SDI 2008 WHAM!

1 States 2NC

States/Federalism 2NC Blocks
States/Federalism 2NC Blocks....................................................................................................................................1

States/Federalism 2NC Blocks......................................................................................................1
AT: Perm....................................................................................................................................................................3

AT: Perm........................................................................................................................................3
AT: No Uniformity......................................................................................................................................................4

AT: No Uniformity.........................................................................................................................4
AT: Doesn’t Solve- Global Warming..........................................................................................................................5

AT: Doesn’t Solve- Global Warming............................................................................................5
AT: Doesn’t Solve- Leadership...................................................................................................................................6

AT: Doesn’t Solve- Leadership.....................................................................................................6
AT: Doesn’t Solve- Not Modeled................................................................................................................................7

AT: Doesn’t Solve- Not Modeled...................................................................................................7
AT: Not Modeled- Struck Down.................................................................................................................................8

AT: Not Modeled- Struck Down...................................................................................................8
AT: Federal Preempts State Action.............................................................................................................................9

AT: Federal Preempts State Action..............................................................................................9
AT: Rollback.............................................................................................................................................................10

AT: Rollback.................................................................................................................................10
AT: California Economy DA.....................................................................................................................................11

AT: California Economy DA.......................................................................................................11
A2: 50 States Fiat Theory.........................................................................................................................................12

A2: 50 States Fiat Theory............................................................................................................12
States Solve...............................................................................................................................................................13

States Solve...................................................................................................................................13
States Solve- Global Warming..................................................................................................................................14

States Solve- Global Warming....................................................................................................14
AT: Non-Unique........................................................................................................................................................15

AT: Non-Unique...........................................................................................................................15
AT: Not Modeled.......................................................................................................................................................16

AT: Not Modeled..........................................................................................................................16
AT: Ethnic Conflict ! T/.............................................................................................................................................17

AT: Ethnic Conflict ! T/...............................................................................................................17
AT: Secession ! T/.....................................................................................................................................................18

AT: Secession ! T/.........................................................................................................................18

SDI 2008 WHAM!

2 States 2NC

AT: Econ ! T/.............................................................................................................................................................19

AT: Econ ! T/.................................................................................................................................19
AT: Russian Civil War ! T/........................................................................................................................................20

AT: Russian Civil War ! T/..........................................................................................................20
AT: Russian Econ ! T/...............................................................................................................................................21

AT: Russian Econ ! T/..................................................................................................................21

SDI 2008 WHAM!

3 States 2NC

AT: Perm
1. The perm still links to Federalism. Any energy policy management at the federal level would collapse global federalism and lead to war. 2. The perm would force preemption – it’s impossible for the plan and CP to exist Robert K. Huffman, lawyer, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, VP at MidAmerican Holdings,Winter 2008, “Climate
Change and the States,” Sustainable Development Journal, http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2008/winter08.pdf?rd=1 The best case for federal preemption would arise if the federal government instituted a similar cap-andtrade system or other form of comprehensive carbon emissions regulation. Any program that created a nationwide price for carbon would likely be interpreted as directly conflicting with state programs; in the alternative, courts would probably hold that federal efforts occupy the field of GHG regulation. But lacking such a program, as is currently the case, it is difficult to see any way in which a state-organized capand-trade program could be preempted under the Supremacy Clause. Some congressional leaders are advocating for express preemption in any future comprehensive cap-and-trade bill. The Dingell-Boucher white paper,68 which discusses the role of federal, state, and local governments in efforts to reduce GHG emissions, makes the case for express preemption. “[O]nce a national, economy-wide cap-and-trade program is adopted, State or regional cap-and-trade programs may interfere with the efficient functioning of the Federal cap-and-trade program[.]”69 As a result, “Chairman Dingell has made it very clear that he believes that motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards should be set by the Federal Government, not by State governments[.]”70 In addition, the analysis finds that compliance costs and overall system costs (including regulatory overhead) are likely to be higher in any duplicative system of federal and state/regional regulation.71 While the current version of the Lieberman-Warner bill actually encourages and provides incentives for states to take actions above and beyond the federal cap-and-trade program,72 there is a possibility that an express preemption clause could be part of any final bill.

3. Prefer the Counterplan alone – State programs are a prerequisite to federal action – they provide a template. Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015 The federal government in the Bush era has done little to tackle our most pressing environmental problem — climate change. Yet there is one bright side amid Washington’s inaction: Many states have been stepping into the void and adopting comprehensive climate change policies that can be a model for the coming federal legislation to slow global warming. The leadership of states such as California, Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida is crucial not only because it provides a template for federal climate legislation that will no doubt be adopted under the next presidential administration. State action is also vital because among the top 75 emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide, half are U.S. states.

