countries such as Indonesia. as you can see from the tendency of people to vote for different political parties in the two houses of parliament. they will have to craft workable federal systems that allow cultural diversity. “Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism. A federalist division of power maintains state stability Walker. the six longstanding democracies that score highest on an index of linguistic and ethnic diversity--India. and Burma are ever to become stable democracies. deals in an ingenious way with the problem of the multiplicity of competing answers and the lack of obvious solutions. Political stability is much valued by ordinary people.14. The fact that these nations chose to adopt a federal system does not prove” Journal of Democracy Vol. Stability is a cardinal virtue in government. by setting government institutions against one another. Switzerland.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 41 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalist Modeling = Stable Democracies Federal modeling key to the creation of stable democracies Stepan. Belgium.uiuc. and the United States--are all federal states. however. Stability is obviously a very high priority with the Australian people. Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University. 1-25 accessed 7/10/08 from http://202. . a robust capacity for socioeconomic development. China. because they are the ones most likely to suffer from sudden shocks or changes in direction in the government of the country. This is a practice designed to reduce the de- stabilising potential of transient majorities in the lower house. and so makes innovation and lasting progress possible.

We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary federalism has swept across the world in recent years. rules on holiday displays. The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash in the pan. and rules on how the states should conduct their own criminal investigations and trials.. 1994 p. It depends for its success on the willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief that those deals will be kept. 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. [Steven. The global trend toward federalism is an enormously positive development that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace. this is due to global fascination with and emulation of our own American federalism success story. Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the future striking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own American federalism deal. fifth. and it is the best and most important structural feature of the U. the doctrine of stare decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any trade. 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. Third. To a significant extent. Assistant Prof – Northwestern U. 94. if only the Justices and the legal academy would wake up to the importance of what is at stake.S. and protection of individual human rights. Fourth. respect for social and cultural diversity. whether in the law reviews or in the newspapers. human rights and interstate conflict prevention Calabresi. prospectively applicable Commerce Clause case law. the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional federalism. And. . But. free trade. 831-2] First.S. 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. Lopez could be a first step in that process.S. The country and the world would be a better place if it did. economic growth.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 42 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism stops Global Wars U. The U. Constitution. Second. the Court is at least as qualified to act in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment area. federalism modeling good. Michigan Law Review. the rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is a good thing. notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. pornography. the Supreme Court is institutionally competent to enforce constitutional federalism. growth. should encourage the Court to follow the path on which it has now embarked.

has historically been the only path to keeping disunited countries whole. It would hold Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. Most Iraqis want to keep their country whole. The United States has responsibilities in Iraq that we cannot run away from.through our embassy in Baghdad -. Iraq's constitution already provides for a federal system.distorted the Biden-Brownback amendment beyond recognition. Not Partition. and he may yet do the same to Maliki.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 43 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. 7-6-8) The Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki greeted last week's Senate vote on Iraq policy -. The Washington Post. Second. . The White House can hardly complain that we would force unwanted solutions on Iraqis.html. including 26 Republicans.000 wounded. with a limited central government responsible for common concerns such as protecting borders and distributing oil revenue." We want to set the record straight. with hundreds of billions of dollars spent. 07 (Joseph R. our plan is not partition. which.with misrepresentations and untruths. though even some supporters and the media mistakenly call it that. We can point to our federal system and how it began with most power in the hands of the states. we also have a right to be heard.and there is no evidence it will. we are not trying to impose our plan. Instead. As for the regions forming along sectarian lines. voted to promote a political settlement based on decentralized power-sharing. "Federalism. no chance for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind. without that. The Iraqis will need our help in explaining and lining up support for a federal solution. Maliki and the administration -. that's what they will believe. It has not produced political reconciliation -. and with more than 3." 10-3-7.. But Iraqis and the White House might consider the facts.800 dead and nearly 28. charging that we seek to "partition or divide Iraq by intimidation. we will have no chance for a political settlement in Iraq and. That central government doesn't function. But if Iraqi leaders keep hearing from U. If the United States can't put this federalism idea on track. http://www. It was a life raft for an Iraq policy that is adrift. the constitution leaves the choice to the people of its 18 provinces. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iraqis have no familiarity with federalism. force or other means. dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201824. leaders that federalism amounts to or will lead to partition. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq but one in which power devolves to regional governments. If the Iraqis don't want it.washingtonpost. With 160. as the Senate amendment makes clear. The Bush administration's quixotic alternative has been to promote a strong central government in Baghdad. it is corrupt and widely regarded as irrelevant. President Bush did not hesitate to push Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari out of office to make way for Maliki.000 Americans at risk in Iraq. Seventy-five senators. absent an occupier or a dictator. Spain and Bosnia. they won't and shouldn't take it. We can point to similar solutions in the United Arab Emirates.based on a plan we proposed in 2006 -.

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. integrating militia members into local security forces.html. our plan would not produce "suffering and bloodshed. anywhere. It also recognizes the reality of the choice we face in Iraq: a managed transition to federalism or actual partition through civil war. that will fight al-Qaeda or Shiite extremists. 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.S. without any overall political context or purpose. is to invite anarchy.through an agreement over the fair distribution of oil revenue.washingtonpost. The Washington Post. the administration has conjured a "bottom-up" strategy that looks like federalism and smells like federalism dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201824.not scaring them off by equating federalism to partition. 7-6-8) Third. it always made sense to seek allies among tribal chiefs to fight common terrorist enemies. To confuse matters more. Now. But to simply back these groups as they appear. And it is hard to imagine more suffering and bloodshed than we've already seen from government- tolerated militias. "Federalism. 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. http://www. More than 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes. in reality.. Bush's policies impede this Biden et al. jihadists. Not Partition. the safe return of refugees." as a U. most for fear of sectarian violence.but is. Baathists and administration ineptitude. a recipe for chaos. "Bottom-up" seems to mean that the United States will support any group. and refocusing capacity-building and aid on the provinces and regions -. The Bush administration should be helping Iraqis make federalism work -." 10-3-7. 07 (Joseph R.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 44 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. . leveraging the shared interest of other countries in a stable Iraq. Embassy statement irresponsibly suggested. sectarianism and foreign bullying.

7-6-8) The United States scored a decisive military victory in Iraq.cfm. 03 (James. as in Yugoslavia. plunging Algeria into a bloody civil war that has claimed more than 100. a secular tradition. Iraqi political corruption. And. American troops. parliament. Iraq's civil society has been ravaged by more than 30 years of totalitarian Baath Party rule. Washington should remember that the British. king. 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. "Democracy. Britain established the trappings of democracy--a constitution. Moreover. Building a genuine democracy in Iraq requires much more than regime change. Federalism. Iraq's army eventually terminated Iraq's democratic experiment. and a political culture that rewards compromise rather than zero-sum political competition. there are daunting political. a well-educated population. pro- American Iraqi government will be more difficult than winning the war. 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. but Iraq may not be ready for full-fledged democracy by the time U. when Saddam Hussein's Baath Party finally seized power. The Bush Administration should patiently assist the Iraqis in laying the foundations for democracy in Iraq. and minimize the meddling of Syria and Iran." 5-2-3.S. but building a stable. such as the Kurds and Shiites. staging 15 coups between 1936 and 1968. Although Iraq. one vote. and council of ministers--but British meddling. referee the deadly factional struggles of bitter political rivals. at the cost of 450 British dead and 1. democratic. the United States will have to overcome the resistance of hostile Iraqi political forces." In 1992. http://www. were the target of the "Great Iraqi Revolution" three years later. America's honeymoon period may already be ending in Iraq: Last week. Iraq's shrinking middle class. 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. and a modern Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation. That uprising took the British more than four months to quell. reassert themselves and seek vengeance against their former oppressors. Building a stable democracy under these conditions will be a complex long-term challenge. and Realism in Postwar Iraq. has considerable oil wealth. both of which seek to hijack Iraq's political future and drive out American influence. and the government's inability to meet basic needs discredited democracy in the eyes of many Iraqis. initially welcomed as liberators by many Iraqis. It requires a supportive civil society. a potential base of support for democratic rule. To accomplish its postwar goals. one time. welcomed as liberators in Baghdad in 1917 after defeating the Ottoman Empire. attempting to compress the radical changes necessary for building a genuine democracy into a short five-year time frame would be a risky experiment. strong support for the rule of law. and historical obstacles to building a stable democracy in Iraq. has been crushed by economic hardship and political repression. and was followed by repeated tribal and nationalist uprisings until 1936. an overly ambitious scheme to inject democracy into Algeria's one-party political system led to the electoral victory of the Islamic Salvation Front. cultural. troops withdraw over the next two to five years. Premature elections would favor Islamic radical parties whose concept of democracy is "one man. unlike Afghanistan. longstanding ethnic and religious tensions are likely to explode in political violence as repressed groups. soon will become scapegoats for all of Iraq's problems. A premature rush to democracy in Iraq could lead to a similar disaster.000 lives.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 45 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA US Model is key to Iraq Federalism The US is key to developing a stable and federalist government in Iraq Phillips.250 wounded. . It is unrealistic to expect that the United States can quickly remedy all these shortcomings.heritage. These will require many years to develop.

S. In the meantime. Malaysia. undermining U. the United States should gradually transfer power to an inclusive. and Nigeria precisely because it did not go far enough in granting regional autonomy. Federalism has failed in countries such as Indonesia.twq. It should remember that the original purpose of the war was to disarm Iraq and protect Americans. "Democracy. 03 (James. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 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. 7–21. By focusing on these short-term objectives. The Heritage Foundation.cfm. 7-6-8) The Bush Administration should set modest goals and have realistic expectations about the limits of its ability to transform then provincial elections. “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 Debate Institute 2008 46 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA US Model is key to Iraq Federalism A step-by-step. 7–21.pdf] First and foremost. Washington should refrain from raising Iraqi expectations about a quick transition to democracy too high. only Iraqi civilians can build democracy. 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. SPRING 2004. the United States must take a more active role in advising Iraqi leaders to adopt a federal system of government along these lines. The democratic.S. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www. http://www. [Dawn. an Iraq rife with internal conflict and dominated by one ethnic or religious group is more likely to emerge. Without this form of federalism. 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. Federalism. efforts toward establishing democracy in Iraq as well as the greater Middle East. Transforming Iraq into a genuine democracy is a long-term undertaking that can be completed only after American troops are long gone. visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. Tasking U. just as mission creep led to debacles in Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. [Dawn. It can only patiently assist the Iraqis to find their own way.twq. Strong regional powers in the Iraqi federalist system are critical to the system’s success Brancati. The Bush Administration must avoid overreaching in Iraq and embarking on a neo-Wilsonian crusade to make the world safe for democracy. 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. “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp." 5-2- 3. pro-Western Iraqi National Congress should play an important role in such an administration. 04. the United States can help put the Iraqis on the path to democracy. . 04. Ultimately.pdf] For its part. Democracy should be phased in incrementally: first local and municipal elections. troops with democracy-building risks bogging them down in a social engineering project that could backfire disastrously. broad-based Iraqi interim administration that will prepare the ground for future national elections. Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. not to implant democracy. and Realism in Postwar Iraq. and finally national elections. federal government is key to stability and peace in Iraq Phillips. But Washington cannot compel Iraqis to reach that destination.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 47 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Federalism Good – key to Stability (1/2) Iraq’s only logical choice for a new system of government is federalism.html] Casting aside these misconceptions. that provides the ideology for the insurgency and gives a springboard to the religious lunacy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other foreign terrorists. however.pdf] The United States devoted nine months to planning the war in Iraq and a mere 28 days to planning the peace. “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. any democratic government to emerge in Iraq is bound to prove less capable of maintaining order than the brutal dictatorship that preceded it. if the military achievements of the war are to be preserved and a stable democracy is to be created in Iraq. Accessed 7/10/08 from http://www. October 21. [Dawn. the task at hand is clear. and a centralized Iraq is in nobody's interest right now . social. 05. must now make the effort to work with Sunni Arab communities—not just the elites—on these issues.other systems fuel insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups Morrow. 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.pdf] Iraq might also adopt a presidential system of government.S. For all Iraqis. 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. visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. The United States. strategizing within the terms of federalism is the only way forward. SPRING 2004. 7–21. 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. military officials. [Dawn. more than anything else. in turn. The Kurdish and Shia politicians must show their Sunni Arab brothers that federalism can deliver Sunni Arabs true self-government. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www. Establishing a governmental system that can accommodate Iraq’s different ethnic and religious groups. If not planned precisely to meet the specific ethnic and religious divisions at play. Iraqi federalism reduces risks of ethnic conflict Brancati. United States Institute of Peace research fellow. “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. In the absence of a system uniquely designed toward this end. a step currently supported by the Kurds and the Iraqi National Congress.twq. The days of Sunni Arab hegemony in Iraq are a thing of the past. 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. 2005 pgonline. By dividing power between two levels of government—giving groups greater control over their own the new federal system of government must secure the city of Kirkuk. It is that nostalgia. 7–21. according to senior U. SPRING 2004. the Sunni Arabs themselves must work to shake off their nostalgia for a centralized Iraqi state. visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. previously kept in check by the political and military repression of the Saddam Hussein regime.least of all the Sunni Arab minority. not just any kind of federal system can accomplish this. a proportionate share of oil wealth and a stake in Baghdad .twq. Much more time has to be invested in the peace. which pressed for a constitutional timetable that gave little opportunity for consensus-building. [Jonathan. Under a presidential system. 04. is paramount to securing that peace. 04. Rather. violent conflicts and demands for independence are likely to engulf the country. Equally critical to ensuring stability and sustainable democracy in Iraq. And. Federalism Could Hold Iraq Together. Iraqi federalism key to preventing ethnic conflict and a stable democracy Brancati. coveted for its vast oil reserves and pipelines. Newsday. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www. Such design features would help prevent identity- based parties from forming in a national government even when each of the regions is comprised principally of one ethnic or religious group.usip. in the Kurdish-controlled northern region to assure that the Kurds do not secede from Iraq altogether.

2008. 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 U. Later on. Accessed 7/15/08 from Lexis] BAGHDAD -. he agreed on holding both an international and a regional conference. It has been impossible to maintain a political consensus on many important issues. Kurds see their future bound to their "rights" of linguistic. and institutional sectarian discrimination must be eliminated. Al-Maliki can also benefit from the international conference since such conferences can put an end to regional interferences. as well as fear of revenge for past wrongs and the potential for reverse discrimination. It ignores underlying issues and expects that a consensus will emerge simply by enacting a liberal constitutional legal order. As in the United States. the best federalism is a three- governorates-based federalism.-dominated coalition. there is much discussion here of the need for political reconciliation.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 48 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Federalism Good – key to Stability (2/2) Federalism in Iraq is key to religious stability BBC Monitoring Middle East. Such a system is in the interest of all Iraqis and is necessary if Iraq is to avoid partition or further civil strife. The regional "superpowers" (Iran and Saudi Arabia) meddle in Iraq's affairs. economy and culture. while admirable. . 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. Pluralistic democracy will not take root unless the national political compact recognizes and accommodates the fears and aspirations of Iraq's communities. and their own sectarian tensions are reflected in the violence here.” The Washington Post. As national security adviser to the head of Iraq's governments since March 2004. But I understand that the political objectives of Iraq's three main communities are unrealizable within the framework of a unitary. [Mowaffak. The absence of truly national political parties and leadership that reach the Iraqi people exacerbates the problem.Iraq's government is at a stalemate. cultural. for each three governorates to form a federal region. i. I have participated in the development of democracy in my country. 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. Sunni Arabs are driven by resistance to their loss of power. I think. Overall. He has to take these documents directly to the UN Security Council and put an end to these interferences. Shiites see their future based on two fundamental "rights": Power must be exercised by the political majority through control of governmental institutions. 08. mutually acceptable distributions of power between the regions and the central government. January 18. 2007 (May 17. I think. with clear.S. is entirely unsuited to resolving this three-way divide. 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. A System Devolving Power to the Regions Is the Route to a Viable Iraq. 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. Iraqi Kurds have a right to statehood interview with “intellectual”. A federalist Iraq is necessary to prevent further sectarian violence and instability in the region Al-Rubaie. Al-Maliki's government has to be fearless. accessed July 12. For one thing. Once I told Al- Maliki to do so. which has its own objectives. Federalism protects the unity of Iraq and creates an active competition among the regions on the aspects of politics. Only through a new political compact among Iraq's main communities will a viable state emerge. The central institutions must earn their legitimacy from the power that the three main ethnic groups are prepared to give them. face up to the external interferences and turn to the Security Council. Al-Maliki and his government cannot solve these problems on their own as their government is too weak to do so. having southern and middle federal entity will cause problems for both Shia and Sunni sectarian groups. I strongly support the government and applaud its achievements. Not Partition. Iraq's national security adviser. must be accommodated. but he pressed for a regional conference. “Federalism. The current political framework is based on a pluralistic democratic vision that. financial and resource control within Kurdistan. Resolution can be achieved only through a system that incorporates regional federalism. centralized state. apart from the Kurdistan federalism that has its own historical and geographical peculiarity.e.

