wham states federalism

8/14/2019 WHAM States Federalism

1/21

SDI 2008 1

WHAM! 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: Doesnt Solve- Global Warming..........................................................................................................................5

AT: Doesnt Solve- Global Warming ............................................................................................5

AT: Doesnt Solve- Leadership...................................................................................................................................6

AT: Doesnt Solve- Leadership .....................................................................................................6

AT: Doesnt Solve- Not Modeled................................................................................................................................7

AT: Doesnt 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 ...........................................................................................................................15AT: 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


2/21

SDI 2008 2

WHAM! 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


3/21

SDI 2008 3

WHAM! 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 its impossible for the plan and CP to existRobert K. Huffman, lawyer, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, VP at MidAmerican Holdings,Winter2008, ClimateChange 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-and-

trade system or other form of comprehensive carbon emissions regulation. Any program that created anationwide 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. Butlacking such a program, as is currently the case, it is difficult to see any way in which a state-organized cap-

and-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=2015The 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 Washingtons inaction: Many states have been stepping

into the void and adopting comprehensive climate change policies that can be a model for the comingfederal 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.


4/21

SDI 2008 4

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: No Uniformity

1. No Link - This argument doesnt 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 inFederal 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 oneregion, oil heat drivesemissions in another region), transportation policy (rural areas have feweropportunities for usefulinvestments 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 one-

size-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 greaterrole for wholesale marketsand 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 cap-

and-trade programs. For example, in the states where utilities participate in regional day-ahead and short-term 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.


5/21

SDI 2008 5

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Doesnt Solve- Global Warming

1. They say stakes wont move but they have already taken action and had experience

thats Northrop 08 & Rabe 02

2. Even if states dont solve completely, federal action is soon to follow while avoiding

the DA & the perm3. 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 Todayhttp://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 changecould 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 intotaking 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 Todayhttp://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.


6/21

SDI 2008 6

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Doesnt Solve- Leadership

1. Be Skeptical The affs cards are specific to how federal action is good but they

dont give any comparison to states.

2. Extend the 1NC Northrop and Sassoon 08 evidence explaining how state action is asgood, 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=2015The 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 andthe 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 Washingtonas 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 underRGGI 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. Butthe states have far more to offer. They also have approved a host ofenergy-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 statesenergy come from renewable sources, such as solar and wind power.Many states chief among them California

have shown similarnational leadershipby 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 dont assume the

world of the CP.


7/21

SDI 2008 7

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Doesnt 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=2015The 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 bythe ten Eastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), two otherregional groupings of

states are working to establish carbon trading the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern GovernorsAssociation. 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 aslawmakers 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 alreadymade 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 helpvulnerable 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. Butthe states have far more to offer. They alsohave 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 andweatherization 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 states energy

come from renewable sources, such as solar and wind power.Many states chief among them California have

shown similarnational leadership by significantly toughening auto emissions standards, leading Congressto 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 theyve done hundreds of

projects and spillover to the federal government in the long runRusty 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 ofthese policies couldbecome 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 StateUniversity, 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 2001-

2002 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.


8/21

SDI 2008 8

WHAM! 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.

Its Empirically proven that states cooperate on climate change with other countries

HenrikSelin, 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, 2007http://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 theNew 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 regions governors and

premiers since 2001, most recently in May of 2006.


9/21

SDI 2008 9

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Federal Preempts State Action

1. Congress wont rollback state action

JackGoldsmith, Prof @ Chicago, November1997, Virg. L. Rev., lnThe rise in subnational foreign relations activity tells us little, of course, about the activity's normativedesirability. 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 numerouspotential [*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 doesnt take out solvency

JackGoldsmith, Prof @ Chicago, November1997, Virg. L. Rev., lnEven 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 stateeconomic 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 mostnotorious 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 tosimilar 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.


10/21


11/21

SDI 2008 11

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: California Economy DA

1. Non-unique Chinas 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/2008-06/19/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 Schwarzeneggeron spending, economy, rks, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-arnold30-

2008jun30,0,595673.story

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, usually a darling of the national media, found himself being told by the hostof 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

4. No link Very little money would be spent because the nuclear power plants are

already built just need a waste storage thats our Hippel 08 inherency evidence

5. Even if we do increase taxes, they are actually key to the Californian Economy

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-the-econom_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 theythink 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.


12/21

SDI 2008 12

WHAM! 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 its 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 cant isolate in round abuse so dont arrest us before we commit a crime

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


13/21

SDI 2008 13

WHAM! 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 onfederal 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 globallevel, 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.


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 informati on sources, and experience with forcing compliance. A

recognition that a one-size federal solution may not alway s fit is perhaps the underlying rationale for

many federal environmental statutes.


14/21

SDI 2008 14

WHAM! States 2NC

States Solve- Global Warming

State Initiatives are critical to provide economy wide reductions in emissions.


State governments are moving to enact legislation that requires enfo rceable 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 ordersand 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 states 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.


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.


15/21

SDI 2008 15

WHAM! 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 affs card by ATLEAST 3 months

3. Federalism is high states are winning court battles over rightsIlya Somin, George Mason University - School of Law, 6-23-08, Northwestern University Law ReviewColloquy, Vol. 102, pp. 365-373, 2008, A Floor, Not a Ceiling: Federalism and Remedies for Violations ofConstitutional 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 7-2vote, 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 theSupreme 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 NewYork 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 stateof 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 Bushpresidency 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 NeedyFamilies 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 agencyrulings 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 affs non-unique cards are by the SAME Dinan 08. the author concludes that

the states have power, despite action against it.


16/21

SDI 2008 16

WHAM! 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 citizens rights, yet this contradicts their

Moravcsik 05 card that says countries deny American Federalism because it doesnt

focus on human rights. Their evidence is contradicting2. 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


17/21


18/21

SDI 2008 18

WHAM! 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 forSecession.

3. Their Kelly 99 card says that it doesnt 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 theworld 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 everprecisely 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 1995Under 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 bemore conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.


19/21

SDI 2008 19

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Econ ! T/


war.



3. They have no impact to economic stability they dont 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 thestress 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, theUnited 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 1995Under 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 ofregional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the

rise of anotherhostile 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


20/21

SDI 2008 20

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Russian Civil War ! T/


war.



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 federalismthe 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 andstruggle, sterile soil for the development of modern democracy. Given Rus sias 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 Russias 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 societys

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 effectivedistribution of powers between the centre and the rest of the federation.


21/21

SDI 2008 21

WHAM! States 2NC

AT: Russian Econ ! T/

1. Their evidence is from 2000, it doesnt assume the current political climate in Russia

and its analysis is skewed because Russia was recovering from an economic recession.

2. They dont 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/spring00/232kupchan.pdf+devolution+has+hastened+the+break+up+of+the+soviet+economic&hl=en&ct=clnk

&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-aPresident Vladimir Putins 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 Russias central government, coupled with ethnic 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 orthe 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

1991the devolution of power to Russias 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 ahistoric 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 president may well provide a more stable

environment in which these reforms can flourish.

wham states federalism

Documents