4. (Optional) The perm would still link to politics/elections. Explain.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

4 States 2NC

AT: No Uniformity
1. No Link - This argument doesn’t make any sense. The counterplan fiats that all 50 states have a uniform mandate to _____________________________________________________. 2. Enforcement flexibility is key. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, 2/13/08, “Defining the Role of States and Localities in
Federal Global Warming Legislation,” www.4cleanair.org/documents/GWConferenceMaterials.pdf MH While the effects of GHGs are global, how reductions can best be achieved and impacts best mitigated will vary by state and region due to differing demographics, politics and economics.  Whether the issue is buildings efficiency (coal-derived air conditioning drives emissions in one region, oil heat drives emissions in another region), transportation policy (rural areas have fewer opportunities for useful investments in public transit) or industrial policy (some states will want  transition assistance to “old” industry, others will want jump-start assistance to “new” green  industries) it is just not likely that a onesize-fits-all federal allocations policy will be able to find the optimum result for the nation as a whole. In addition to the examples given above, it is instructive to take a close look at the electric power industry, which is one of the central foci of any GHG program. Across the country: Electricity rates differ by at least 100 percent; The regulatory system in about half of the states is rooted in the historic pattern of vertical integration and cost-based rates, while in the other half there is a much greater role for wholesale markets and unregulated independent power plants; Some states have highly developed policies promoting efficiency and renewable power, and other states have almost no experience with such resources; and States vary enormously in their reliance on coal for generation and to support growth. These wide differences in local and regional conditions can lead to quite different program design choices for capand-trade programs. For example, in the states where utilities participate in regional day-ahead and shortterm power markets, there is growing concern that carbon policies driving up the price of high-emitting generation like coal will also drive up the market clearing price of low-emitting resources like nuclear and hydro. The cost to ratepayers of this carbon policy is quite different from the cost in the type of vertically integrated, rate-regulated system that characterized the power sector when the Acid Rain program was created, and which is still operating in many U.S. states.  

SDI 2008 WHAM!

5 States 2NC

AT: Doesn’t Solve- Global Warming
1. They say stakes won’t move but they have already taken action and had experience – that’s Northrop 08 & Rabe 02 2. Even if states don’t solve completely, federal action is soon to follow while avoiding the DA & the perm 3. Their Gildor 05 says states are unmotivated but: ( ) Rabe also says the states are more motivated and gets businesses to invest Erin Kelly, 3/25/07 Gannett News Service “States Work Together to Reduce Global Warming” USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-25-states-greenhouse_N.htm OZ Congress' inability so far to pass legislation is what is spurring states to act on their own, said Barry Rabe, an expert on state and local global warming initiatives at the University of Michigan. Many states are motivated in part by their desire to create new economic development opportunities, the professor said. "They believe that the use of traditional fossil fuels is going to be phased out eventually and they want to invest in new technologies and get ahead of what they see coming in the future," Rabe said. Others, like liberal Vermont and its conservative neighbor, New Hampshire, fear the devastation that climate change could bring to their maple sugar industry and ski resorts. "Every state has its own reason for taking action," Rabe said. "In some cases, the states are clearly trying to prod the federal government into taking action." They're beginning to get some help from some of the utility companies that have traditionally fought federal global warming regulations. Faced with a patchwork of laws that vary from state to state, utilities such as Duke Energy Corp. announced this year that they would support a nationwide carbon cap and trade system that allows power plants with high emissions to buy credits from low-emission plants. "Some companies are saying that it might be better to get on with it now rather than face all this uncertainty," Rabe said.

States are capable and will work together – all they need is the go ahead Erin Kelly, 3/25/07 Gannett News Service “States Work Together to Reduce Global Warming” USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-25-states-greenhouse_N.htm OZ WASHINGTON — As more and more states band together to fight global warming, their efforts are moving beyond mere symbolism and becoming big enough to make a real dent in the problem, analysts and environmental groups say. More than half of the nation's 50 states — including populous California, Texas and New York — have joined together in regional coalitions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, boosting the use of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency. Five states in the West and 10 in the Northeast that have banded together to fight climate change account for 22% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Their efforts have the potential to cut America's global warming emissions significantly, according to data from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. At the same time, a dozen states are anxiously awaiting the outcome of a federal case in hopes that they can proceed with laws they've already adopted to reduce emissions from cars, trucks and SUVs. Another five states are poised to adopt clean car rules if the court rules in favor of the laws. Together, those states represent nearly half the U.S. population, said the Union of Concerned Scientists. "More and more, what the states are doing is environmentally significant," said Judi Greenwald of the Pew Center.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

6 States 2NC

AT: Doesn’t Solve- Leadership
1. Be Skeptical – The aff’s cards are specific to how federal action is good but they don’t give any comparison to states. 2. Extend the 1NC Northrop and Sassoon 08 evidence explaining how state action is as good, if not better, than federal action.
3.