Finally. initiatives in the region. Iraq’s federal government must therefore be designed carefully so as to give regional governments extensive political and financial autonomy. to name just two. SPRING 2004. including negotiations for Arab-Israeli peace. visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University.twq. further destabilizing the Middle East in the process. The potential consequences of failing to design federalism properly and to establish a stable democracy in Iraq extend far beyond Iraqi borders.pdf] . [Dawn. 04. .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 49 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Federalism Good – US Hegemony A strong level of federalism in Iraq is key to Middle East stability and US hegemony Brancati. such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. A civil war in Iraq may even undermine support for the concept of federalism more generally. “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. It may also discourage foreign investment in the region. 7–21. the failure to design and implement the kind of federalism that can establish a stable democracy in Iraq might undermine international support for other Accessed 7/8/08 http://www. which is significant given the number of countries also considering federalism. bolster Islamic extremists.S.and long-term stability of Iraq and the greater Middle East depend on it. The short. to include Kirkuk in the Kurdish region that is created. and to limit the influence of identity-based political parties. and exacerbate tensions between Palestinians and Israelis. Civil war in Iraq may draw in neighboring countries such as Turkey and Iran.

a retired Jordanian general who for 23 years served as an adviser to King Hussein." 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. http://www. it becomes contagious in the region.waronwant. It is too easy to say that all the suffering of the Iraqi people should be laid directly at the door of Saddam Hussein. 7/16/08) War on Want believes that another massive military campaign against Iraq will seriously jeopardise prospects for durable peace. accelerated by a shortage of oil Slackman. 7/16/08) "The spillover of this is of concern for everybody in the region. infant mortality is rising and malnutrition is unacceptably high. political and economic rights to their citizens. 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. like Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt." said Ali Shukri. 05 (War on Want. Feb 2. We have seen this in the impoverishment of whole regions and particularly in recent years through the effects of conflict on the Palestinian people. Anbar Province borders Syria. 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. Poverty in Iraq is on the increase. including Jordan. But Iraq is not just an oppressive state. and the effort of the Iran's leadership to once again try to spread its ideas around the region. Kuwait and Iran.nytimes. In the Middle East. Instability. human development and stability in the Middle East. the southern part of Iraq borders Saudi Arabia. The New York Times. "When you take western Iraq. a surge in violence. Jordan and Saudi Arabia. achieving peace and security can only go hand in hand with ending poverty. Egypt and Yemen.twl.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 50 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Instability spreads Region-wide Iraq instability spills over to the rest of the Middle East War on Want. local leaders are also bracing for a new influx of refugees and damage to the regional Feb 27. an organization fighting for the elimination of poverty. and War in the Middle East”. War on Want has consistently criticised totalitarian regimes. We are clear that the ruling Ba’athist regime brutally suppresses such rights. If there is a conflict. Since the Gulf War Iraq's economy has teetered on the brink. War on Want believes that poverty is strongly linked to instability and conflict. should fighting increase. Life expectancy is falling. How all these forces combine and ultimately influence each other has become a source of deep worry.html. “ Just War? Poverty. “Chaos in Iraq Sends Shock Waves Across Middle East and Elevates Iran’s Influence”. Throughout its 50-year history. http://www. Unemployment is at least 50% and inflation hovers at around 100%. as elsewhere. Both factors would have serious consequences for Middle Eastern states that have little or no oil and are already suffering from stagnant 0East+4372. 06 (Michael. which have denied social. In addition. . Syria. Like the UK Government’s Department for International Development. Staff Writer. Ending poverty and introducing social justice are both vital to peace and stability and reinforced by peace and stability. Sanctions and bombing have hit hard. More children will die and more long-term damage will be done to the economy and to regional stability. but also Western-led sanctions and previous bombing campaigns. Instability in Iraq spreads to the region quickly.

but this means that many of the 60. Then. Peter Hadden Spring 2008 Iraq five years on . especially the neo-conservative cabal surrounding Bush.Invasion & occupation An unmitigated disaster Journal of the Socialist Party http://www. 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. has had precisely the opposite effect. On his arrival he was warmly greeted by Iraqi government ministers. The war was also about prestige. It was conceived firstly as a war for plunder. The US has the military capacity to destroy any force put in its way.000 injured. particularly intended to put US and other foreign oil corporations in control of the Iraqi oil fields.000 troops have been killed and around 60. Production.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 51 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Instability causes Regional War Iraq instability is a catastrophe that escalates to regional that were being made loudly at the start of this year . devastating ordnance and control of the skies are all that is necessary in modern warfare. which left at least 40 dead. it was meant to provide the world with a brutal demonstration of US military prowess. designed in part to lessen the influence of Iran in the region.000 wounded are going home with severely life-changing injuries and disabilities. Looked at in this way there is no question that the whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster. Almost 4. including the late February attack on Shi’ite pilgrims making their way to the shrine of Iman Hussein in Kerbala. confirming that violence and instability remain the order of the day despite the extra 30. A disaster first of all for the US establishment. Because of this soldiers who are injured have a higher chance of survival. Troops today are provided with better body armour and better medical care than in previous wars. So also has the other “surge” – the mini invasion of the Kurdistan Region by 10. to cap it all.4 million barrels a day. A series of suicide bombings. This was ostensibly to attack and destroy the mountain bases of the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). not a few months. Five years on. at 2.000 US troops. exploding the myth that superior technology. More recent events have given pro-surge enthusiasts a cold shower. on a stately visit to Baghdad. 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. but Iraq – and now also Afghanistan – have shown that holding ground that has been gained is a different matter. Of course a real balance sheet of the invasion and occupation has to be measured over five years. The US military has been seriously overstretched by the Iraq conflict. Instead. who were the architects of this war. . a salutary reminder to George Bush that his military adventure in Iraq. The five star chiefs at the Pentagon are well aware that the surge troop levels are unsustainable.htm Date Accessed 7/16/08 As the fifth anniversary of the fateful decision to launch the invasion of Iraq passes. which contain the second largest known reserves in the world. has not yet reached pre- war becoming fainter by the day. it has shown the limits of US power. the US administration has had to put up with the spectacle of Iranian President. the idea of cheap oil gushing through Iraqi pipelines has faded. 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 . Soldiers now have to endure gruelling 15 month tours of duty with obvious effects on morale. This invasion showed the potential for the Iraqi nightmare to very quickly escalate into a regional conflict. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.socialistparty.000 Turkish troops.

The Middle East is interconnected. Iraq. Months after President George W. Feb 3.thestar. "Even one would be enough. 07 (Olivia. "Right now in the Middle East.the landscape that is emerging is a dark and smouldering one. with no grasp of interpretations of religious texts. Dec 21. Amerd foes stalk streets of Iraq. Many have shockingly little religious and formal education. Johnson Chairholder in International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College." Pollack says. Gaza. in their eyes. http://yaleglobal. if not more so." . They lack the financial means – a few hundred US dollars – to travel to Iraq. or failed to prevent. do not make a clear distinction between the near enemy (Muslim ruling “renegades”) and the far enemy (the US and its allies). Lebanon. adding that American policies have fuelled. are kufar. many of the Iraq generation of jihadists. with three hotspots threatening to flare up simultaneously. Christian A. though distorted. Madrid and London. we have three different places that are failed or failing states. boosting Iran’s influence. but caution that it is only one ingredient in a regional recipe for disaster. Staff Writer. conflicts. either in. of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. leaving them on the brink of civil war”. 06 (Fawaz. They possessed a complex. "Now. 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.yale. In the Middle East. They say the conflict "could easily spiral into one that threatens not only Iraq. http://www. opening the way for Iran's new power in the region. In Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraqi Civil War. In contrast. Yale Global. The lines of demarcation between Muslims and non-Muslims have also become blurred. 7/16/08) Troops are on the streets of Lebanon. turmoil and war. we not only have three wars with spillover. or on the brink of civil war. “Iraq War Fuels Global Jihad”. In my conversation with members of the first generation and some of the Afghan-trained Arab fighters. and are as dangerous. Afghan Arabs or Al Qaeda.war in one area spirals into a regional war Ward. come from the poverty belts of Arab and Muslim ghettos and streets. 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. but they and others like them form a huge pool of potential recruits for global jihad.the country that joins the dots among the three hotspots. 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. Bush promised a radical makeover of the region . They wage an all-out war against internal and external enemies alike." The danger is also boosted by a looming conflict between the United States and Iran . The danger to the region is increasing. the Iraq jihadists.article?id=8577. while Muslim public backing for global jihad – as opposed to local jihad – is limited. they conceded that the indiscriminate killings of Muslims and civilians are a byproduct of the Iraq generation’s scanty religious education. 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 were at a loss to explain the beastly acts of terror carried out by their Iraq counterparts. I met teenagers who aspired to join the fight against the American occupiers and were nearly illiterate. unlike the first and second generation. Pollack and co-author Daniel Byman. who represent a tiny minority of all fighters in Iraq. 7/18/08) Furthermore.and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" . and Afghanistan. but they are also creating opportunities for Iran to expand its The Iraq jihadists are willing to kill thousands of fellow Muslims who. “Domino effect worries analysts: Three hotspots could flare up at once. And for a new battlefront with Tehran that many predict will explode by the end of this year. as Americans and Westerners.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 52 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraqi conflict spreads Region-wide (1/2) Militant Iraqis will take regional wars global. While jihadists are conspiratorial by nature. analysts say the sparks could spread in a region where few major events are unconnected for long.a new generation of fighters has emerged Gerges. or apostates. Blood is flowing in Gaza. The Toronto Star. while global jihad’s boundaries extend wide and far to New York. focus on Iraq. Moreover. few as they are so far." says Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution. And few question that a catastrophic civil war has come to Iraq. but also its neighbors throughout the oil-rich Persian Gulf region with instability. low social status and America’s violation of Muslim sanctity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 53 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Pollack says Washington has badly underestimated the spillover effect of such events. .

If we leave Iraq any time soon. 7/16/08) This week. If the Americans stabilize Arab Iraq. and the West. The Toronto Star. Hezbollah and Hamas. Refugees and displaced people could number in the millions." After Hamas's victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections. It will probably destroy most of central Iraq and whet the appetite of Shiite Arab warlords. Washington . his study says. this won't happen. the instability. The Consequences of Failure in Iraq. militias and organized crime rings wreaking havoc on Iraq's oil infrastructure. resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. and worse.thestar. Instability in Iraq will lead to regional conflaguration. the greatest threats could be "the burdens. Gaza. Mohammed Yaghi. It will spread to Israel and Jordan." he says. this is it. 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.S. leaving them on the brink of civil war”. "hundreds of thousands of people may die. which had spillover to the growth of Al Qaeda. Now there are new. boosting Iran’s influence. which caused us to foolishly intervene in Iraq. like so many Cold War dominoes. Imagine an Iraq modeled on the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. 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. 07 (Olivia. who has taken a pro-American stance. the battle for Baghdad will probably lead to a conflagration that consumes all of Arab Iraq.. Lebanon. http://www.and Ottawa . "It will not be a simple internal problem for Palestinians.moved to choke off aid to the new government. and a possible spillover of any Palestinian conflict. agrees. Add to that a huge influx of refugees from Iraq. and Middle East. but it must also deal with the alliance between Iran. If I had to look for the country in the region that is in the worst difficulties.S." says Pollack. "When you look at the global picture. which attacks Israel and has sparked violence in Lebanon by trying to bring down the government. . Once the Shia become both badly bloodied and victorious. If the violence between the Fatah and Hamas factions worsens in Gaza and spreads through the Palestinian territories. a Toronto-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. it won't be contained to that small area. surrounded by conflicts. And with Iraqi insurgents. the copycat secession attempts and even the follow-on wars that could emerge in neighboring countries. he says. a full-scale civil war could send global oil prices soaring even higher. 07 (Reuel Marc. Iran offered Hamas funds to fill the economic vacuum. we have come full circle. "It started with an awful civil war in Afghanistan. Volume: 012. and on the Shiite side from Iran. That led to 9/11." For the U. Issue 17. “Domino effect worries analysts: Three hotspots could flare up at once. Feb 3. The Weekly Standard. "There is latent unhappiness with the king. . for a conflict with the Kurds. Welcome to the 'new Middle East' . It is concentrating on Iraq. 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. a key U. if civil war goes unchecked.. aggressive American military presence in Iraq can probably halt the radicalization of the Shiite community. But it is also connected to Lebanon. which means occupying the Sunni triangle." Pollack says Jordan. condemned as part of a terrorist group that refuses to recognize Israel." In Iraq itself. A strong. spillover effects we will have to worry about.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 54 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraqi conflict spreads Region-wide (2/2) Spillover empirically proven. raw nationalist and religious passions will grow. and quite possibly Kurdistan. Gerecht. who will by then dominate their will only get worse Ward. The United States is worried about the influence of Iran in the entire region.a region where civil wars could follow one after another. Staff Writer. could be next. It also supports and arms the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Amerd foes stalk streets of Iraq.

this seems unlikely. If the Americans were to leave. and many Arab commentators. 07 (Reuel Marc. which could easily reach genocidal intensity. and more than ten million people were forced to flee their homes. not down. Although of differing faiths.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 55 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq instability = civil war / genocide Continued instability will cause genocide in Iraq Gerecht. The Consequences of Failure in Iraq. Volume: 012. The historical parallel to have in mind is the battle between subcontinent Hindus and Muslims that came with the independence of India. could quickly happen in Mesopotamia. the pre-1947 Hindus and Muslims were often indistinguishable culturally. long before American forces could withdraw from the country. This level of barbarism.000 and one million Muslims and Hindus perished. . Iraq since 2003 strongly suggests a different outcome. Yet. Shared Arabism and the Prophet's faith would helpfully reassert themselves. scaled down to Iraq's population. resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Somewhere between 500. Issue 17. Yet they "ethnically cleansed" their respective new nations. with exuberance. India and Pakistan. tens of thousands of women were raped. (And it's worth recalling that few British officials anticipated the communal ferocity that came with the end of the Raj. then a modus vivendi would be reached before massive slaughter ensued. Violence in both the Shiite and Sunni zones has gone up. have suggested that it is the American presence in Mesopotamia that aggravates the differences between Shiite and Sunni. and physically. whenever American and British forces have decreased their physical presence in the streets and their intrusion in government affairs. linguistically.) Certain Western observers of Iraq. 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. 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. The Weekly Standard.

has probably found sanctuary in the tribal areas of Pakistan. perfecting their techniques for mass casualty terrorist attacks. In 8999r. there is no evidence of an international link to the plot. the network recruits fighters and uses them against coalition forces. an arc of instability providing a breeding ground for terrorism stretches across the globe. biological. In Afghanistan. date accessed: 7/16/08) Unlike their historical counterparts. http://www. Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants give orders for specific attacks on specific targets. Al-Qa'eda is a genuinely international organisation. regional and global security concerns. drawn from any nationality. This lies at the heart of its global web. radiological. professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies. are linked by the common thread of loyalty to an extreme version of Islam's Sunni tradition. chemical. lining its north-west frontier with Afghanistan. Any order to detonate car bombs in London and Glasgow may not have come from overseas. they are deployed directly against British and American forces as the footsoldiers of the Taliban.” Jul 4.washingtontimes. Diplomatic Correspondent. Instead.htm. Terrorism culminates in extinction Alexander. which makes use of what British officials call the "ungoverned spaces'' near Afghanistan. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The car bombs which failed to detonate in Britain are similar to those used in Baghdad. Its recruits. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. 03 (Yonah. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. The Daily Telegraph “Arc of instability spawning hatred. the ideological inspiration behind al-Qa'eda is the key to its success. But al-Qa'eda does not possess a centralised command structure. This is where recruits are trained. almost certainly including Osama bin Laden. WASHINGTON TIMES. August 28. date accessed: 7/16/08) FROM the mountains of Pakistan to the chaos of Iraq and Gaza. 07 (David. The core leadership of al-Qa'eda. Pakistan serves as network headquarters.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 56 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Terrorism Impacts Iraq instability causes terrorism Blair.g. so far. Whitehall sources say that any al-Qa'eda role in the failed car bombings has not yet become clear and. British counter-terrorism officials believe they are once again exerting strategic direction over a worldwide network of cells. . Lexis. From this secure base.