And state action is modeled by the federal government. Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015 The states’ record of fostering groundbreaking environmental policies that ultimately evolve into national law is well established. State innovation was, for example, at the heart of the battle against acid rain. State laws served as models for the federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and legislation creating Superfund sites. In addition to the cap-and-trade program that will be launched in September by the ten Eastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), two other regional groupings of states are working to establish carbon trading — the Western Climate Initiative and
the Midwestern Governors Association. They have rolled up their sleeves, convened key stakeholders, and are hammering out the actual details of how to establish and implement an effective cap-and-trade mechanism. This is wisdom that would go a long way in Washington as lawmakers debate Lieberman-Warner, which would create a national cap-and-trade program. One important element of the debate on Capitol Hill concerns the formula for allocating or auctioning carbon credits, and a number of states have developed valuable expertise on this issue. A RGGI expert working group, for instance, conducted an indepth analysis on the subject, and many states have already made the crucial choice to auction 100% of carbon credits under RGGI trading. Under this system, northeastern utilities would purchase credits, or allowances, permitting them to emit CO2 at current levels, with requirements for steady reductions. As the utilities lower CO2 emissions, they can sell the credits to utilities that have made slower cutbacks. The RGGI auction proceeds would be used to help vulnerable citizens defray higher energy costs, to support energy efficiency programs, and to invest in renewable energy projects — all preferable to offering free emission allocations to major polluters. As it now stands, Lieberman-Warner calls for doling out a significant percentage of free emissions permits to major emitters of greenhouse gases. But the states have far more to offer. They also have approved a host of energy-efficiency measures affecting all sectors of the economy. For example, one set of policies provides both emissions reductions and substantial economic savings from the building sector through improved building codes, insulation and weatherization programs, and lighting retrofits. From the waste management sector, waste reduction and recycling programs yield similar two-pronged benefits. These policies go hand-in-hand with others mandating that an increasing percentage of a state’s energy come from renewable sources, such as solar and wind power. Many states — chief among them California —

have shown similar national leadership by significantly toughening auto emissions standards, leading Congress to increase national vehicle standards last December and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge the states in court.

4. The affirmative leadership takeouts assume single state action and don’t assume the world of the CP.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

7 States 2NC

AT: Doesn’t Solve- Not Modeled
1. States are empirically modeled by the federal government on environmental policies – and new policies will provide experience for the feds Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015 The states’ record of fostering groundbreaking environmental policies that ultimately evolve into national law is well established. State innovation was, for example, at the heart of the battle against acid rain. State laws served as models for the federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and legislation creating Superfund sites. In addition to the cap-and-trade program that will be launched in September by the ten Eastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), two other regional groupings of states are working to establish carbon trading — the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Governors
Association. They have rolled up their sleeves, convened key stakeholders, and are hammering out the actual details of how to establish and implement an effective cap-and-trade mechanism. This is wisdom that would go a long way in Washington as lawmakers debate Lieberman-Warner, which would create a national cap-and-trade program. One important element of the debate on Capitol Hill concerns the formula for allocating or auctioning carbon credits, and a number of states have developed valuable expertise on this issue. A RGGI expert working group, for instance, conducted an in-depth analysis on the subject, and many states have already made the crucial choice to auction 100% of carbon credits under RGGI trading. Under this system, northeastern utilities would purchase credits, or allowances, permitting them to emit CO2 at current levels, with requirements for steady reductions. As the utilities lower CO2 emissions, they can sell the credits to utilities that have made slower cutbacks. The RGGI auction proceeds would be used to help vulnerable citizens defray higher energy costs, to support energy efficiency programs, and to invest in renewable energy projects — all preferable to offering free emission allocations to major polluters. As it now stands, Lieberman-Warner calls for doling out a significant percentage of free emissions permits to major emitters of greenhouse gases. But the states have far more to offer. They also have approved a host of energy-efficiency measures affecting all sectors of the economy. For example, one set of policies provides both emissions reductions and substantial economic savings from the building sector through improved building codes, insulation and weatherization programs, and lighting retrofits. From the waste management sector, waste reduction and recycling programs yield similar two-pronged benefits. These policies go hand-in-hand with others mandating that an increasing percentage of a state’s energy come from renewable sources, such as solar and wind power. Many states — chief among them California — have

shown similar national leadership by significantly toughening auto emissions standards, leading Congress to increase national vehicle standards last December and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge the states in court.

2. States are best at implementing alternative energy – they’ve done hundreds of projects and spillover to the federal government in the long run Rusty Haynes, Policy Analyst @ NC State, 2005, “Systematic Support,” DSIRE,
http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/PolicyPublications/Haynes_KIER_Keynote.pdf In the absence of strong, continuous federal support for renewable energy, dozens of U.S. states have stepped in to fill the void. Indeed, states collectively have implemented hundreds of policies to promote the adoption of renewable energy, for reasons ranging from energy diversification, to economic development, to air-quality improvement. It is important to recognize that some of these policies could become part of the “long-standing tradition in American governance whereby states serve as laboratories for subsequent federal policy.”10

3. Prefer our evidence because it has EMPIRICAL proof that federal policies have copied state policies. 4. This means we solve 100% of the case because we will do the plan – at a later date
Timothy J. Conlan, Robert L. Dudley and Joel F. Clark, 2004 George Mason University & Michigan State University, “Taking on the World: The International Activities of American State Legislatures” Oxford Journals – Publius: The journal of Federalism http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/183 OZ State legislatures in the United States engage in a substantial amount of international activity. In the 20012002 legislative sessions, some 886 bills and resolutions with significant international implications were introduced. Approximately 306 of these were adopted. This level of international activity has increased substantially since 1991, and the substantive focus has changed over time. In addition, about half of all state legislatures received at least one foreign delegation and sent at least one delegation of members abroad in the last session.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

8 States 2NC

AT: Not Modeled- Struck Down
1. Extend Northrop and Sassoon- States can implement groundbreaking policies that have global ramifications as it influences other countries policies 2. Nowhere in the 1AC did they read a card about how signing treaties are key to solve for modeling. We solve for their I/L, to their modeling claim talks about how other countries will copy successful programs within the United States- we solve for that. It’s Empirically proven that states cooperate on climate change with other countries Henrik Selin, an assistant professor in the Department of International Relations at Boston University, and Stacy D. VanDeveer , an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire February 3, 2007
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_leadership_in_northeast_North_America#New_England_governors_and_Ea stern_Canadian_premiers Regional cooperation among states in the Northeast includes two separate, but related and overlapping, initiatives. First, a regional Climate Change Action Plan was signed by the governors of six New England states and the premiers of five Eastern Canadian provinces in 2001. Second, RGGI, initiated in 2003, seeks to establish a cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 emissions from power plants from Maryland to Maine. New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers The collaborative effort by the New England governors and the Eastern Canadian premiers includes all six New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) and five Eastern Canadian provinces (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Quebec). Under the joint 2001 Climate Change Action Plan, participating states and provinces commit to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and to achieve 10 percent reductions below 1990 levels by 2020. The plan calls for ultimate emissions reduction to levels that do not pose a threat to the global climate system. According to an official estimate, achieving this goal would require a 75 to 85 percent reduction from 2001 emissions levels. The plan and its goals have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the region’s governors and premiers since 2001, most recently in May of 2006.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

9 States 2NC

AT: Federal Preempts State Action
1. Congress won’t rollback state action Jack Goldsmith, Prof @ Chicago, November 1997, Virg. L. Rev., ln
The rise in subnational foreign relations activity tells us little, of course, about the activity's normative desirability. But we should also avoid the automatic assumption that this development is normatively undesirable. This is especially true because the federal political branches have made clear that, in contrast to traditional foreign relations activities which largely have been federalized through statute and treaty, they do not always, or even usually, prefer federal regulation of these new foreign relations issues. The recent increase in state and local involvement in such issues "has occasioned little reaction from Congress or the Executive." 232 And when the political branches do react, they often choose to protect state interests over foreign relations interests when the two appear to clash. A good example is the United States' recent ratification of a variety of international human rights treaties. 233 These treaties create numerous potential [*1675] conflicts with state law. 234 In the face of international pressure, the President and Senate have consistently attached reservations, understandings, and declarations to these treaties to ensure that they do not preempt or affect inconsistent state law. 235 Similarly, California's worldwide unitary tax on multinational corporations has provoked enormous diplomatic controversy with our closest trading partners since the 1980s. 236 The President negotiated a treaty that would have preempted this law, but the Senate withheld its consent. 237 And in the face of substantial pressure from foreign governments, Congress consistently failed to enact legislation preempting the unitary tax. 238

2. Preemption doesn’t take out solvency Jack Goldsmith, Prof @ Chicago, November 1997, Virg. L. Rev., ln
Even when the political branches enact preemptive federal foreign relations law, they often do so in a manner that reflects the interests of the states and minimizes intrusion on their prerogatives. When Congress codified the international law standards for determinations of foreign sovereign immunity, it ensured that otherwise-applicable state law would continue to govern the merits of such suits. 239 Similarly, in federal implementing legislation for the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT"), "political sensitiv- [*1676] ity to state sensibilities were [sic] reflected in several ways." 240 Most significantly, the legislation "precluded the agreements from having any direct effect, and indeed required an action by the United States Government for the purpose of striking down a state law." 241 In addition, the federal government has actively cooperated with and supported the unilateral state economic activities described above. 242 The overtly political international activities of states, such as nuclear-free ordinances and state divestment movements, are more controversial. For example, Congress by statute overruled several governors' resistance to allowing the participation of national guard troops in Central American military activities in the mid-1980s. 243 But Congress declined to preempt the most notorious recent state foreign relations activity - state sanctions against South Africa - when it enacted the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, 244 and Massachusetts's recent sanctions against Myanmar 245 soon led to similar sanctions by the federal government. 246

3.

Even if they win pre-empt it would still be a state-led action and thus avoid the link to our net benefits.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

10 States 2NC

AT: Rollback
1. Empirically Proven No Rollback—States formulated climate change policy for decades Barry G. Rabe, University of Michigan, November 2002, Pew Center, “Greenhouse and Statehouse,”
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/states_greenhouse.pdf States have been formulating climate change policy for more than a decade, although their efforts have expanded and intensified in the past several years. In some cases, states have considered climate change mitigation explicitly while in others it has been an incidental benefit. Reflective of the vast scope of activity that generates greenhouse gases, state policies have been enacted that reduce these emissions in such areas as promotion of renewable energy, air pollution control, agriculture and forestry, waste management, transportation, and energy development, among others. In almost all cases, there have been multiple drivers behind and multiple benefits from these state policies. In Texas, for example, the desire for energy independence, economic development, and air pollution control drove the state to promote renewable energy. Not all states have demonstrated interest in these initiatives and some legislatures have taken steps to prevent state agencies from pursuing any efforts that are designed to reduce greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, there has been a remarkable increase and diversification of state policies since the late 1990s, reflected in their current operation in every region of the country. Collectively, they constitute a diverse set of policy innovations rich with lessons for the next generation of American climate change policy.