01/15) These forces need increasing strife to prosper. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own nukes. The Consequences of Failure in Iraq. 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. Imagine the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Sunni Arab refugees. . Jordan. which the Shia will inevitably win. spiritually and operationally linking up with a revitalized and aggressive clerical dictatorship in Iran. however. Does anyone want to take bets that the monarchy can survive the implantation of an army of militant. They've escaped extinction several times. 07 (Reuel Marc. joining up with groups like al Qaeda. that an American defeat in Mesopotamia would be the greatest psychological triumph ever for anti-American jihadists. the clerical regime. battle-hardened in a vicious war with Iraq's Arab Sunnis. The repercussions throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to digest. It's questionable to argue that the war in Iraq has advanced the radical Sunni holy war against the United States. could well revert to the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. Volume: 012. With America in full retreat from Iraq. angry Iraqi Sunni Arabs? For those who believe that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is the epicenter of the Middle East. Imagine Iraqi Shiites. hit them. living to die killing Americans.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 57 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq instability = nuclear war Regional instability stemming from Iraqi instability will cause nuclear war Gerecht. will feel even more threatened. it was the learned estimation of Osama bin Laden and his kind before 9/11. and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. driven from Iraq. Sunni Arabs in Egypt. who are increasingly likely to strike preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency. The Israelis. Imagine the Iraqi Sunni Islamic militants. overflowing with viciously anti-American and anti-Israeli Iraqis. 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. There should be no question. With Jordan in trouble. peaceful Palestinian evolution on the West Bank of the Jordan river is about as likely as the discovery of the Holy Grail. 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. which has often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft. If the Americans are retreating. The Weekly Standard. The Hashemites have been lucky and clever since World War II. Issue 17. That would not be just a radical Shiite view.

once unthinkable except as a last resort. as the Iraqis did. the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing.. and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use. would now be a strong probability. and even the threat of nuclear war..S..the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration. date accessed: 7/) Meanwhile. 3/3. Israel no longer needs U. complicity) is not reversed soon. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and. or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel. if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S.for whatever reason.. nuclear targeting strategy. "Should war break out in the Middle East again.. 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."(41) and Ezar Weissman."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. spy secrets. Researcher at Centre for Research on Globalisation.globalresearch. a nuclear escalation.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 58 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Middle East War = Extinction Middle East wars goes global and causes extinction Steinbach.html. In the words of Mark Gaffney. Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional. at the very least. http://www. Center for Research on Globalization. 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. if not for all out nuclear war.S. 02 ( Seymour Hersh warns." (44) . ".

TNR. Widening violence will disrupt trade lines. 2003 What war can’t achieve.pdf A widening regional conflict following a war with Iraq is likely to undermine this sophisticated worldwide division of labor. thereby shifting production away from long supply lines that are more efficient and economical under stable political circumstances.columbia. slow customs.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 59 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq War Turns the Aff The Iraq conflict turns the Aff’s peak oil and economic advantages Jeffrey Sachs MARCH 3 . raise insurance costs and shipping tariffs. . and immigration services. and delay business decisions. Smart Money WWW.COM undercut tourism and business ports. cause spikes in world energy prices. It will make international commerce and investment more expensive.

with a strong unitary focus and provincial units. 2007 (Abhiskek. Johannes Althusius. ethnicity. it was the 16th century German philosopher and theologian. a 'top down' model. Hindustan Times. development. The format can be a 'bottom up' model. Federalism is a vehicle for managing diversities. and 'consociational' models based on unanimity of all constituents. like India's. Writer for Hindustan Times. .As Nepal decides upon its federal Constitution. Despite its diverse hues. multiplicities and pluralities. federalism essentially involves the devolution of power and sharing of the decision-making authority. like that of the US where sovereign pre-existing units cede power to form a union. like the European Union. India. who formalised the concept in the West. 'confederations' within a loose union. Newly emerging federalist countries will make decisions off of countries that were once Third World countries like them. While ancient Indian literature on gram swarajya and panchayats reflect a clear federalist spirit.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 60 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA A2: Modeling – They model locally Countries model their federalism after those with similar culture and development. accessed July 6. 2008) NEW DELHI. India's contribution to the evolution of federalism makes for an interesting review. Oct 16. genius and concept of nationhood. 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. Oct. culture. Singhvi. 16 -.

This is.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 61 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA A2: Iraq Federalism – Public rejects Opposition to federalism is high and the public does not want the federal government to invade. our politicians failed to turn their agreement on that article into a fundamental point in Kurdish relations with the outside world. BBC News. Writer for BBC News. 2008) Right from the start. hospitality and the display of loyalty to the idea of Iraq's unity and integrity. pg 3 Oct 8. 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. accessed July 7. The slowness of the Kurdish side over these important and crucial matters made many Iraqi sides and important officials openly oppose the federal system. after the declaration of the US Congress resolution. Rozhnama. The Kurdish policy in Baghdad has so far been essentially a mixture of courtesy. They are afraid they might be branded as traitors and advocates of the disintegration and division of Iraq. if anything. 2007 (Sulaymaniyah. now they are more open and fearless in expressing their objections to federalism. While they were previously timid in voicing that view. the unequivocal stand taken by those opposing federalism reached a higher level and stronger unanimity. while dominating the political arena so overwhelmingly and fearlessly that the supporters of federalism can no longer voice their positive stand openly. . Also. which underpinned a sort of an alliance.

institute-for-afghan- studies. npg. Accessed 7/15/08 from http://www. Indiana University.presence of military and political coalitions Shahani. At this critical moment in its history.” Federations. 01. October 2001. Indeed. “Not “Who?” but “How?”:Governing Afghanistan after the conflict.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 62 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Models US Federalism Afghanistan is modeling US federalism now. this could be the longest-lasting contribution the United States and her anti-terrorism international coalition could make in Afghanistan today.S. . [M. and in fighting the root cause of global terrorism forever.pdf] The question is not “Who should govern in Afghanistan?” but “How should Afghanistan govern itself?” A U.-led political and military coalition is poised to set in motion profound changes in Afghanistan. professor of Anthropology and Central Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. what Afghanistan needs the most is what the United States already has— the federal model of decentralized government with a strong national constitution.

2002." . accessed 7/15/08 from] Most important is working with Afghans to change the image and role of the state. modest local resources under local control could be directed into locally accountable planning processes rather than a dysfunctional central state. looking at the issue probably from the point of view of ethnic minorities. 99. 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). what Afghanistan needs the most is what the United States already has-the federal model of decentralized government with a strong national constitution. For this very reason. Council on Foreign Relations.pdf] Nazif Shahrani. 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. In the past local societies developed unofficial power structures to shield themselves from the state. Rauf . seen largely as a distant and indifferent if not hostile power. 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” eurasianet." 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. Accessed 7/9/08 http://www. The disintegration of the state creates such potentials. The central state will still be needed for provision of basic security and dispute resolution. 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 It is unlikely that any central power will find it worthwhile to provide localities with much in the way of governance and services.tns. [Barnett. Modeling of US federalism in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent tyranny. whether ethnic.” December 08.the US model is specifically key Roashan. 02 [G. 1999. “The Political Economy of War and Peace in Afghanistan. rather than participate it. “Pros and Cons of Federalism in Afghanistan. and the centralizing mentality shared by the Taliban and much of their opposition reproduces that past pattern. or religious. but a clear division of labor among levels of governance will promote greater accountability over the reconstruction process.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 63 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Federalism Good – Stability Federalism is key to stability in Afghanistan Rubin. 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. and abuse by ruling group at the expense of justice for all citizens of Afghanistan. linguistic. Institute for Afghan Studies and author of The New Beginning.

unique and strong Afghanistan. We believe in a strong central government. they challenge the government of Afghanistan and call for federalism and fragmentation. misuse the name of the north and announce that the north demands federalism. . there are persons who try to sabotage the government for their personal interest and illegal acts. There are people. I clearly state that no one can alone speak about the northern provinces or demand federalism or fragmentation. BBC Monitoring Africa. Ethiopian premier says ready to host 5th federalism conference in country) [Balkh governor addressing a gathering] On the other hand. We believe in a united. 2007 (Nov 5.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 64 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA A2: Afghanistan doesn’t want Federalism Afghanistan stands strong for federalism even when under attack. who presenting themselves as a spokesperson or a representative of a party. describe a government move as an abuse to northern leaders. Speaking on behalf of a huge number of people. 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.

"But still." Longtime observers of the conflict say that even if the insurgents' strength is flagging. deployment for the Marines. "The Taliban have warned me so many times to leave this job. an intimate and culturally charged encounter that has inflamed resentment when carried out by foreign troops. During the winter months. and an inconclusive spring "fighting season" could try public patience. Earlier this year. consistently the It is the country's epicenter of opium production and narco-trafficking. if any. Taliban fighters vow to harry them with more powerful and sophisticated roadside bombs. Gates heard urgent appeals for reinforcements from U." said a Taliban field commander. the men in black turbans have been coming. who will seize the initiative. they say. the 24th Expeditionary Unit based in Camp Lejeune. commanders say. The first- time arrival in the south of a large force of Marines. Defense Secretary Robert M. LA Times 08 April 13 Afghan Fighting Poised to Escalate http://www. Carlos Branco. where President Bush pledged to send more troops and pointedly urged allies to do likewise. "They want to plant a roadside bomb. capable of leaders have been swiftly replaced. have expressed continued frustration with what they describe as insurgents' willful endangering of civilians by launching attacks from within their midst. The Marine force's final elements arrived days ago and last week began deploying." said Haji Saifullah. a district of Kandahar province that borders Helmand and has become an insurgent stronghold." he said. aiming to bolster British. commanders acknowledge that without careful monitoring. military officials said Saturday. ensconcing themselves across Afghanistan's wind-swept south. Harrier jump jets. human rights groups charged that Western troops sometimes too readily called in airstrikes when under attack. unrelenting suicide attacks and methodical targeting of Afghans who are helping the coalition forces. Senior police officials matter-of-factly say they believe the insurgents have marked them for death. who forecast a substantial upsurge in fighting." The insurgents boast that they will blend tried-and-true methods with deadly refinements. The Marines have doubled the coalition's air capacity. Coalition commanders. But senior Western military officials acknowledge that many of these "It's a new generation we are seeing. either capturing them or killing them in pinpoint airstrikes. has provided what commanders say is a much-needed infusion of firepower. villagers say the ranks of locally recruited insurgents will swell in coming weeks after the opium poppy crop has been planted.let them come. or send a suicide bomber." said Haji Dad Mohammad. reached by phone in the Panjwai district outside Kandahar. a farmer who had sent his family away for safety. the coalition has made a concerted effort to hunt down Taliban field commanders. At that time. Beaten badly in previous large-scale frontal assaults on NATO-led troops." said Brig. the fighting will go ahead. "They will learn what others before them have learned. Marines have arrived in the last two months. a likely zone of the Taliban professes unconcern. In this unforgiving environment. With fighting seemingly poised to escalate. Taliban fighters have failed to seize substantial population centers or hold large swaths of territory for long. "I think the Taliban are not as strong as in the past." . Although allied commanders express satisfaction with the battlefield edge the Marines will bring. Peter Petronzio.. but say it is they. insurgents slaughtered 17 Afghan road workers in neighboring Zabol province. N. their presence heralded by the nonstop thunder of transport aircraft and the sprawling tent city springing up on a newly cleared minefield. and we are waiting -." said Abdul Karim. But it's not clear whether the insurgents want to do so. commander of the Marine expeditionary force now operating out of the Kandahar base. They travel in pairs or small groups. Moreover. But although Afghan security forces have played a more prominent role in policing and battlefield engagements over the last year. spokesman of the NATO-led force. serious problems remain. Many Taliban fighters are essentially part-timers. "Every day we see more and more of them. looting sometimes occurs during such Afghan-conducted searches. "We have heard all about these Americans. In Afghanistan. then reappearing when it suits them. British troops. considered to be among the alliance's most effective fighters. enormous profits help fuel the insurgency.html#12 KANDAHAR. Gen. one major worry for the coalition is civilian casualties. "So far they haven't succeeded. lumbering cargo planes and combat helicopters line the freshly laid tarmac. "They definitely don't want to go toe-to-toe with us. In response. Afghan and coalition forces hunted down and killed two dozen Taliban blamed for the attack. the Taliban find Afghan police a "softer" target than coalition troops and have killed scores in suicide strikes. AFGHANISTAN — For weeks now. which spiked during combat last spring. Part of the Western alliance's overall strategy is to turn more of the fighting and policing over to the long-troubled Afghan security forces.S. Canadian and Dutch troops who have been bearing the brunt of fighting in the country's south. villagers say. However. with its plethora of infiltration routes from Pakistan. Afghan forces are assigned whenever possible for house searches. For example.S. But people don't want them to stay on indefinitely. At the country's main NATO base outside Kandahar. instead. obliterating village compounds that might not have contained only insurgents.300 U. have been forced to confine their efforts largely to the province's northern tier. the district police commissioner in Maywand. Taliban fighters are filtering back from their winter shelters in Pakistan. not the insurgents. Coalition commanders are well aware that the Taliban will try to steer the conflict toward small-scale hit-and-run strikes.afghanistannewscenter. It dominated discussions at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit last month. American trainers believe they are turning a corner. materializing out of the desert with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers slung from their shoulders. whose most violence-racked in Afghanistan. with harsh weather bringing a relative lull in fighting. They describe the mid-level to upper leadership ranks as having been decimated by this campaign. or shoot me. The insurgents aren't the only ones girding for battle. in some cases by younger and even more ruthless commanders. making the south of Helmand." said Col. considered the conflict's strategic center of gravity. combined with what they say is the common practice of reporting their own battle dead as civilians. Just as crucially. a protracted battle probably lies ahead. in turn. commanders in Afghanistan. opinion surveys consistently suggest that a solid majority of the population supports the presence of foreign forces. where presidential elections are due next year. The conflict in Afghanistan recently has loomed increasingly large in policy debate. the worst kind of atrocities. Last week. nearly 2. With the advent of warmer on battered motorbikes or in dusty pickups. NATO officials like to point out that even during a period of resurgence over the last two years. pay and morale are all up. 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. a Kandahar-based former militia leader who sometimes serves as an intermediary between the government and insurgents. they rely on the classic guerrilla tactic of scattering when confronted.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 65 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. Recruitment.C.

not the end of one. Afghanistan war is just beginning." ISAF may number about 41. "There would not appear to be any capacity within ISAF to stop or turn back anticipated AOG (armed opposition groups) expansion.html THE Taliban has seriously rejoined the fight in Afghanistan.000 people have been killed in international military action against the Taliban.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 66 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Brink (2/2) Killings in Afghanistan will escalate over this year. Abductions and killings were likely to escalate this year. the group said.23075709-5005961. but estimates ranged from 2000 to 20. not the end of one. . an NGO security group said in a report that concluded the country was at the beginning of a war. It said the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)." The conflict in Afghanistan is constantly escalating and shows no signs of stopping. with the rest mostly support staff or prevented from fighting because of national restrictions. when a US-led invasion drove them from power. the outcomes of which are far from certain." ANSO said. Despite seven years of intervention. the consensus amongst informed individuals at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning of a not ending. ANSO said. was more of a strategic retreat than an actual military defeat. with a marked increase in violence.000." the report said. casualties and a growing/ budding Taliban insurgency that has gained immense momentum and continues to escalate. 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. the state of affairs in Afghanistan have constantly deteriorated. Till fatalities. more than 7. "A few years from now. The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) said the Taliban's "easy departure" in 2001. the group said. "In simple terms.000 soldiers but "realistically" could not have more than 7000 for Khan 08 Amina. which is helping the government fight insurgents. The size of the Taliban force was unknown. the year 2007 has been Afghanistan’s ‘most violent’ year since the ouster of the Taliban. the country continues to be entrenched in turmoil and bloodshed with no visible decrease in insecurity and violence. and the US’s so-called campaign of ‘liberating Afghanistan’. from the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad Afghanistan: Still at a Standstill http://www. About 1980 civilians were killed in 2007 . The Herald Sun 08 January 19 Afghanistan War is Just Beginning: Reporthttp://www.html Since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. with growing links between insurgents and criminal gangs increasing the threat. Regardless of US and NATO claims of achieving progress and development in Afghanistan.21985. is "in fact just now entering a period of broad and deep conflict.half by insurgents and the rest almost equally by soldiers or criminal groups.osservatoriopakistan.

interests in the greater Middle East. it is certain that the country will revert to its former status as a breeding ground for terrorism.ecnext. the nightmare scenario that has confronted the Bush Administration since 9/11 is that of hostile terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction. bails out of Afghanistan or 5. the negative consequences would be very serious.htm.S. date accessed: 7/16/08) Unlike their historical counterparts. August 28. and Sanders. AND THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST. date accessed: 7/16/08) In contrast. the already serious threat of proliferation may become much worse. RUSSIA. Director of Regional Strategic http://www. if the U. professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies. 03 Geoffrey. which in some ways reflects the inability of the US to deliver on its promises of prosperity. after losing control of events on the ground or becoming bogged down in endless and costly wars of attrition.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 67 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Terrorism Impacts Instability in Afghanistan causes terrorism The Nation. If disorder is allowed to spread in Afghanistan. regional and global security concerns. 04 (http://goliath. date accessed: 7/16/08) In Afghanistan. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e. the US-backed regime of President Hamid Karzai is trying to prevent a resurgence of the Taliban in parts of the country. contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. p.” November. Nixon Center. 03 (Yonah. if terrorism is not controlled.html.g.washingtontimes. including the security and control of energy supplies. Furthermore. WASHINGTON TIMES. nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national. http://www. Paul. . chemical. biological. radiological. Afghanistan instability sparks terrorism and accusation of WMDs Kemp.S. “AMERICA. Russia specialist. Such a development would embolden jihadists in the region and elsewhere and make talk of American weakness again fashionable in radical circles.nixoncenter. 8999r. Terrorism culminates in extinction Alexander. This would obviously only encourage more terrorism and mayhem and could threaten all major U.pdf.