2. Fiat of CP is permanent—can’t rollback 3. Extend Northrop and Sassoon 08—States experienced with alternative energy—congress trusts states 4. Even if they win pre-empt it would still be a state-led action and thus avoid the link to our net benefits 5. Congress won’t rollback state action Jack Goldsmith, Prof @ Chicago, November 1997, Virg. L. Rev., ln
The rise in subnational foreign relations activity tells us little, of course, about the activity's normative desirability. But we should also avoid the automatic assumption that this development is normatively undesirable. This is especially true because the federal political branches have made clear that, in contrast to traditional foreign relations activities which largely have been federalized through statute and treaty, they do not always, or even usually, prefer federal regulation of these new foreign relations issues. The recent increase in state and local involvement in such issues "has occasioned little reaction from Congress or the Executive." 232 And when the political branches do react, they often choose to protect state interests over foreign relations interests when the two appear to clash. A good example is the United States' recent ratification of a variety of international human rights treaties. 233 These treaties create numerous potential [*1675] conflicts with state law. 234 In the face of international pressure, the President and Senate have consistently attached reservations, understandings, and declarations to these treaties to ensure that they do not preempt or affect inconsistent state law. 235 Similarly, California's worldwide unitary tax on multinational corporations has provoked enormous diplomatic
controversy with our closest trading partners since the 1980s. 236 The President negotiated a treaty that would have preempted this law, but the Senate withheld its consent. 237 And in the face of substantial pressure from foreign governments, Congress consistently failed to enact legislation preempting the unitary tax. 238

6. State alternative energy programs won’t be struck down – they have to be found discriminatory Steven Ferrey, Law Prof @ Suffolk, March 2006, Electricity Journal, 19.2, “Renewable Orphans,” p.
sciencedirect
Because there is no clear bright line separating regulation that does and does not discriminate, and the judicial test and standard applied by the court is so distinct between the two, the critical determination is the court’s initial conclusion as to whether or not a regulation is discriminatory, and if so, whether such discrimination is based on point-of-origin regu- lation.25 Even in the absence of a discriminatory intent, courts are able to outlaw Commerce Clause violations to prevent the ‘‘Balkanization’’ of various states’ regulations. 26 S o, what is legal? A renewable portfolio standard alone does not raise commerce clause issues. A limitation on the in-state location of resources for inclusion in the portfolio could run afoul of the commerce clause.27 As long as the state regulation does not discriminate on the basis of geography of energy supply, it will be evaluated under the Pike balancing test. Incidental discrimination, in fact, against interstate commerce is not impermissible if balanced by a compelling state interest and if accomplished in the minimally intrusive fashion

SDI 2008 WHAM!

11 States 2NC

AT: California Economy DA
1. Non-unique – China’s economy not on brink – will survive struggle – 3 reasons
Yan Liang, editor for China View, 6/19/2008, Business Section, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/200806/19/content_8396232.htm Mainly due to the housing market slump, California's economy will remain weak through the end of the year and into 2009, according to a report published on Wednesday. Overall, California "will weather the slowdown of economic growth based on its diversified economy, its Pacific Rim export orientation and surging agricultural industry," said the report presented by the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA).But the Los Angeles area's strength in exports of goods and services will help counteract the housing industry slump, the report said."Though you still hear talk of recession these days, it does not appear that California will exhibit the kind of job loss that typically goes with a national recession," economist Jerry Nickelsburg of the UCLA Anderson Forecast wrote in the quarterly assessment.

2. Alternate causality – California is weak for reasons besides budget deficits
Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, 6-30-2008, Los Angeles Times, “Brokaw needles Schwarzenegger on spending, economy,” rks, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-arnold302008jun30,0,595673.story Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, usually a darling of the national media, found himself being told by the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" that if he ran a private company the way he has run the state, he might have been fired by now. Tom Brokaw, who will be moderating the program through the presidential election, put a series of confrontational questions to the governor in an interview taped in California and aired this morning. When you ran for governor in 2003, you ran as a fiscal conservative who would change the system, who would bring business-like techniques," Brokaw said. "Now, you are facing a $15-billion deficit here in California. Unemployment is running at about 6.8%; you've got the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. If you were the CEO of a public company, the board would probably say, 'It is time to go.' " 3.

Their internal link card is ridiculous – it says California is important but it is not reverse causal – no reason why California collapse would cause U.S. collapse No link –Very little money would be spent because the nuclear power plants are already built – just need a waste storage that’s our Hippel 08 inherency evidence Even if we do increase taxes, they are actually key to the Californian Economy

4.

5.

Dave Johnson, Founder and principal author at Seeing the Forest and a member of the Neetroots Advisory Council, 1/9/2008, NM, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/do-taxes-drive-theeconom_b_80694.html California's governor says the state is in a budget crisis. He says we need to cut the state's spending "across-the-board," and the Republicans insist that tax increases and other alternatives are off the table. The media largely seem to be going along with taking discussion of alternatives off the table, and consequently Democrats are too intimidated to bring them up. Tax-cut proponents say that increasing taxes on the wealthy "takes money out of the economy." I wonder where they think the money goes? Do they think it just goes up into the air and disappears? They don't seem to -or pretend not to -- understand that taxes come right back into the economy. It is taxes that pay the salaries of teachers and police officers and that build and maintain our roads. Then that money circulates from those teachers and construction workers to support our stores and movie theaters and restaurants and to buy homes and cars.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

12 States 2NC

A2: 50 States Fiat Theory
Offense: ( ) Education – forces a USFG key warrant – key to finding the best policy option

Defense: ( ) Predictability – research pool proves that you should be ready to debate this – checks education cries because it’s at heart of the topic ( ) Reciprocal – they get the USFG, we get the other US agent actor - the states. – kills their fairness whining ( ) Potential abuse not a voter – they can’t isolate in round abuse so don’t arrest us before we commit a crime

Err neg on theory – the affirmative speaks first and last and gets infinite prep time

SDI 2008 WHAM!

13 States 2NC

States Solve
Climate Change Leadership must begin at the Local and State levels. Franz Litz, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, June 2008, “Toward a constructive dialogue on
federal and state roles in U.S. climate change policy,” www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf MH It is often said that climate change mitigation is a global problem. And indeed, the science of climate change makes clear that mitigation at the global level is needed. A ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from a power plant in the United States is the scientific equivalent of a ton emitted from a power plant in Australia. To avoid increasing global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, therefore, emission reductions must occur globally. This scientific reality compels an international solution. The sum of all significant actions taken on climate change in the United States however, reflects another axiom: all politics are local. Environmental action in the United States has historically started at the local and state levels, and climate change action is no exception. And so while the science demands effective leadership at the global level, politically effective leadership in the United States has begun at the local and state levels. In considering how best to design an effective national climate change policy, it may be helpful to keep both the scientific and political axioms in mind. While the science demands a global response, the politics may favor movement at the ground level.

States uniquely have on the ground flexibility that improves solvency. Franz Litz, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, June 2008, “Toward a constructive dialogue on
federal and state roles in U.S. climate change policy,” www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf MH In addition to the states’ role as first movers and policy laboratories on important issues, states often bring an understanding of the unique circumstances within their boundaries. As on-the-ground implementers, states have greater knowledge of the regulated entities, easier and more frequent contact with facilities, familiarity with information sources, and experience with forcing compliance. A recognition that a one-size federal solution may not always fit is perhaps the underlying rationale for many federal environmental statutes.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

14 States 2NC

States Solve- Global Warming
State Initiatives are critical to provide economy wide reductions in emissions. Franz Litz, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, June 2008, “Toward a constructive dialogue on
federal and state roles in U.S. climate change policy,” www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf MH State governments are moving to enact legislation that requires enforceable economy-wide reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. California was the first to enact such a comprehensive statute in 2006, when Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. Since that time, other state legislatures and governors have followed suit: Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have all established GHG emissions targets through similar legislation. While a handful of states have passed legislation requiring the reduction of GHG emissions across the economy, governors in many other states have issued executive orders or plans setting statewide, economy- wide GHG reduction targets. Although for the most part these orders and plans do not have the full force of state law, they provide impetus for significant action to reduce emissions. The accompanying map (see Figure 1) shows states adopting economy-wide targets through legislation, executive order, agreement and/or state climate change action plan. Whether through statute or executive action, most of these economy-wide measures recognize that reaching long-term reduction goals will require action in every sector of a state’s economy. Some of these economy-wide targets have paved the way to, or were developed from, comprehensive state climate action plans that detail very specifically how a state will achieve its goals.

States have more hands on experience when it comes to climate change. Franz Litz, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, June 2008, “Toward a constructive dialogue on
federal and state roles in U.S. climate change policy,” www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf MH States have the regulatory institutions and experience to carry out climate change programs in those areas where they have been the primary or sole regulators. Thus, in areas such as land use and smart growth, electricity resource planning, and building codes, states have more regulatory experience than the federal government. In deciding which level of government should occupy these areas in a future federal climate change policy, this experience is clearly relevant.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

15 States 2NC

AT: Non-Unique
1. Extend the 1NC Scheppach 08 card – Federalism is on the brink due to a changing administration and greater state roles in energy policy 2. The 1NC Scheppach card post-dates all of the aff’s card by ATLEAST 3 months 3. Federalism is high – states are winning court battles over rights Ilya Somin, George Mason University - School of Law, 6-23-08, Northwestern University Law Review
Colloquy, Vol. 102, pp. 365-373, 2008, “A Floor, Not a Ceiling: Federalism and Remedies for Violations of Constitutional Rights in Danforth V. Minnesota,” rks, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1150417 Few doubt that states can provide greater protection for individual rights under state constitutions than is available under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Constitution. More difficult issues arise, however, when state courts seek to provide greater protection than the Court requires for federal constitutional rights. Can state courts impose remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights that are more generous than those required by the federal Supreme Court? That is the issue raised by the Court's recent decision in Danforth v. Minnesota. By a 7-2 vote, the Court decided that state courts could indeed provide victims of constitutional rights violations broader remedies than those mandated by federal Supreme Court decisions. I contend that this outcome is correct, despite the seeming incongruity of allowing state courts to deviate from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court should establish a floor for remedies below which states cannot fall. But there is no reason for it to also mandate a ceiling. Part I briefly describes the facts and background to Danforth. In Part II, I provide a doctrinal justification for the Supreme Court's decision. It makes sense to allow state courts to provide more generous remedies than those mandated by the federal courts in cases where restrictions on the scope of remedies are not imposed by the Constitution itself, but are instead based on policy grounds. State courts can legitimately conclude that these policy grounds are absent or outweighed by other considerations within their state systems, even if they are compelling justifications for restricting the scope of remedies available in federal courts. State courts are in a better position to weigh the relevant tradeoffs in a state legal system than federal courts are. Part III explains the potential policy advantages of allowing interstate diversity in remedies, most importantly inter-jurisdictional competition and an increased ability to provide for diverse citizen preferences and local conditions across different parts of the country. The optimal remedy for a constitutional rights violation in New York may well be different from the optimal remedy for one that occurs in Mississippi.