No matter who runs ISAF. Afghanistan will sit in the eye of a political storm.cfm. the region’s gross political and economic imbalances could worsen. American agreements with Central Asian states can do little to discourage or punish repression. or for stabilizing Iraq. Looking at Central Asia. though. the Pentagon has acknowledged the risks inherent in letting Afghanistan founder. The collapse of one or more Central Asian regimes. 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. . Young people in the region have grown more frustrated as reforms and incomes have stagnated. Wolfowitz says the US no longer objects to broadening ISAF’s mission. http://www. many Muslims see a belligerent United States. could create an opening for the establishment of new command and control centers for terrorists. unwilling to rebuild countries or exert influence over dictators allied to Washington.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 68 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan spills over to Central Asia Afghanistan instability spills over into the rest of central asia. 02 (“WINDS OF THE WAR ON TERROR LEAVE CENTRAL ASIA AT RISK. The Arab and Muslim world have been decidedly unimpressed with the United States’ lack of resolve in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have hosted Western military forces for the war in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan. RUSSIA WEEKLY. in the absence of democratic alternatives and a solid professional but it refuses to send troops in as lead peacekeepers. Central Asian states also face the risk of instability. the United States must develop and then earn a new image in the region. To effectively make war on terrorism.cdi. and have used their geographic importance as a convenient excuse to step up repression of their political opponents. If Washington continues to support corrupt regimes without placing stronger pressure on those regimes. Without a vision guiding regional policy.” September 11. date accessed: 7/16/08) As Wolfowitz’ concern suggests.

and his ideas had wide influence. [Nicholas and Alexie.18 . or an equalization of the existing eighty-nine units (and the removal of any expression of national self-determination from Russia's federal structure). In order to provide for the right of national self-determination. Sergei Shakray. 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. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest." Another advocate of a Lander-based model of Russian federalism was the nationalities minister.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 69 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Models US Federalism (1/2) The US model of federalism shapes the development of Russian federalism. “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia. Rumyantsev was the secretary of the Constitutional Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. Many proponents of a territorial principle looked to the United States as a model of successful federalism. was one of several leading "reformers" who proposed a system of territorial federalism in Russia that adhered to a United States type model."'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. who supported the creation of a dozen administrative units. but less tolerant. 97. Vladimir Zhirinovsky. for] The first of these models envisages a strictly spatial division of power.specifically in preventing the formation of ethnically divided regions Lynn and Nivokov. 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. Gavril Popov (at that time mayor of Moscow). society and the state. Center for the Study of Federalism. for example. who proposed abolishing all the republics and national-formations in 1991. view of territorial restructuring was also provided by the leader of the "Liberal Democratic" party. Spring 1997. 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.” Publius. Vol. p187. 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. 27 Issue 2. 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.'7 Another. He called for the creation of 10-15 large-scale regions and for the abolition of Russia's ethno- federal hierarchy.

we examine intensively specific aspects of mainly elite political discourses. Federalism is a philosophy that accommodates both diversity and unity. and federation as an organizing principle for state structures around the world. Vol. 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. Vol. we make a distinction between elite and mass political debates about federalism and the actual implementation of federal-type institutions and practices in Russia. Daniel J. the organization of federal functions is also complex. Although both debates and implementation involve shifts in political cultures. p187. Even though political frameworks in Russia are in constant flux and turmoil. [Nicholas and Alexie. we focus on the implications of the former for the construction of successful federalism in Russia in particular.6 Although individual influence on the organization of political power is limited. shifting. however.journals. however. which can impinge on the decision-making authority of regions and republics. through newspapers. 27 Issue 2. The idea of federalism. Successful federalism also requires a political culture that is conducive to popular democratic government. even though as a legal structure. As such. and the like. Center for the Study of Federalism. It is a dynamic. there has been an explosion of empirical (survey) work carried out in Russia in order to uncover shifts in popular political cultures. [Nicholas and Alexie. 97. and (2) that each order of government has its own unique areas of decision-making and authority.] 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. in order to investigate the changing idea of federalism in Russia since 1991. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest. p187. “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia. confederacies. has a tradition of political cooperation. The concept of political culture is certainly important in terms of understanding the process of establishing a stable and peaceful federal system in Russia. 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. and republican spheres of responsibility. academic and specialist] This article distinguishes between federalism as an idea. Since the collapse of the USSR.this basis is key to the formation of liberal democracies Lynn and Nivokov. it may seem determined and fixed in a written constitution. regional. Center for the Study of Federalism. or philosophy. government newsletters.3 Most writers have identified two distinguishing legal characteristics of federal systems: (1) that there are two separate and self-standing orders of government.5 Rather than focusing on changing mass political attitudes.” Publius. In terms of the latter. and decentralized unions. . the debates examined here are indicative of the transformation of ideas in political life in Russia today. academics. Elazar has detailed the great institutional variety of contemporary federations. 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). “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia. constitutionalists.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 70 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Models US Federalism (2/2) The US system provides the fundamental basis for federalism around the world.” Publius. Spring 1997. because of the way it links the notion of federalism to democracy through the construction of political attitudes and beliefs. and complex relationship that is driven by a range of different processes over space and time. and prefers compromise to coercion. Many different philosophies and models of federalism have been proposed in Russia by politicians. such as formal federations. It contains a degree of flexibility and ambiguity. and others in Moscow and the regions. Although the Russian president has a great deal of responsibility for making and enforcing the law. Federalism in Russia is extremely fluid and easily impacted because of the lack of a concrete constitutional definition of federalism Lynn and Nivokov.49 Crucially. which has produced a bureaucratic and asymmetrical system. Spring 1997. 27 Issue 2. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest. and there is a great deal of confusion over central.

but a lingering tendency to practice political control from Moscow. . Russian society has undergone too many irreversible changes in the past decade for a return to past practice.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 71 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia headed toward Federalism Russian federalism is edging towards real Accessed: 12/07/2008 13:35) For most of the twentieth century. Pp. Negotiating and legislating looser center-periphery relations. 115-127. and strong central control over policymaking and implementation through a one-party authoritarian regime. 1994 (Robert. pluralistic political culture. implementing the results. the country seems destined to move forward toward federalism. Finally. Sharlet.jstor. Russia is headed towards federalism. both of which are prerequisites for viable federalism. Sharlet. 1994 (Robert. Spring. The Prospects for Federalism in Russian Constitutional Politics. The Prospects for Federalism in Russian Constitutional Politics. Oxford University Press Accessed: 12/07/2008 13:35) For Russia at the end of the twentieth century. and ultimately forging durable relationships will not be easy. although the journey ahead is likely to be arduous and long. Thus. http://www. while Russia has changed significantly in the direction of civil society and a more open. Pp. Spring. As Russia in the 1990s edges toward real federalism. 115-127. http://www. marginal economic decentralization.jstor. the essence of federalism"42 for some time to come. the road back to absolute unitarism seems effectively closed. neither of these necessary developments will be sufficiently strong to support "constitutionalized power-sharing. the equation includes cultural freedom for non-Russian ethnic minorities as well as more space for local economic initiative. Oxford University Press Stable. Russian "federalism" has meant some cultural autonomy.

"2 It faces a choice between different models of federalism and federal relations. Even in the mid-1990s. National Post. We have no shortage of things to worry about in our troubled world: Islamic extremism. This grouping of anti-democratic states is extending its reach around the world -- even perhaps to the suburbs of Washington D. endowed with vast energy wealth and inheriting a vast nuclear arsenal. and China Frum. Russia has reached something of a "crossroads. and the central authorities have tried to establish a system of intergovernmental relations characterized by a degree of cooperation. European weakness. . the republics. and compromise. has largely diminished. 07 (David. and so it's not our fault. Syria.” Publius. 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. the different parties appear to have been successful in refederalizing center-region relations. It is our aim to investigate its potential options by examining the nature of debates over the idea of federalism in Russia itself. 94%. Previously a Senior Writer at The Washington City Paper. Now add one more. American isolation. It's as if they are saying: Let Putin kill his enemies -." 3-10-7. 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] A process of refederalization has been taking place in Russia since 1991. 97.' At this stage of the process. Senior Editor at The American Prospect. “Refederalizing Russia: Debates on the idea of federalism in Russia. and who knows what other sinister forces. To a certain extent. [Nicholas and Alexie. whereby the regions. is deliberately and with the approval of the majority of its people turning its back on democracy and freedom. Russian democracy is dying. Accessed 7/10/08 from ProQuest. Spring 1997. Inside the minds of the Russians. China. p187. Chinese aggression. which continued after the 1990 parade of sovereignty. The process of regional disintegration. only 25% of Russians regarded Western democracy as the ideal system for Russia.C.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 72 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Federalism Good – Stability The balance of federalism in Russia is at a crucial turning point.Chechnya proves Lynn and Nivokov. 7-15-8) But this explanation goes only so far. Russians have been debilitated by 70. A potentially great power. 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 years of communism into feelings of personal helplessness that leads them to crave a strong boss. 82% felt they bore no responsibility. Virtually every Russian surveyed. LexisNexis. 27 Issue 2. Vol.there's nothing we can do. As an institution. 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. therefore. it is already dead. Russian rejection of democracy can lead to dangerous nuclear alliances with Iran. balance. "Russian democracy is dying. Russia is finding its way to dangerous alliances with Iran. Center for the Study of Federalism. said they felt they had zero influence on events in their country. Syria. However. Instead of joining the West.federal conflicts in Russia escalate into full-scale wars extremely easily.

” entetstageright. and medical care. Issue 1 npg. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership.personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. “Saving America from the Coming Civil Wars. 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." Put simply. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www. up to and including nuclear weapons. 99. he stressed that the role of nuclear deterrence has grown. 99. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Russian civil war causes nuclear proliferation and spread. Issue 1 npg. [it would be] possible and legitimate to use all available means. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war. 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. housing. causing the greatest threat If war erupts. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. [Diane. 2000. 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. a much lower nuclear threshold for Russia. “Saving America From the Coming Civil Wars.. in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war." Russian Defense Minister Sergeyev outlined the new reality in late October 1998. Jan/Feb 1999. So far. While speaking at the National Defense Academy in Beijing. But with the Communist Party out of office. [Stephen R. Dr. but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. which would probably side against Moscow David. and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. 78. Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University.” Foreign Affairs Vol. Jan/Feb 1999. to counter this threat. Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low.” Foreign Affairs Vol. research analyst. 00. “Russia on the razor's edge.000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 73 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russian Instability Impacts (1/2) Internal war draws in the Russian military. consequently. Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken. [Stephen R. and wages. Threats to territorial integrity result in launch of Russian nukes. Meanwhile. food. Draftees serve closer to home.the threshold is very low now and instability lowers that threshold further Alden. Russia retains some 20. January 10.htm] In a recent article in the Army publication Parameters. it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Walter Parchamenko. the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much materiel. This is a very serious development. given the virtual collapse of Russia's conventional forces. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing.. making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. The American Partisan columnist. however. 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. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay.enterstageright.] Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal." .] A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -.

given the neighborhood in which it lives. some accept NMD as a necessary price to pay for U. Some also fear a breakdown of the bilateral U. 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. Institute for Defense Analyses. Some Europeans fear that Russia and China will increase support for proliferation in the Middle East in response to NMD.S.globalsecurity. 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. NMD will lead to stronger Russian defenses. thus eroding their national deterrents. NATO’s three new Central European members are not nearly as “relaxed” about matters nuclear as their allies to their West.-Russian-Chinese offense/defense competition takes over. United States Department of Defense.” Institute for Defense Analyses Document D-2539. [Brad. national missile defense. And especially in Britain and France there is concern that U.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 74 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. The core nuclear issues in the transatlantic relationship today are whether extended U.S. nuclear deployments on the continent. On the other hand. disengagement in time of crisis. 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. NMD again accentuates the perception of possible U.S.S.43 Their perceptions of nuclear security have been greatly enhanced by the passing of bipolar confrontation. “Nuclear Multipolarity and Stability. One is cast by the possibility of nuclear acquisition by states along NATO’s southern flank. for example. 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. the deconstruction of the Soviet nuclear threat to Turkey. Another shadow is cast by the possibility of further Russian disintegration.- Russian riskreduction process as trilateral U.S.S. Another shadow is cast by possible Russian and Chinese reactions to U.S. . strategic posture. is not quite as relaxed about the nuclear situation. 00. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www. deterrence remains necessary in its current guise (with forward-deployed assets) if at all.S. But there are nuclear shadows. engagement in WMD confrontations. even if it is also destabilizing in other ways to the European security environment (as suggested above). November 2000. and the radical reduction of U.doc] NATO’s European members appear to be generally “relaxed” about nuclear matters today.

These are smaller bombs to blow up bridges or fit in artillery shells. On the most obvious level. agree on one thing. With Wahabbi infiltration among Russia's Muslims.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 75 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Nuclear Terrorism Impacts A collapse of Russia federalism results in nuclear terrorism Hahn. A small number of militants can cause great havoc. some of whom have served in senior government posts. and future of the Russian federal state. Nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat to American national security. 03. the fate of Russian federalism touches on the political stability and integrity of a nuclear power. Kazakhstan and Ukraine. a resident of Tatarstan was detained carrying two kilograms of uranium in the upper Volga republic of Udmurtia. the threat of Islamic terrorism. the Transcaucasus. before any hard data is in. I posed a question to a wide range of experts on nuclear terrorism. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://findarticles.ransac. I said. Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www. and Central Asian states. But presidents and would-be presidents. chemical. In mid-June. Mercury News. and biological weapons and materials are far from fully secure.5 to 5 million illegal immigrants. educational. and the proliferation of weapons and other means of mass destruction. Russia's own borders are extremely porous. “The past. 9/12/2004. that terrorists set off a nuclear weapon in some Western city. There have been several attempts to penetrate such sites and seize weapons or materials. It is well known that Russian sites holding nuclear. Russia is less stable and provides more fertile ground for the support of Islamic terror. potentially killing hundreds of thousands of people. Thus. there is no consensus on whether we are safer.” Others making most lists included North Korea and former Soviet republics such as Belarus. “Our biggest threat: nuclear terrorism. Summer 2003.html#2] Three years after 9/11. Russia's vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and its scattered stores of bomb-quality uranium and plutonium are vulnerable to theft and terrorist assault. Given that In April 2002 a team of journalists made their way into a high-security zone near a nuclear material warehouse to highlight lax security. what are the most likely sources for the weapon. and cultural ties to Chechnya. visiting research scholar with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. [Gordon. p. these republics are subject to infiltration by and lending support to revolutionary Islamists from Muslim and Arab states. Russia is vulnerable to illegal as well as legal infiltration of Islamists from abroad.S.Russia and Pakistan. present. along with a raft of experts. .a detonation could kills hundreds of thousands Sneider. 04.” ransac. Several years ago. Chechens claimed responsibility for leaving a small quantity of nuclear-grade uranium in several Moscow parks. Imagine. and the pressure that federative reforms are putting on federal-regional and Russian-Muslim relations.-led war against terror. Two years ago I investigated Russia's arsenal of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. many of them portable enough to fit in the trunk of a compact car. But it also impinges on issues such as the successful integration of a stable. The president immediately convenes a national security council meeting and asks. 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. They would smuggle the weapon into a city and explode it. Two suspects topped all lists -. [Daniel. and democratic Russia into Western and other international economic and security structures.1-19. The greatest danger is that Islamic terrorists will steal or acquire a nuclear warhead or the highly enriched uranium to construct a crude device. The titular Muslim republics border on and/or maintain close business. Putin's support for the U.col1] Growing tension in Russian-Muslim relations and the federation's weakness or collapse would have grave international security implications.

would. who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -. Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator. to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as Some will object that this to have an influence on other issues. suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Soviet Ambassador. denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 76 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Nationalism Impacts Instability causes Russian nationalism Kupchan." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. 1. such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties. vol. pg. Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons. and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty. 21. "Everyone must know that in case of a direct challenge our response will be fully fledged. according to In this scenario. L/N] The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. for example. That would argue that even if Medvedev's instincts might be more liberal. 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.and uncontrollable. 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. said. the new government takes office. Senior Fellow for Europe Studies. Thus. And so his natural instincts may be toward a domestic policy and it's clear that there will be some jockeying for position once a foreign policy that loses the sharp edges of Putin's rule. including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. when democratizing states go through periods of political instability. There will be factional infighting in the Kremlin as Putin insiders are threatened by those people that Medvedev brings in." n13 Later.such as Victor Antipov. Winter. Earlier this year. arms control negotiator." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky. scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. diplomat. and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. 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." n12 There are signs indicating that this scenario is emerging.are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia. whereas others. countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. On the one hand. Russia's military planners would shift Western proponents. while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war. he will have a hard time bringing them to bear on Russian foreign policy given the political landscape inside Russia. therefore." radically change domestic and foreign policies. secretary of Russia's Security Council. until we all fall down together.Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force. Putin and Medvedev have to figure out their relationship. Ivan Rybkin. despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -.and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. he is someone who doesn't bring to the office a background as a KGB officer in the security services. Many would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy. No. reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. and Albert Makashov. In this context. he said that parliamentary ratification of START II has become "almost impossible. Baburin. This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -. in the name of a "united and undivided Russia. Nationalism causes nuke war Israelyan.html?breadcrumb=%2F In terms of where Medvedev will take Russian foreign policy. it will for a long time be able to stumble on. who wrote. in an interview.and indeed. I am not so sure. Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons. realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO. a trend that is underway already. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully. and we are to choose the use of means. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal. I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's would- be authors from attempting it. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS countries. Sergei Baburin. and to try to bring back a level of liberalism to Russian politics that disappeared under Putin.cfr. On the other hand. http://www. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated. "It may be. And in general. Of those means. and leading political scientist. Kupchan: Recognizing Kosovo Least Bad Option for United States. there are two alternative ways to see things. CFR. and he has spoken over the last several months about his desire to strengthen rule of law. but then again. 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. Some Duma members -. Russia at the crossroads: don't tease a wounded bear. as well as medium. 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. Vladimir Zhirinovsky. 3/10 Charles. Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses. '98 [Washington Quarterly. Some of these measures will demand substantial tensions -. exhausted. Supporters of this option would. save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. including economic sanctions and political ultimatums. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven. The new military doctrine has actually reversed the pledge never to use nuclear weapons first. He has a business background and a law background." n14 The Duma has again postponed the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. .

” Foreign Affairs Vol. Jan/Feb 1999. [Stephen R. 78. “Nuclear Multipolarity and Stability. Politically.does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. environmental destruction. 99. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. . 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. November 2000. [Brad. 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.] Should Russia succumb to internal war.. particularly attacks on nuclear plants. and creates the possibility of a tyrannical Russian regime David. “Saving America From the Coming Civil Wars. the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. Damage from the fighting. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. China’s rise is threatening to Russia’s stature in Eurasia and globally. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism. Russia and China are working together to counteract US hegemony in the squo but Russian devolution disrupts this partnership Roberts.S. Their cooperation particularly intensified in the wake of NATO’s campaign in Kosovo.doc] Russia similarly values partnership with China as a counterweight to U.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 Accessed 7/16/08 from http://www. would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. influence. the consequences would be even worse.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 77 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia-China Impacts Russia civil war would provoke an attack by China. They are neighbors with a growing appreciation of some common interests and who act in parallel when it serves their interests. a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. 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. the two are neither adversaries nor allies.and freedom to attack” (as elaborated in the U.” Institute for Defense Analyses Document D-2539. United States Department of Defense. Issue 1 npg. Within Russia. 00. But it too is ambivalent. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Their primary common interest is in mutually reinforcing their efforts to react to the preeminent role of the United States. Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. They find Washington’s commitment to gain “freedom from attack. spillover fighting. Institute for Defense Analyses. A major power like Russia -.globalsecurity..S..even though in decline -.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 78
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA

***Aff Answers***

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 80
Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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,, 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.

Southern California Edison. Wind turbines sprouted on California's windiest hillsides.S. which is about 10 miles east of Barstow. In 1986. ARCO Solar built a 1 MW PV power plant with modules on over 108 double-axis trackers in Hesperia. The heated transfer fluid is used to produce steam. the Sacramento Municipal Utility District dedicated a 1. A black-colored ARCO Solar was the first company to produce more than 1 megawatt (MW) of PV modules in one year. All told. They are still producing power today. which powers a conventional turbine to generate electricity. It was located in Daggett. The federal tax credits. the world's largest solar thermal electricity facility began to be built in California's Mojave Desert. or heliostats. more than 300 megawatts of solar thermal electricity were built before the company had financial difficulties and was sold. The 120-acre unmanned facility supplied the Pacific Gas and Electric Company utility grid with enough power for about 2. Solar space and water heating carried a 40% tax credit. Utilities must further provide customers who choose to self-generate a reasonably priced back-up supply of electricity. while weatherization. spurred the creation of new utility-scale solar and wind electricity systems. insulation. A total of 1818 mirrors. and similar conservation activities carried a 15% tax credit. ARCO Solar dedicated a 6 megawatt PV facility in central California in the Carrissa Plain. Congress passed the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act or PURPA. Solar One was designed by the Department of Energy (DOE). In 1979. which turned turbines and generators. power plant. That was later expanded to two megawatts. In 1984.the Arab Oil Embargo and the taking of U. It was completed in 1981 and produced power from 1982 to 1986. ARCO Solar began construction of the world's largest PV manufacturing facility in Camarillo.000 was given for devices installed on people's homes on or after April 20. http://www.500 homes. The heated oil was then used to boil water. However. transferred the heat to an oil heat-transfer fluid.html) 1970s & 1980s In 1978. Four years later. Solar One produced 10 MW of electricity. Among other things. 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. California. It established the right for independent power producers to interconnect with the local utility distribution system. would track the sun across the sky and reflect the sun's light to the top of a large tower. however.0 MW photovoltaic power plant to operate near the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant south of Sacramento. such as a residential rooftop PV system. Solar One began the first test of a large-scale thermal solar tower. 20 years later! . however. 1977 and before January 1. and companies began investing in solar technologies. 2006 (Go Solar California. 1986. this federal legislation required utilities to buy electric power from private "qualifying facilities. 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. these protocols did not help the growth of small systems. Solar One's method of collecting power was based on concentrating the sun's energy to produce heat and run a generator. This avoided cost rate is equivalent to what it would have otherwise cost the utility to generate or purchase that power themselves. 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 . California. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.gosolarcalifornia. A federal energy tax credit of up to $2. California. PURPA allowed large utility scale applications of PV and other solar electricity systems." at an avoided cost rate. hostages in Iran.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 81 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – Federal Control Now (1/2) Federal government has been regulating energy since the 1970s Go Solar California. on top of the tower. For small systems. and the California Energy Commission. The act encouraged homeowners to invest in energy conservation and solar and wind technologies through tax credits.

New York Law School Law Review. and state plans to meet such standards. Congress could easily have concluded that the MPA was unnecessary.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 82 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – Federal Control Now (2/2) Nonunique. p130-45." New York University Environmental Law Journal 14. Accessed 7/7/08 from ssrn. and hazardous waste sites are all problems that lack the features that would justify federal regulation. Congress trounces the balance of powers through issues like the Marriage Protection Act Morgan." Accessed 7-7-8) Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum offers a critical examination of the proposed Marriage Protection Act (MPA). "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms.101 Moreover. 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 same- sex marriages. as in the case of air pollution that may drift across jurisdictional lines.. states have been free to decline to recognize out-of-state marriages that are inconsistent with their own policies. 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. n96 She finds that DOMA. underground storage tanks. n97 Historically. n100 As it is currently drafted. Case Western University School of Law. and even if it also gives Congress the power to strip the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over those claims. 05. n98 Given the limited legal impact of DOMA. Current federal air quality regulations focus far more on whether a given metropolitan area meets national ambient air quality standards.The federal government already intervenes in local environmental problems Adler. the federal government’s involvement does not correspond with the federal government’s interest.100 Even where a federal role can be justified. 1 (2005). "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. associate professor. does little to change existing law. 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). Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. those provisions targeted at spillovers are infrequently invoked. no. Drinking water.] The federal government is intensely involved in myriad environmental problems that are truly local in character. yet federal requirements for such intrastate concerns are sometimes more stringent than mandates to prevent interstate harms. n95 Kroll-Rosenbaum first examines the two pieces of legislation in question. n101 Kroll-Rosenbaum then argues that the MPA is unconstitutional. [Jonathan. 06 (Denise C. bar all same-sex marriage- related claims from the federal courts. "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism. the legislation would not." n103 . which provides that no state shall be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state.

[Ronald. n13 Some state law claims provide remedies that track those available under CERCLA. n21 Far from resolving this confusion about CERCLA preemption.) . 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. commonly known as Superfund. Atlantic Research case proves Aronovsky.Environmental federalism is low now. 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.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 83 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – Environmental Federalism Low (1/2) Nonunique. Much is at stake. Accessed 7/15/08 from LexisNexis] But while Atlantic Research eliminated the uncertainty created by Aviall. 08. inconsistent decisions that varied based on how a particular court viewed the role of CERCLA in a federalist system. contribution. n19 limited to circumstances presenting a direct conflict between a state claim and a federal order n20 or federal statutory requirement. Moreover. n14 others permit different remedies that embrace alternative policy choices for cleaning up contaminated property. 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. Associate Professor of Law. 1980. 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. n25 (Comprehensive Environmental Response. 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.” New York University Environmental Law Journal New York University Environmental Law Journal. n18 On the other hand. Courts now must determine the extent to which the CERCLA cleanup cost remedies reinvigorated by Atlantic Research preempt state law tort. was enacted by Congress on December 11. and Liability Act (CERCLA). Compensation. and statutory cleanup cost claims potentially applicable to contaminated property litigation. 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. “A PREEMPTION PARADOX: PRESERVING THE ROLE OF STATE LAW IN PRIVATE CLEANUP COST DISPUTES. Southwestern Law School .US vs. it also created its own uncertainty about a significant environmental federalism question. Atlantic Research has exacerbated it. 2008. Simply put.

03. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco tells the tale. professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco.pdf] For many years. pB17. Most federal environmental laws mandate minimum federal standards. stricter environmental guidelines. Our auto-emissions standards are an example: They are so much stricter than those of the U." Bush came to office pledging greater flexibility for state governments in carrying out federal environmental 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" -. but allow states to adopt more stringent requirements. state efforts to ratchet up environmental protections were not what he had in mind. the federal government had not objected to California establishing its own. the automakers dropped their suit. (On Tuesday. [Clifford.S.progressiveregulation. What is remarkable. because the federal Clean Air Act expressly allows California to adopt emission controls stricter than federal limits. bringing a temporary respite in the battle and signaling that the industry would meet the so-called ZEV standard. arguing that the state was barred from adopting more protective standards because regulating fuel economy is a federal function. But the industry believed California’s standard would cut into profits and challenged it in court -.California lawsuit proves Rechtschaffen.S. from which one might expect a healthy respect for federalism. .not surprising. But the Bush administration. “Sidestepping Regulations On environment. But as the zero-emissions case demonstrates.) The issues in these cases reflect a larger battle over how much autonomy states have in regulating pollution within their borders. has shown no such deference. Accessed 7/15/08 from http://www. state laws are often harder on polluters than the federal government’s. a model known as "cooperative federalism. Environmental Protection Agency’s that auto manufacturers design their products with California’s standards in mind. however. In the 1990s. ” San Francisco Chronicle. Aug practical terms. Indeed. California’s environmental laws have been among the toughest in the nation. Until recently. California was on solid legal ground in adopting the standard. A recent case in the U. Bush ignores federalism. 2003. is that the Bush administration entered the case on the side of industry.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 84 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – Environmental Federalism Low (2/2) The Bush administration has already crushed environmental federalism. either electric cars or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.

for the first time in sixty years. n1 For only the second and third times in sixty years . and Clarence Thomas.the Court invalidated a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. the federalism revolution waned as the Court consistently ruled in favor of federal power. without a doubt they will say that its greatest changes in constitutional law were in the area of federalism. Hibbs n7 was a 6-3 decision. with both Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor in the majority. Stanford Law Review. Virtually all of the decisions protecting federalism were by a 5-4 margin. Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Accessed 7-7-8) When historians look back at the Rehnquist Court. n4 While the Court did not overrule or undercut its earlier decisions. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. the case was expressly overruled . . however." 4-06. Strikingly. Anthony Kennedy. In 1995.were 5-4 decisions with Justice O'Connor in the majority. n2 At the same time. with the majority comprised of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor. the Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause power. 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. the era of states' power embodied by the Rehnquist court is on the decline Chemerinsky. In the last few years of the Rehnquist Court.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 85 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – Court shifting toward FG power More federal power is emerging. 06 (Erwin. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University.and the first time. Lane n5 and Central Virginia Community College v. "Looking Backward. the pendulum did not swing any further in the direction of the federalism revolution. the Supreme Court has limited the scope of Congress's powers and has greatly expanded the protection of state sovereign immunity. Over the past decade. Katz n6 . some of its decisions in favor of federal power .such as Tennessee v. the Court has used federalism to enlarge the states' sovereign immunity in federal court for violations of federal statutes. Antonin Scalia.

Initially articulated by John Marshall. but that case was overruled nine years later. Accessed 7-7-8) Part I of the Article argues that. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. the conflict between the Court's Federalism Revolution and counter-Revolution cases. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms. the Court revived the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power by holding that Congress may not compel state legislative or regulatory activity. polarized shifts in the past 15 years prove Morgan. n10 From 1937 until the early 1990s. New York Law School Law Review. 06 (Erwin. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. I strongly suspect that none of the individual Justices has an answer either. 06 (Denise C. especially to protect the authority of state governments. 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. Third. 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." 4-06. Stanford Law Review. Stanford Law Review. the Court limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause and under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. This was manifest in three sets of doctrines. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. until its last few years. not once during this time was any law struck down for exceeding the scope of Congress's commerce power. the US shifts between two models of federalism.. "What on earth is going on?" I do not pretend to have an answer to that question . one limiting the federal government and the other empowering it Chemerinsky. a Federal Courts scholar could be forgiven for asking in exasperation. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. Historically. The alternative vision sees federalism as a means of limiting federal power. n28 Still. First. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. the Supreme Court has shifted between two models of federalism. the Court again has used federalism to limit federal powers. Second." 4-06. Part II argues that. Accessed 7-7-8) It is. the Rehnquist Court followed the latter vision of federalism as limits. of course. throughout 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. the Supreme Court has shifted between two models of federalism: (1) federalism as empowerment and (2) federalism as limits. 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. the Court shifted back to upholding federal power. "Looking Backward. "Looking Backward. 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. the Court shifted to a very different view of federalism.and indeed. and only once was a law found to violate the Tenth Amendment. and the doctrinal tension inherent in weakening affirmative Congressional powers while strengthening preemption jurisprudence. This was the vision of [*1765] federalism from the late nineteenth century until 1937. Federalism is cyclical." Accessed 7-7-8) Between the turnover of Supreme Court justices. n8 this was the vision of federalism during the nineteenth century and from 1937 until the 1990s.US history proves Chemerinsky. familiar to note that over the course of American history.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 86 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (1/3) Federalism is cyclical. n9 From the late nineteenth century through 1936. 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. n11 Since the early 1990s. 06 (Erwin. . For the first century of American history. The former seeks to empower government at all levels to deal with society's problems.

n53 for example. to ensure effective state government action. the conventional wisdom was that federalism in general . 06 (Erwin. Dagenhart. n58 created a statutory duty for states to provide for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes generated within their borders.and the rights of states in particular . Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. Justice Rehnquist. the 1985 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment reserves a zone of activities for exclusive state control. and most controversially. held that Congress could not regulate states in areas of "traditional" or "integral" state responsibility. in an opinion by then-Justice Rehnquist. n57 the Court . After 1937.for only the second time in fifty-five years and the first since the overruled National League of Cities decision . and requiring state compliance with federal regulatory statutes would impermissibly impose on states a requirement to implement federal legislation. by a 6-3 margin. rather. the Court appeared to revive federalism as a limit on Congressional powers in National League of Cities v. But just nine years later. United States. In the first third of the twentieth century. 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. because of the Tenth Amendment. however. the Court rejected this view. and then would "be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred. In Hammer v. in Garcia v. "Looking Backward. And indeed it did. Stanford Law Review. "the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." . n61 The Court concluded that it was "clear" that. Professor Laurence Tribe remarks that "for almost four decades after 1937. could regulate the disposal of radioactive wastes. However. pursuant to its authority under the Commerce Clause. Usery. In New York v. the Court struck down a federal law prohibiting child labor on the ground that it violated the Tenth Amendment. said that it was impermissible for Congress to impose either option on the states." n60 Justice O'Connor. it was just a reminder that Congress could not act unless there was express or implied constitutional authority.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 87 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (2/3) Interpretations of federalism are cyclical within overarching shifts between empowering and limiting Chemerinsky. The Court. [*1776] 1996. The federal law at issue. in a short dissent. the Rehnquist Court revived the Tenth Amendment as a constraint on Congress's authority." n54 In 1976. n56 the Court expressly overruled National League of Cities.invalidated a federal law as violating the Tenth Amendment. wrote that he believed that his view would again triumph on the Court. 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. n55 in which the Court invalidated a federal law that required state and local governments to pay their employees a minimum wage.provided no judicially-enforceable limits on congressional power. 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. Additionally. Forcing states to accept ownership of radioactive wastes would impermissibly "commandeer" state governments. Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. the law provided that states would "take title" to any wastes within their borders that were not properly disposed of by January 1. and the Tenth Amendment was no longer seen as a limit on federal power." n59 The Supreme Court ruled that Congress. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. writing for the Court." 4-06. In two decisions.

“OUT OF THE MOUTH OF STATES: DEFERENCE TO STATE ACTION FINDING EFFECT IN FEDERAL LAW. 2008. n70 the executive's attempting to become more prominent through reliance on the Vesting Clause. 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). n69 Other examples include the judiciary's asserting itself through judicial review. [David B. The "hydraulic" pressure inherent within each of these governmental units exerts influence on the others. Executive Articles Editor.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 88 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – It’s Cyclical (3/3) Federalism is extremely fluid Edwards. Originally the clause was fairly circumscribed. or branch of government are almost never static. with very rare exception. become a nearly unlimited congressional power. but has now. 08. n67 The history of the Interstate Commerce Clause n68 gives the most concrete example of this pressure. New York University Annual Survey of American Law. n72 and the states' claiming their stake through the police power. Accessed 7/15/08 from LexisNexis] The particular powers of a segment. . n71 Congress's utilization of the Necessary [*441] and Proper Clause to increase its reach.. level.” New York University Annual Survey of American Law. n66 Consequently. powers arguably not originally intended to be exercised by their new masters bleed over time from one unit to the other.

Between 1980 and 1996. whether governors and states provide separate. It does not ask for advice or enter into serious negotiation with the states. which saw passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995. the nation faces many challenges.. there was “cooperative” federalism. Coercion Federalism scholars often point to two recent periods in which federalism was defined very differently. 08 (Raymond C. 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. will cost states more than $4 billion to implement and is being opposed by a significant number of state legislatures.” where the federal government more often just tells the states what to do. Although this dialogue did not lead to any major legislative changes. Looking forward.stateline.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 89 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Federalism NUQ – Coercive Federalism Now The US has practiced coercive federalism since the mid-90's. The best example is the Real ID legislation. 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. From the mid-1990s through the present. but it also gave states substantial authority to tailor the program to the needs of their citizens. http://www. which in essence requires states to convert their driver’s licenses into de facto national ID cards. This law. Welfare reform not only turned an individual entitlement program into a block grant. Both the Republicans in Congress and the Democratic president worked cooperatively with governors to enact these two bills. 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. Executive Director of the National Governors Association. states' input is considered irrelevant Scheppach. However. independent leadership or leadership within a stronger federal-state partnership will depend on which brand of federalism the next administration and Congress adopt. . the federal-state relationship has been under stress. both sides embraced a real federal-state partnership. Yet for more than a decade. Despite the fact that they will bear the brunt of the costs. and states can play a key role in providing leadership. Cooperation vs. enacted in 2005. Stateline. and welfare reform in Are you happy with the status quo in federal- state relations? States have long served as laboratories for creating and testing policies and programs that drive positive change nationally. an era ushered in by the Reagan administration and marked by a genuine partnership between states and the federal government. Cooperative federalism continued through the early years of the Clinton administration. "Will the 2008 election improve state-federal relations?" 7-9-8. we have been in a period of “coercive federalism.

Writer for Environmental Law. Collin." Politically. Even if environmental regulations were not reduced. accessed July 7. (Robert. There is a danger in the race to the bottom to compete between states jeopardizing the environment in the long run. Environmental Justice in Oregon: It’s the Law.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 90 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA SQ Environmental Federalism = Race to the Bottom There are tensions between states and federal government. Spring. 2008) There is still major tension between states and the federal environmental agencies over regulatory standards. 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. Some fear that letting states control environmental policy will result in a "race to the bottom. . 2008. 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.

ensuring political accountability. "although the five views were distinct. at least. specific. His article asks: Whether." n31 In sharp contrast to the work of Federal Courts scholars who propound [*624] clear cut prescriptive theories of federalism. My colleague. promoting democratic participation. and always will be a contested issue. remains. and complete to direct those who construe them to "correct" decisions or. multiple definitions exist and interpretations shift with the ruler power Morgan. and to identify useful and intelligible lines that could be drawn between federal and state authority.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 91 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA No Link – Federalism is Flexible (1/2) American Federalism is protean. our understanding of the nature of federalism as a structure of government. they were also frequently intermixed in the minds of the founders. and to what extent. easily detectable. Some kind of functional analysis seemed necessary to justify the existence of the states as independent governing units. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms.are similarly unhelpful in identifying clear lines between state and federal authority. sufficiently clear. n36 Indeed." n35 Professor Purcell contends that discussions of the values of federalism . conflict. were driven by an anxious sense that many "traditional" lines ostensibly separating national and state power were no longer sound. but more fundamentally." 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." Accessed 7-7-8) The first four pieces in this volume. and our ideas about the nature and meaning of the Constitution itself. our ideas about the values of federalism. it is possible for "federalism" to serve as a meaningful and independent norm in the nation's constitutional enterprise. or. which began to proliferate in the late twentieth century. He finds that even the founding generations had at least five conflicting ideas about the appropriate role of the Supreme Court and judicial review. and change. federalism as a directive constitutional norm . In other words. it "reveals disagreement. to assure Americans that those state governments actually produced public benefits. ask some version of the Federal Courts scholar's distressed query." 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."usually described as including protecting liberty. New York Law School Law Review.. Purcell. encouraging diversity and innovation. 06 (Denise C. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. are the provisions of the Constitution that establish the federal structure." n30 Indeed. Moreover. in part because "some of our most basic conceptions and assumptions about the federal system have changed substantially over the years. he asserts [*625] that those conversations. which were presented at the Federal Courts section panel at the 2005 AALS convention.[is] deeply problematic. n37 . he contends that federalism has been. uncertainty. when it comes to American federalism. always wondering. and protecting local values and interests" . Jr. are we condemned to muddle through.. Professor Edward A. n32 Professor Purcell concludes that "the idea of 'constitutional federalism' . 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. "What on earth is going on?" Professor Purcell's interrogation provides some lessons and yields some insights into the "true" nature of American federalism.that is. or even operationally plausible. opens the volume by putting that question into a broader historical and theoretical context.

He points out that the founding generation did not have much of a choice about adopting a federalist structure . have emerged over time "from the processes of social change and reflected the ideas. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 92 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA No Link – Federalism is Flexible (2/2) Preferred definitions and applications of federalism evolve with cultural and social standards over time Morgan. like dual federalism. . 06 (Denise C. values. no one theory can claim greater constitutional legitimacy than any other. federalism was "a working compromise necessary to allow [them] to forge a new and more 'energetic' central government. cooperative federalism. New York Law School Law Review. and challenges of new generations confronting new historical contexts and new political alignments." n38 Professor Purcell contends that different theories of federalism." 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." n39 As such. Professor Purcell next argues that the national conception of federalism as a structure of government has evolved over time. and competitive federalism. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms..given the political reality of the states.

far from being an either-or proposition.nyu. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www. February 1st 2006 p1-53. Professor of Environmental Policy. interact in complex and varied patterns and combinations. Climate change is truly a global policy issue that implicates almost every person and government on the planet. whether via superjurisdictional or merely extrajurisdictional regulation. Professor of Environmental Policy.”NYU Environmental Law Journal. For both scholars and practitioners. and also for those seeking to influence U. these same collective action problems have likewise thwarted a national consensus on the proper extent and methods of regulation. “STATE COMPETITION AS A SOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION. Thus. University of Michigan. climate change initiatives can succeed at the state level in the absence of superjurisdictional regulation. . [Barry.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 93 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA No Link – Federal/State power are not Zero-Sum No tradeoff between state and federal regulation of global warming Rabe. via mechanisms ranging from the political process to the legal process. But in each case where state regulation has occurred. 06. and acting based on these predictions. Most importantly. In the U. Accessed 7/7/08 http://www. and dobelis. 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. or from state to state. policy. it is also subject to brutal collective action problems that thwart simple solutions at the subnational level. This has not stopped states from considering and taking action on this policy issue.S. Despite the interstate externalities that are inherent in climate change The inter-state competition framework developed here should be useful in this study. dobelis. dynamics such as those observed above may form helpful guideposts. “STATE COMPETITION AS A SOURCE DRIVING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION. from the state to the federal level. leaving a policy hole at the federal level. Volume 14.137 Those studying environmental law and policy today must contemplate a fluid system of relationships. State and federal regulation. Volume 14.”NYU Environmental Law Journal. [Barry. in which influence can pass from the federal to the state level. 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.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. Federal regulation provides the backdrop for state competition.nyu. February 1st 2006 p1-53. the promise or threat of action outside of the jurisdiction.S. for example..pdf] The examples outlined above show a dynamic relationship between state and federal (or generally. University of Michigan. it has not stopped states from predicting future federal or international regulation. 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. environmental law and policy. has been a factor. as states base their policy decisions in part on the parameters and rules by which they must abide. superjurisdictional) law.

Case Western University School of Law.incentives like the plan actually encourage more state regulation Adler. or to the policymakers responsible for adopting the relevant policies . those interest groups demanding state regulatory activity. Just as the federal action may encourage or discourage state regulatory action directly.”Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies Working Paper. May 2006 p. [Jonathan. 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. “WHEN IS TWO A CROWD? The Impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation. encourage or discourage state regulatory action. federal action may indirectly. Federal policies will facilitate greater state regulation where such actions reduce the costs of state implementation. 1-65 Accessed 7/6/08 from ssrn. 06. associate professor.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 94 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Turn – Incentives increase State innovation Turn. 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] Federal policies that directly influence state regulatory decisions are only half of the picture. or even incidentally.

Professor of Law. the state schemes may violate provisions of the U. discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. Professor of Law. The Court has granted exceptions where the state employs the measure for a purpose unrelated to economic protectionism. Constitution. AND STATES’ RIGHTS. .399 While the Commerce Clause grants affirmative powers to Congress to regulate in a variety of areas. The Court consistently strikes down state rules that expressly discriminate against interstate commerce. however. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. . the statute is virtually per se invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause. the so-called “dormant Commerce Clause” also is interpreted as a limitation on the power of states to regulate in particular areas. .” Banning or restricting the importation of electricity by the states is a violation of the constitution Ferrey.425 From Supreme Court jurisprudence. “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY.S. 2004. .426 Invalidation is not automatic. among the several States. Also. Suffolk University Law School. Suffolk University Law School. what is often overlooked is whether these plans pass legal requirements. [John. . The next two Parts analyze commerce clause and federal preemption issues.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 95 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Turn – State control over electricity strips Federal power State regulation of electricity production violates the constitution and oversteps states’ rights Ferrey. [t]o regulate Commerce . Commerce Clause Requirements The specific mechanism for structuring any state renewable subsidies must not run afoul of Constitutional requirements.” NYU Environmental Law Journal. [] As eighteen states deregulate their power sectors and implement these various renewable trust funds and portfolio standards.”401 Although the Commerce Clause is an affirmative grant of power. 2004.397 The generation and transmission of electric energy is an activity particularly likely to affect more than one state. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn. The regulation of utilities is a traditional function of local police power in the states. A.424 The Supreme Court prohibits a state statute banning the importation of out-of-state goods as violating the Commerce Clause. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. AND STATES’ RIGHTS. Accessed 7/12/08 from ssrn.398 Under the Federal Power Act of 1935. 04. the federal government exercises regulatory power over the wholesale power market.” NYU Environmental Law Journal. 04. “SUSTAINABLE ENERGY. . The Commerce Clause provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power . the Supreme Court has also interpreted it as limiting the States’ ability to “unjustifiably . Deregulation measures may overstep state powers and discretion. 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] The most common source of potential Commerce Clause violations is direct state regulation of aspects of commerce. where a regulation is facially discriminatory by protecting in-state entities at the expense of out-of-state entities.4 . Similarly.”400 In creating this power. while the states are left alone to regulate most retail transactions. all-out bans against the importation of certain goods may handicap out-of-state competitors.

n44 But.and that we will have to look elsewhere for the clarity that we seek. n50 The Court. Courts empirically rule unpredictably between supporting federal versus states' rights Morgan. looms the embarrassing fact that. n52 attempting to discern whether the core activity at issue was a traditional and appropriate area of federal or state regulation. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. n45 The Guillen area traditionally regulated by the federal government . 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. Moreover." the Court has yet to attempt to more strictly police that power." n41 Seemingly resigned to the "incomplete. Guillen as a Case Study. is driven by a (sometimes) unstated inquiry into whether the federal statute would regulate an area 'where States historically have been sovereign.. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. it upheld the statute under the Commerce Clause. n43 The Spending Clause gives Congress its most substantial powers to impinge upon state autonomy. n57 . precedents. Originalism was the natural tool of those who sought justifications for overthrowing existing doctrines. Usery n56 that the Court subsequently declared unworkable in Garcia v. 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. "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. Professor Purcell contends that "beyond those analytic problems . like their spending power jurisprudence. originalist theories were used primarily as purposeful instruments of constitutional change and doctrinal innovation. n51 Professor Baker attributes the Guillen decision to the fact that the Justices employed categorical federalism.' or whether it instead involves a traditional and appropriate federal function." n48 Indeed. Dole gives Congress considerable leeway in conditioning federal spending on state compliance with federal regulations. New York Law School Law Review." n54 Since the Court viewed the Guillen statute as [*628] regulating highway safety .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 96 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. however.. n53 Indeed. it seemed to her a slam dunk that the Court would use the opportunity presented by the Guillen case to further trim Congressional authority.. as a practical political matter. 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. offered the Court an opportunity to bring its Spending Clause jurisprudence more in line with its Commerce Clause and Section 5 case law. New York Law School Law Review. 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. and ambivalent nature of American constitutional federalism" and the inevitability of historical change.and not state court rules of evidence.. As Professor Baker points out. Guillen n42 as a jumping-off point in her attempt to make sense of the Court's recent Spending Clause jurisprudence. and practices. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006. unanimously upheld the federal statute under the Commerce Clause and chose not to reach the Spending Clause issue. she contends that "the recent Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the States' Rights Five. uses the Supreme Court's decision in Pierce County v. ambiguous. n55 In closing. 06 (Denise C. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms. The Future of Federalism?: Pierce County v. 06 (Denise C. "A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms. and South Dakota v. Professor Purcell concludes that federalism will continue to be contested ." Accessed 7-7-8) This section critiques originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation on methodological and pragmatic grounds. 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. n49 Given the Federalism Revolution." Accessed 7-7-8) Professor Lynn Baker's piece.

"A Tale of (At Least) Two Federalisms. the echoes of the Federalism Revolution (more than the echoes of the counter-Revolution) will continue to reverberate in the lower federal courts. with the Rehnquist Court. n19 it is the lower federal courts that most often have the last word on the scope of Congress's powers. That was not the case. New York Law School Law Review.000 cases that were terminated on the merits by twelve circuit courts and the more than 26. however. courts' increase in power has denied the rights of individuals Morgan.creating an anti- regulatory void. n26 The result has been the inhibition of private litigation aimed at promoting the accountability of government and business. Professor at New York Law School from 1995-2006..Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 97 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Protecting States’ Rights reduces Individual Rights Despite call for states' rights. n24 and evincing little concern for states' ability to regulate their traditional areas of concern. the unsettled state of the Court's preemption doctrine only adds more confusion to the already muddy picture of Revolution and counter-Revolution. 06 (Denise C. n27 . Given that Republican Presidents committed to shrinking the federal government appointed the majority of the judges in ten of the thirteen circuits. and with the Supreme Court accepting certiorari on and deciding only about 80 of the more than 27." Accessed 7-7-8) With federalism jurisprudence in such an unsettled state. n22 narrowly reading savings clauses in preemption provisions. One might expect a Court concerned about states' rights to be particularly attentive to minimizing the [*621] preemptive effects of federal statutes. while cutting back the states' powers to protect individual rights in the interest of respecting Congress's proper sphere of operation . Finally. n23 showing increased concern that the response of businesses to the risk of liability under state common law actions would affect federal regulatory schemes. n20 it is likely that as long as those judges continue to dominate the federal bench. n25 The combination of those [*622] cases and the Federalism Revolution curtailed Congress's powers to protect individual rights in the name of federalism. that Court strengthened preemption doctrine by encouraging strict textual (as opposed to contextual) determination of Congressional intent.000 cases decided by the highest courts of the states in recent years. n21 Indeed.

and it outweighs in importance government accountability as a constitutional principle. All are reasonable. as sometimes national action is needed to deal with externalities. . Looking Forward: The Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor. The desire to protect the authority of state governments does not require a narrow preemption doctrine. Others are based on value judgments that are not justified. 3. Constructing a meaningful theory of federalism must be based on these values and not on unsupported assumptions. 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 . Two values should be key: advancing liberty and enhancing effective government. as sometimes it is more efficient to have action at the national level and sometimes at the local.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 98 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Tyranny does not outweigh Preventing tyranny and preserving states as laboratories are ineffective values when determining the issues regarding federalism Chemerinsky. Congressional expansion of rights is not "enforcement" of rights within the meaning of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. the political process. as sometimes national action better engages involvement and other times localism does so. participation. the prior era of Supreme Court decision-making largely rested on the opposite assumptions. The social desirability of federal legislation does not matter in evaluating whether laws violate principles of federalism. There is a meaningful and desirable distinction between economic and noneconomic activities in terms of Congress's authority to regulate commerce among the states. In particular. Some are based on definitions. In fact. Stanford Law Review. It is for the judiciary to impose limits on Congress in the name of protecting federalism and the authority of state governments. but the opposite assumptions are equally reasonable. one that reasons from the underlying goals of federalism.are not useful and have nothing to [*1766] do with the actual decisions. Accessed 7-7-8) Part III argues that the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions rest on a series of unsupported assumptions. which is sometimes a benefit of decentralization. Part IV argues that getting past these assumptions requires a different approach to federalism. "Looking Backward. community empowerment. Sovereign immunity is a constitutional principle beyond the scope of the Eleventh Amendment. but rather to point to what its foundation must be. 5. Moreover. and economic gains. 2. 4." 4-06. Other values include: efficiency. 7. My goal in this Article is not to construct such a theory. Some are empirical in nature. 06 (Erwin. These assumptions have many striking characteristics. yet they lack an empirical foundation. Federal laws that compel state and local governments to comply with federal mandates undermine accountability by confusing voters as to whom to hold responsible. none of these assumptions provides a sound basis upon which to rest federalism decisions. with minimal judicial review. Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University. is not adequate for this purpose. I identify seven assumptions: 1. 6.

Its too Early to Shift to Federal Govt.uiuc.S.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 99 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA No one is modeling US Federalism Geographical reasons forbid countries from turning to Federalism.Ramos. he said.S." symmetrical federalism.” Journal of Democracy Vol. For the reasons spelled out in this article.pdf] Finally. very few. “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U. 2008 (Fel. Germany. many of the new federations that could emerge from the currently nondemocratic parts of the world would probably be territorially based. Staff Writer. Maragay. I doubt it very much. Manila Standard. model of "coming-together. multilingual. accessed July 10. and multinational. 19-34. 4 (1999) pp." "demos-constraining. Australia and India. No US modeling now Stepan. The federal system can come in time.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. 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. Model. the former president told Standard Today. 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. But before 2010. Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University. 99. which all have a federal system. if any. Accessed 7/8/08 from https://netfiles. [ such polities would attempt to consolidate democracy using the U. .. No. 10.

The discussions resulted in a comprehensive document that was submitted to the Constitutional Review Commission recommending. Africa News. 1962. accessed July 8.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 100 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA US model is not key Alternate causality. among others. New Vision. Canada. Africa News. Australia. Thus. Uganda: Federo War Goes International. Lugemwa. among others. 1962. 2008 (May 18. This is what was done in 1962 when the British government granted independence to Buganda on October 8. a federal model of governance that was agreed on as the most suitable for Uganda. We studied and discussed federal models operating in different parts of the world. The London Federalism Conference is intended to consolidate and move the conversation on to realizing the Federal Project in Uganda. Uganda: Intercultural Dialogue Can Iron Out Our Fears. other countries look to multiple sources for federal models. The Monitor. Singapore. We are working to a target that by 2016 Uganda will be a federal state. 2008. Likewise. This means that if we are to introduce the American model of federalism in Uganda. however. All states which have followed the American model have been previously autonomous starting with the five Australian colonies which formed the Australian union. for example. Belgium and Switzerland. 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. 2008) In constitutional language. The same formula was followed in the federal unions of Germany. before Buganda as a federal state pursuant to its 1961 agreement with the British formed a union with independent Uganda on October 9. accessed July 8. South Africa. India and South Africa which formed those countries' federal statehood had been autonomous. (May 14. the provinces of Canada. parliament will first have to grant autonomy to the regions which want it before those regions as autonomous units formed a union with Uganda. Switzerland and Brazil. 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. Ethiopia. United States of America. Sarawaka and Sabah although Singapore left two years later. States that base their model off the United States have to start off as autonomus. . Secretary of Uganda Federal Project.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. including Germany. emphasis is not on ordinary definitions but on models and formulations.

the USSR. Federalism will not work in diverse societies such as Nepal. The greatest risk is that federal arrangements can offer opportunities for ethnic nationalists to mobilize their resources. six were unitary and three were federal. Center for Development Research. National Territorialisation. (Jan 13." he added. human rights activists. or democratic theorists. while the three federal states--Yugoslavia. accessed July 8. 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. Once political thinking in terms of the nationstate had attained global primacy. and Czechoslovakia--are now 22 independent states. 10. etc. 05. Germany. Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University. British envoy denies saying federalism will fail in Nepal. 10:50–75. political analysts. there is a greater need than ever to reconsider the potential risks and benefits of federalism.S. Ethnic elites excluded from access to state power competed with national elites by stressing ethnic counter-ideologies reflecting their own perceptions of ethnoscapes.” Geopolitics. University of Bonn. for instance. These ethnoscapes were not in conformity with national territory. 99. 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. 19-34. 4 (1999) pp. “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U. [Alfred.24 On the other hand. On the one hand. 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.uiuc. and the Afghan War. Most of postcommunist Europe's ethnocracies and ethnic bloodshed have occurred within these postfederal states. Accessed 7/9/08 http://web. The six unitary states are now five states (East Germany has reunited with the Federal Republic).Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 101 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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.I certainly have no wish to impose any views of my own on that debate. 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’. since they usually pointed to current or past patterns of settlement and migration or to the territorialisation of ethnic symbols such as battlefields. . Model.ebscohost.” Journal of Democracy Vol. multi-ethnic society where resources are unequally distributed between different regions. 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. No.ethnic conflict Stepan. [“Ethnoscapes. whether as policy makers.pdf] For those of us interested in the spread and consolidation of democracy. 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. "I urge you to promote understanding and discussion of the issues . places of pilgrimage. Of the nine states that once made up communist Europe. Kathmandu. 2005. the establishment of nation-states and the politics of territorial homogenisation were often enough accompanied by the emergence of political counter-movements. d1ecbb16c7af%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. Accessed 7/8/08 from https://netfiles.25 Empirically. 2008. the use of the federal model in emerging democracies is bad.

The federalism plan would create a Shiite region in southern Iraq much like the autonomous zone in the north controlled by the Kurds. But this was after the Civil War. Washington Post. 2008) The speaker of the Iraqi parliament said Tuesday that a controversial plan to partition the country into three autonomous regions is politically dead.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 102 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen 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. Federalism Plan is Dead. Washington Post Staff. 2006. Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said in an interview that legislation to implement a concept known as federalism." said Mashhadani. Says Iraqi Speaker Sunni Legislators Others Had Balked. it will lead to the secession of the south and the establishment of an Islamist extremist state in the center of the country. Sept 13." Iraqi’s boycott parliament because of federalist intentions. Mashhadani said the country is not prepared for federalism because its government is not strong enough to provide security and services. accessed July 7. Washington Post Staff. Section A pg 11. and because of troubled relationships with some neighboring countries. 2008) Support for the plan began to erode after a vast array of Sunni. an outspoken Sunni Arab who is the third-ranking official in the government. in which they hoped to kill the concept. 2006 (Amit and KI. Paley and Ibrahim. Mashhadani said Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. "The United States is a federated system and it is leading the world. "It is not possible to venture or to start the application of federalism now. Sunnis have generally opposed the plan. Says Iraqi Speaker Sunni Legislators Others Had Balked. Federalism Plan is Dead. devoid of the oil reserves in the other regions. (Amit and KI. Sept 13. Shiite and secular groups boycotted parliament on Sunday to protest the plan. accessed July 7." Mashhadani said. "If federalism is to be applied now. had ordered Shiite politicians to back off from the plan in order to prevent bitter infighting. which threatened to collapse the country's fragile multi-sect government. "So must we go through a civil war in order to achieve federalism?" . would likely be postponed indefinitely after a meeting of political leaders on Wednesday. Washington Post. The constitution that Iraq adopted last fall allows for a form of federalism. the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq. Sunni parties supported the charter only reluctantly and joined the current government on condition of a resumption of federalism discussions. on grounds that it would leave them only with vast swaths of desert in the country's middle. Section A pg 11. Paley and Ibrahim.

a Kurdish engineer who moved back to Iraq from exile in the United Kingdom after the U. .S." said Iraqi Water Resources Minister Latif do you use two languages in one university and your methods of election. Canada also has much to teach Iraq about water management. Iraq still lacks a strong internal security system. accessed July 15. "We are going to learn how you did that . where he also discussed plans for academic and student exchanges in order to "engage Canada in the future development of Iraq.or at least a portion of it . multiculturalism and accommodation of languages. "Today." Rashid. "Canada is an important country.Canada's political system and social structure are models for Iraq as it re-builds into a democratic. universities. added Rashid. a leading Iraqi government minister said this week. Ordinary people are walking around until 12 o'clock at night in most parts of Iraq. and until it has fully developed its army and police forces the American-led multinational force .-led invasion five years needed. "Iraq can learn a lot and gain a lot from Canada and the Canadian experience of federalism. when it appeared that Iraq was headed toward civil war. 2008 (Chris. multicultural society. schools and hospitals and shops are operating normally." While there are still terrorist organizations. says Iraqi minister." Iraq has bought machinery from Canada as part of its effort to rebuild its water infrastructure. July 11 Canada is a role model. 2008) OTTAWA .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 103 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq won’t model US Federalism Iraqi leaders are basing their federal system of that of Canada’s Cobb. he says there's no comparison between now and even a year ago. Writer for Canwest News Service. All these are important to the process we are going through in Iraq. 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. power sharing.

Oil-rich regions in Nigeria have complained vociferously that they have incurred various economic and environmental costs in producing oil and. January 20. thus. with guerrilla groups even sabotaging oil pipelines to draw the attention of the national government. But there should be no federalism in the governorates if this leads to looting the wealth of these governorates.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 104 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Iraq Federalism Bad – Civil War A federalist structure in Iraq would cause conflict over oil. In response.2008) Continuing.twq. 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. There is consensus that if federalism is implemented. 04. The Kurds will become weak and will be exposed to pressure from neighbouring countries. or a mixture from all these sides. deserve a greater share of the oil revenue. also with abundant oil reserves. 7–21. I accept federalism for the governorates if it means decentralization in administering these governorates.Nigeria proves Brancati. We should not concentrate on the idea of federalism the way they want to establish it today. A turn to federalism by Iraq would lead to conflicts without an end. The conflict will not necessarily be a Sunni-Shi'i one. but this should be done gradually with the building of cadres and state institutions in these governorates. “Can Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” The Washington Quarterly 27:2 pp. all in it will be weak. There will be a conflict. security. The result will be more conflicts in this country and these will have no end. These demands have erupted into violence. the Nigerian government promised the oil-rich regions at least 13 percent more of the country’s oil revenue than the oil- poor regions. accessed July 10. The Shi'is and Sunnis will also be exposed to pressure by neighbouring and other countries. it should be federalism for the governorates and not regions. This will be unacceptable. We can then call this federalism or any other name like the united state. Iraqi Dialogue Front head comments on the US presence ties with Kurds. Shi'i-Shi'i. [Dawn. SPRING 2004. Accessed 7/8/08 http://www. They do not want federalism even if some of them do not publicly say so at present.pdf] The situation in Nigeria. there are no checks in Nigeria on how this revenue is spent. illustrates the potential problems the division of oil revenue could pose in a federal Iraq. It could be Sunni-Sunni. Unless this country is united and strong." 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. he says: "I believe that the people of Iraq in general do not accept federalism. Unfortunately. BBC Monitoring Middle East. So. 2008 (Salih and Elie. visiting scholar at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton University. Head of Iraqi National Dialogue Front. Countries will interfere and these regions will become weak. They will say it publicly some other time. Mutlaq intervied by Nakuzi." In response to another question on the federal system of government in the regions of The regions in Iraq will be a fertile soil for the foreign intelligence services of this and that country. Also I believe that most of the people present today in the bloc we are talking about do not believe in federalism. Kurdish-Kurdish. he says: "I consider this plan destructive." .

. Without that. Nor should it attempt to impose an outside solution on the Iraqis. be honest be realistic. 2006 (David. accessed July 15. humility in acknowledging the mistakes that have been made. 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. it will need to have Iraqi leadership prominent throughout. Cameron. This should not be a talking shop. 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. 2008) There is a great deal of discussion about the various models of federalism that might make sense for Iraq. any structure. To succeed. To achieve this. no matter how cleverly designed. Features Pg 23. Two lessons from Iraq. Dec 1. will fall apart. including Iraq's neighbours. That is why we have proposed the establishment of an international Contact Group for Iraq. bringing in members of the Security Council and others. The Times.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 105 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Imported Federalism Fails in Iraq Federal models will not solve until there is a determined model of government structure specifically for Iraq.

boosting Iran’s influence.S. analysts say the U. Gaza. 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. "Given the exceptionally tough tone of the president's latest remarks regarding Iran and Syria." . is set on a collision course whose impact will spill over to yet more instability and war. Feb 3. 7/16/08) James Dobbins.thestar.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 106 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Middle East Conflict Coming Now American action is fueling the potential middle eastern conflict Ward.. 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." says Robert Hunter. leaving them on the brink of civil war”. "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.S. "What we are lacking is an overall strategy for the Mideast as a whole. Amerd foes stalk streets of Iraq. http://www." he wrote in the International Herald Tribune.. “Domino effect worries analysts: Three hotspots could flare up at once. Dobbins concludes. The Middle East conflict and what's happening in Lebanon are not on their agenda. a RAND senior advisor and former U. 07 (Olivia. says that alarm bells are ringing for a confrontation between Iran and the U. "(Officials) are ignoring the connections.-Iranian confrontation could escalate in the coming months from harsh rhetoric and economic sanctions to military action. while engaging in an increasingly catastrophic war in Iraq.S. ambassador to The Toronto Star. Lebanon. Staff Writer. the military moves he has just directed at them. Ramallah and Gaza City. a RAND Corporation analyst and former diplomat under Bush's and president Bill Clinton's administrations." By challenging and confronting Iran and Syria. there is growing danger that the current U.S.

pdf] Federalism just might be the most suitable arrangement for Afghanistan.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 107 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Federalism Fails Western models of federalism would fail in Afghanistan Tremblay. Chair of the Department of political science at Concordia University. But federalism needs to take a particular shape in this country. October 2001. . federalism is directed to the issues of cultural representation and identity in a multicultural society. Accessed 7/15/08 from http://www. focusing on centralization and decentralization. npg. 01.” Federations. The Western discourse on federalism has been traditionally formulated within the framework of center-state relations. [Reeta Chowdahari. It will not do simply to emulate the traditions and conventions of Western federal systems. “A federal arrangement for Afghanistan. As a territorial federalism addresses the fragile equilibrium to be maintained between indestructible union and indestructible units. In the case of Afghanistan. As a non-territorial project. we need to make a departure and view federalism as both a territorial and non- territorial project.

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. 02 [G. 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. both Islamic and secular. However. Rauf . “Pros and Cons of Federalism in Afghanistan.tns.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 108 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Federalism Bad – Ethnic Cleansing (1/2) Federalism in Afghanistan would cause massive instability. accessed 7/15/08 from users.tns. if they accept and safeguard the neutrality of a democratic state in Afghanistan. instead. the ground realities suggest that dividing Afghanistan based on ethnic and linguistic criteria is not possible." 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. terrorism. Rauf ." he writes. 2002. accessed 7/15/08 from users." He further refers to the fact that: "Though ethnically diverse. It may be more realistic. 02 [G. “Pros and Cons of Federalism in Afghanistan. Institute for Afghan Studies and author of The New Beginning." "An even bigger issue. which in turn does not allow its territory and citizens to be dragged into war. and conspiracy. 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. Turkmans and Pashtuns in northern Afghanistan.” December 08. 2002. Institute for Afghan Studies and author of The New Beginning. ethnic conflict and tyranny Roashan. and risks armed conflict Roashan.” December has enabled them to remain living in one integral country. It is this distinction-as-Afghans. The Hazaras live side by side with the Pashtuns in Ghazni. " would be who is going to decide what regions goes to what ethnic group without sparking further armed conflict?" .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." Adopting a federalist model in Afghanistan is seen as impossible by those on the ground. The Tajiks are mostly scattered from Kapisa province all the way to Herat in western Afghanistan. war. Wardak and Uruzgan provinces. politically and socially Afghans have mingled into one distinct entity: 'Afghan'. the Uzbeks live side by side with the Tajiks. Realistically. it would be impossible to divide Afghanistan along ethnic and linguistic lines.

However this much-discussed option 89 should be approached with scepticism. National Territorialisation. 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. . Center for Development Research.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 109 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Afghanistan Federalism Bad – Ethnic Cleansing (2/2) Federalism in Afghanistan would cause ethnic cleansing Schetter.” Geopolitics. 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. Bonn. 10:50– d1ecbb16c7af%40sessionmgr7] Seen in the context of ethnic perceptions becoming increasingly spatial. 2005. 05. and the Afghan War. minority elites would be strongly tempted either to tamper with provincial boundaries or to form their own federal states. 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. Accessed 7/9/08 http://web. Germany. University of Bonn. 90 Furthermore.ebscohost. [“Ethnoscapes.

Nearly all feared a replication of the Soviet collapse. To understand the possibilities as well as the potential limitations. given the mood and concerns of the presiden. The theme running through center-periphery discussions at the summer Constitutional Convention.tial draftspersons during the interregnum. Pp. 1994 ( Accessed: 12/07/2008 13:35) If a genuine federal system is to develop and eventually supersede the Russian unitary state. Sharlet. As text. . http://www. 115-127. Oxford University Press Stable. and again at the reconvened fall sitting.jstor. it will initially do so under the penumbra of the Yeltsin constitution.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 110 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia’s constitution doesn’t support Federalism The Russian Constitution is not written for federalism. was the need for stability and for maintaining the unity and integrity of the Russian state. the Yeltsin constitution is not particularly promising for federalist development. This is not surprising. it is necessary to conceptualize and analyze the Constitution in several ways: (1) as text. Spring. and (3) as metaphor. The Prospects for Federalism in Russian Constitutional Politics. (2) as fundamental law.

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. "Frankly. the EU-Russia Centre released the results of a major new survey of Russian public opinion. 45%.and to confiscate gas fields leased to foreign investors. The pollsters read a series of words to respondents. and make a contribution to peace and stability.unleashing Soviet nostalgia in many Russians. 07 (David. 8 ("Russian ministry source sees hypocrisy in words of USA's new envoy to Moscow. The USA is hardly an ideal model of this for us. "We work from the assumption that the new ambassador. he said." . 7-16-8) Text of report by Russian state news agency RIA Novosti Moscow. "We do not think. "Russian democracy is dying.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 111 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Rejects Federalism Russian government rejects Western models of democracy. LexisNexis." said the source. will work to help US-Russian relations to develop positively. and thus with improving living standards. one can understand that trust is made dependent on the American assessment of our democracy and market. Russia rejects the US's call for democracy. said they "prefer the Soviet system before the 1990s. Vladimir Putin's government has extinguished all of Russia's independent broadcast media and severely curbed most print media. The way US firms win energy contracts there can hardly serve as a model of transparency. Senior Editor at The American Prospect. market-based and mutually advantageous basis'." he added." he's clearer in Moscow than from Capitol Hill. Last week." The EU-Russia Centre notes that Russians responded much more positively to democracy and freedom in the mid- 1990s than they do today." Only 10% of Russians regarded their country as belonging to the West. Only 16% of those surveyed identified the "Western model" of democracy as the ideal. a source in the ministry has told RIA Novosti. Only 33% of Russians had positive associations with the word "freedom." 6-21-8. for example.' or 'make energy deals on a transparent. During a hearing in the US Senate on Thursday [19 June] to confirm his appointment to the diplomatic posting. He continued: "And of course. 71% said that Russia was not part of Europe.then' type conditions. "Several issues immediately come to mind. They asked: Did those words have positive or negative associations. "That's to say. in line with the duty of any ambassador. which will help increase mutual trust between us. but at the same time would trust Russia more if it became a democratic country. demagoguery and pointless chattering. But at the same time there should be no 'if . We hope that objective reality will be visible . one gets the sense that the view of these issues is distorted by a negative prism." he added. 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." 3-10-7. More than twice as many." 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. 7-15-8) But we do know that over the past half dozen years. We do know that Putin has ended elections for local government and centralized all power in the Kremlin. public opinion supports Frum. Almost half of Russians. "But if we consider some of Mr Beyrle's advice that Russia should use its influence so as 'not to heighten regional tension. we are developing democracy and a market based on our own national interests and the needs of our country and society. National Post. LexisNexis. We do know that he has used administrative powers to seize some of Russia's largest corporations and transfer ownership to his supporters -. One way or the other. 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 those first post-Soviet years also suffered a collapse of living standards and political chaos -." he said. Previously a Senior Writer at The Washington City Paper. certainly not for the sake of various assessments imposed from abroad. that the military campaign in Iraq against which we offered honest warnings was a 'contribution to regional stability'. has coincided with a time of rising prices for Russian oil and gas." said the source. then that cannot help but provoke certain associations. citing hypocrisy in foreign relations regarding energy and peace BBC Worldwide Monitoring. 35%. by contrast. regard Europe as a threat. Putin's authoritarian rule. it grates to hear reproaches from Mr Beyrle that the USA would trust Russia more if it were a democratic and market country.

which gave it a 315-seat majority in the 450-seat lower house of parliament. http://www. He called on voters to support the United Russia party. The State Duma election was in a sense a public endorsement of Putin's achievements in his eight years as Russian president. Third. 7/16/08) The more successful Putin is the harder it is for the CP to be the main which translate into 57.5 percent of the ballots. as United Russia garnered over 10 percent more votes than public opinion polls showed before election day.chinadaily.3 percent of the votes. the two sides' overlapping relationship.liberalism. "managed democracy" and "sovereign democracy" has kept the political situation stable. and separate efforts to infiltrate each other. These "national policies" comprise three aspects. while "sovereign democracy" is one free of foreign interference. as he said: "United Russia's triumph is a stamp of approval for me by the people.htm. Putin hit out at both ends of the political spectrum in a lengthy speech. Dec 14.a civil war is highly unlikely Sui. However. The idea is to combine the three and apply them in percent of the votes respectively. which is centered on national interests to make the nation powerful and the people rich. http://www. Putin has called for the presidential election to be held in March next year. economic development with national spirit as the motivation. and regaining its major power status. China Daily/Financial Times. after his term of office ends next year. As widely expected. the party President Vladimir Putin backs. emerged victorious by bagging 64. . 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". socialism and nationalism. 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. a socialist market economy characterized by emphasis on efficiency and equal attention to fairness. He also criticized the Communist Party. "Managed democracy" is a reply to the bitter fruits that uncontrolled democracy brought Russia. almost on the heels of the parliamentary election. 07 (Yu. Research Center of Contemporary The other seven parties all failed to gain a seat because none of them won more than 2. China Daily/Financial Times. Putin's top concern is to "ensure the continuity of national policies". The third is a set of values. Dec 14.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 112 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA No Russia Civil War Russia is internally united.57 percent. 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". At a mass rally held in Moscow on November 21. First. Research Center of Contemporary World. 07 (Yu. His speech was very effective. 7/16/08) Russia has made great strides on its path to economic rejuvenation this year and shows more confidence on the diplomatic front. refusal to give in under outside pressure has reinforced Russia's esteem as a major power.14 percent and 7. Russia’s three pronged approach to governance assures stability Sui.htm." In order to remain in power. albeit in a different role. The first is a "managed democracy" aimed at keeping the political situation stable and the society harmonious.78 percent of 108 million registered voters casting their ballots for candidates representing 11 political parties. All these strategic moves characterize Putin's path. The Communist Party. “Russia on Road to Rejuvenation Under Putin”. Russia's State Duma election ended earlier this month with 63. unity of the whole society with past mistakes as a reminder. there is also a downside to this. 40 and 38 seats. Second. 8. The second is "administrative strategy".com. There is no doubt United Russia owed its sweeping victory to the achievements of Putin's administration and people's trust in the president. strong showing by the energy sector has pumped up overall economic growth. United Russia. which consists of three factors that exist in Russian society today . “Russia on Road to Rejuvenation Under Putin”. political and foreign policies. and diplomacy based on the fundamental principle of balance. And there are three reasons that analysts believe Russia is headed in the right direction. Liberal Democratic Party and Fair Russia trailed far behind with 11.

lexis Dmitry Medvedev's election as president opens an era of political partnership in Russia . Neither does he think that Medvedev needs to imitate Putin in order to be a successful president. The arrangement ensures that Russia will remain politically stable. . 3/6 Russia's Medvedev May Be Junior Partner.though for the time being. the new guy is more of a man of peace. Vladimir Putin will serve as senior partner. 3/3 HE WHO HOLDS THE KREMLIN." giving Medvedev on-the-job training. at least for the near term. No instability.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 113 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA Russia Stable No political instability now AP. generating more opportunities for foreign investors. http://ap. and that its economy will continue to expand. "Where Putin was in some ways a man of war." The analyst said Medvedev's challenges — which include restoring the independence of the courts. with Putin serving in the short-term as a "regent-cum-mentor-cum-tutor. all brought to heel by Putin's Kremlin — may take a different form of leadership." Trenin said. parliament and political parties. "Putin had to fight against those snakes and dragons in the marshes of Chechnya and the Dmitry Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center believes the Medvedev-Putin administration could work smoothly.Medvedev Indian Express.

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. Last but not the least. the Russian elite pockets most of the dividends.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 114 Lacy/Symonds/Bowen Federalism DA No impact to Russia Nationalism no impact to nationalism Rachman. 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 one with their business affiliation. everything is certainly different in the so called Real Politik sphere. we should be happy to have so egotistical an elite.html?nclick_check=1] This sounds frightening – but it raises two important questions. http://www. Now the Russians are Russian interests are too deeply entangled with the west to make a straightforward determined to push back. They have business relationships to maintain. It is the rising price of energy that has made Russia rich and given the Kremlin the sense that – at last – it has a powerful lever in its hands. they are unlikely to choose a policy of outright confrontation. they would ruin their reputation as suppliers for ever. There is no doubt that Russia Inc exists. First. Financial Times. aimed at their immediate neighbours and have been ostensibly driven by business concerns. low productivity and investment may well mean that Russia will become a less reliable supplier over the next 20 years. in some future political conflict. would be a huge and improbable escalation of this tactic. It is not just the Russian state that has a powerful interest in maintaining a working commercial relationship with European customers. At present. investments to protect. 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. the EU gets some 30 per cent of its gas from Russia. 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. do the Russians really want to "harm us"? Second. as part of a pricing dispute. Policy of the latter does promote national interests of the Russian Federation in this particular case. The EU fears that. But while Russian investors might seek to influence business decisions in a way that suits the Kremlin. But there have been several – have been 8365-0000779fd2ac. even if they wanted to? The answers to both questions are more reassuring than the apostles of the new cold war would have it. aimed at the heart of the EU for explicitly political ends. children at school in Britain. The Russian state now effectively controls the most "strategic" bits of the Russian economy. As if to underline Europe's vulnerability. EU efforts to lessen energy dependence on Russia have been pretty feeble so far. Selling Russian oil and gas to the West. The West is a major consumer of Russian power resources. They cannot afford to be. Over-dependence on any single supplier of energy – Russian or otherwise – would be a mistake. Needless to say. Why the Russian elite will never kick up a quarrel with the West DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia). houses in the south of France. Mr Medvedev's career path from Gazprom to the presidency is a perfect illustration of that. 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. The Russians know that if they ever actually attempted to freeze western Europe into servitude. The main instrument of revived Russian power is the country's reserves of oil and gas. Medvedev will not declare cold war. Russian investment in "strategic" EU assets will inevitably be carefully monitored. . So the search for alternative sources of energy remains urgent. Meanwhile. 3/14 NATIONAL DISINCLINATION. To buy into the European economy and then deliberately to provoke conflict with the EU would be self-defeating. But people with international business interests tend not to be nationalists. This does not mean that western Europeans can relax completely. The West is where Russian businessmen and officials stash their fortunes. 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. 3/3 [Gideon. 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. To use the denial of energy as a long-term strategy. But policy of confrontation feasible – particularly when it comes to business and trade.ft. 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. the Russians will use this leverage. But using this power as a political weapon is harder than it sounds. Russia can only really exploit its energy wealth by selling its gas and oil. Even if the Russians never use energy as a political weapon against the EU. But they would become much more determined if a Russian energy war ever looked feasible. Nationalists won't force confrontation Rostovsky. But necessarily bad news for the rest of the world. Resurgent nationalism in the Kremlin is a real worry. Almost all of Russia's energy cut-offs to date – and war. All Gazprom's major pipeline routes head west. Mr Medvedev is taking office just as Gazprom has cut gas supplies to Ukraine by 25 per cent. The Kremlin line is that the west ruthlessly exploited Russian weakness in the 1990s. could they really do it. the ruling class in Russia has been using this political technique with gleeful abandon.