4. Federalism is alive and well – new state policy John Dinan, Executive director of the National Governors Association, 6-22-2008, Publius, “The state
of American Federalism 2007-2008: resurgent state influence in the national policy process and continued state policy innovation,” rks, lexis By any measure, state governments were at the forefront of domestic policy-making in 2007 and early 2008. Not only were state officials more successful than in any prior year of the Bush presidency in securing relief from burdensome federal directives regarding the National Guard, homeland security, education, and welfare policy, but they were also as active as ever in adopting policy innovations in areas such as illegal immigration, health care, and environmental protection.To be sure, state influence in the national policy process was not so strong as to bring an end to other contested requirements in the NoChild Left Behind Act (NCLB), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), and REAL ID Act or to fend off new federal directives in other areas. Nor were state officials free of federal constraints as they targeted illegal immigration, expanded health care coverage, and addressed climate change, given that state acts generated federal lawsuits and agency rulings preempting state authority in each ofthese areas. Nevertheless, states were more influential than in recent years in gaining flexibility in implementing federal legislation, and they continued to be the main innovators in policy areas where the public was especially desirous of governmental action.

5. The aff’s non-unique cards are by the SAME Dinan 08. the author concludes that the states have power, despite action against it.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

16 States 2NC

AT: Not Modeled
1. Their Steppan 99 card says in the not-underlined part that the federalism some countries adopt is not friendly toward citizen’s rights, yet this contradicts their Moravcsik 05 card that says countries deny American Federalism because it doesn’t focus on human rights. Their evidence is contradicting 2. Prefer our Calebresi 95 evidence because it specifically outlines numerous countries that adopted US style federalism instead of vaguely saying countries – our evidence is more specific and has more warrants, prefer it 3. Extend the two Calebresi 95 cards, we answer that their claims are wrong and their evidence is shoddy

SDI 2008 WHAM!

17 States 2NC

AT: Ethnic Conflict ! T/
1. Cross apply the 1NC Calabresi impact. Excessive federal power causes conflict and war. 2. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and has been for more than 200 years in the US, the impact should have happened as it is dated from 2001 for Ethnic Conflict. 3. No Internal Link – Their Mutunga 01 card doesn’t say ethnic conflict will go nuclear, let alone how. They don’t access LA Times 93. 4. A. US leadership is preserved by the balance of federalism Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, The States, and the Federal Government, 1992.
The inexorably rising frequency and complexity of U.S. interaction with the rest of the world add to the stress on federal decisionmaking processes and underline the need for making those processes simpler and more effective. If the United States is to be an effective world leader, it cannot afford a cumbersome national government overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the states, and confusion over which level is in charge of specific domestic government functions. As the world shrinks, international concerns will continue threatening to crowd out domestic policy on the federal agenda. Paradoxically, however, effective domestic policy is now more crucial than ever precisely because it is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs. Unless we have a strong productive economy, a healthy, well-educated population, and a responsive democratic government, we will not be among the major shapers of the future of this interdependent world. If the American standard of living is falling behind that of other countries and its government structure is paralyzed, the United States will find its credibility in world councils eroding. International considerations provide additional rationale, if more were needed, for the United States to have a strong effective domestic policy. One answer to this paradox is to rediscover the strengths of our federal system, the division of labor between the states and the national government. Washington not only has too much to do, it has taken on domestic responsibilities that would be handled better by the states. Revitalizing the economy may depend on restoring a cleaner division of responsibility between the states and the national government.

B. Nuclear war. Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

18 States 2NC

AT: Secession ! T/
1. Cross apply the 1NC Calabresi impact. Excessive federal power causes conflict and war. 2. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and has been for more than 200 years in the US, the impact should have happened as it is dated from 1999 for Secession. 3. Their Kelly 99 card says that it doesn’t take account for political, theoretical, economic, or social failures in its analysis. The war in Europe was caused by this, not because federalism was there. 4. A. US leadership is preserved by the balance of federalism Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, The States, and the Federal Government, 1992.
The inexorably rising frequency and complexity of U.S. interaction with the rest of the world add to the stress on federal decisionmaking processes and underline the need for making those processes simpler and more effective. If the United States is to be an effective world leader, it cannot afford a cumbersome national government overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the states, and confusion over which level is in charge of specific domestic government functions. As the world shrinks, international concerns will continue threatening to crowd out domestic policy on the federal agenda. Paradoxically, however, effective domestic policy is now more crucial than ever precisely because it is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs. Unless we have a strong productive economy, a healthy, well-educated population, and a responsive democratic government, we will not be among the major shapers of the future of this interdependent world. If the American standard of living is falling behind that of other countries and its government structure is paralyzed, the United States will find its credibility in world councils eroding. International considerations provide additional rationale, if more were needed, for the United States to have a strong effective domestic policy. One answer to this paradox is to rediscover the strengths of our federal system, the division of labor between the states and the national government. Washington not only has too much to do, it has taken on domestic responsibilities that would be handled better by the states. Revitalizing the economy may depend on restoring a cleaner division of responsibility between the states and the national government.

B. Nuclear war. Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

19 States 2NC

AT: Econ ! T/
1. Cross apply the 1NC Calabresi impact. Excessive federal power causes conflict and war. 2. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and has been for more than 200 years in the US, the impact should have happened as it is dated from 1999 for Secession. 3. They have no impact to economic stability – they don’t say what is wrong with it. 4. A. US leadership is preserved by the balance of federalism Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, The States, and the Federal Government, 1992.
The inexorably rising frequency and complexity of U.S. interaction with the rest of the world add to the stress on federal decisionmaking processes and underline the need for making those processes simpler and more effective. If the United States is to be an effective world leader, it cannot afford a cumbersome national government overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the states, and confusion over which level is in charge of specific domestic government functions. As the world shrinks, international concerns will continue threatening to crowd out domestic policy on the federal agenda. Paradoxically, however, effective domestic policy is now more crucial than ever precisely because it is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs. Unless we have a strong productive economy, a healthy, well-educated population, and a responsive democratic government, we will not be among the major shapers of the future of this interdependent world. If the American standard of living is falling behind that of other countries and its government structure is paralyzed, the United States will find its credibility in world councils eroding. International considerations provide additional rationale, if more were needed, for the United States to have a strong effective domestic policy. One answer to this paradox is to rediscover the strengths of our federal system, the division of labor between the states and the national government. Washington not only has too much to do, it has taken on domestic responsibilities that would be handled better by the states. Revitalizing the economy may depend on restoring a cleaner division of responsibility between the states and the national government.

B. Nuclear war. Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system

SDI 2008 WHAM!

20 States 2NC

AT: Russian Civil War ! T/
1. Cross apply the 1NC Calabresi impact. Excessive federal power causes conflict and war. 2. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and has been for more than 200 years in the US, the impact should have happened as it is dated from 1999 for Secession. 3. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and Russia has a federalist government, the impact should have already happened. 4. Russian federalism is key to prevent Russian civil war. Yuri Krasan, Director of Social Programmes, the Foundation for Social and Economic Reform, 1994,
Federalism and the New World Order, p. 67 Even the idea that regional separatism will save Russia has recently been expressed. It has been suggested that, given the likelihood of a collapse of federal structures, it would be possible to preserve a sound social element only at the regional level, which could become the foundation for a renewal of Russia itself. Whatever the positive motives may be in support of regionalization, such an approach undermines the foundation of Russian federalism—the very basis of Russian statehood. Its implementation would turn Russia into a con-glomerate of peculiar independent principalities without any guarantees that they would again merge into a single federative organism rather than drifting even further apart, joining different geopolitical centres. Within the current confrontational political environment in Russia, without an agreement on a federal structure, Russian territory will become an arena of hostility and struggle, sterile soil for the development of modern democracy. Given Russia’s nuclear military capability, this instability has serious implications for the global community. The shaping of a stable Russian Federation is, thus, a cornerstone for the success of democratization in post-totalitarian Russian society and for Russia’s transformation into a responsible and influential member of the world community. At the same time, the development of the Russian Federation is unthinkable outside the context of society’s democratic reformation. Stability is only possible through improvements in the democratic process and institutions, including a reform of the federal system that provides for an effective distribution of powers between the centre and the rest of the federation.

SDI 2008 WHAM!

21 States 2NC

AT: Russian Econ ! T/
1. Their evidence is from 2000, it doesn’t assume the current political climate in Russia and its analysis is skewed because Russia was recovering from an economic recession. 2. They don’t provide any impacts for their arguments 3. Russian Devolution Key to Economy Clifford Kupchan 2000 http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:rilaKRWYsP4J:www.twq.com/spring00/232kupcha n.pdf+devolution+has+hastened+the+break+up+of+the+soviet+economic&hl=en&ct=clnk &cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
President Vladimir Putin’s sudden ascendance, his stern calls for a strong state, and vigorous prosecution of the war in Chechnya have once again raised the specter of authoritarianism in Russia. At the same time, the weakness of Russia’s central government, coupled with eth- nic strife and economic failure, have led to predictions that the Russian Federation will fall apart. It is hard to say which haunts U.S. policymakers more: the nightmare of the violent implosion of a nuclear power or the re- birth of a totalitarian antagonist in Europe. Fortunately, both expectations are off the mark. They miss one of the most important trends in Russian politics since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991—the devolution of power to Russia’s 89 distinct regions. The Rus- sian state is not moving toward collapse, and it is far too weak to revert to authoritarianism. Instead, Russia is undergoing a historic devolution of power that is likely to lead to a more stable and open polity. In this sense, devolution within the Russian Federation is a very positive development and in the interests of both Russia and the United States. This essay makes three points: First, that devolution of power in Russia has promoted democratic and market reform, enhancing political pluralism and allowing economic success stories to appear in the regions. The election of a moderate Duma in December 1999 and the prospect of an activist presi- dent may well provide a more stable environment in which these reforms can flourish.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful