DA - Federalism 100

Federalism DA
1NC – TRUMP
Trump is moving away from federal control of education
now
SA Miller, Washington Times Http, 4-26-2017, Donald Trump to pull feds
out of K-12 education," Washington Times,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-
out-k-12-education/, Accessed: 7-2-2017, /Kent Denver-MB
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling the
federal government out of K-12 education, following through on a campaign
promise to return school control to state and local officials. The order,
dubbed the “Education Federalism Executive Order,” will launch a 300-day
review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts and
directs Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to modify or repeal measures
she deems an overreach by the federal government. “For too long the
government has imposed its will on state and local governments. The result
has been education that spends more and achieves far, far, far less,” Mr.
Trump said. “My administration has been working to reverse this federal
power grab and give power back to families, cities [and] states — give
power back to localities.” He said that previous administrations had
increasingly forced schools to comply with “whims and dictates” from
Washington, but his administration would break the trend. “We know local
communities know it best and do it best,” said Mr. Trump, who was joined by
several Republican governors for the signing. “The time has come to
empower teachers and parents to make the decisions that help their
students achieve success.”
Continuing with trump’s move is key to federalism

Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D., is a longtime educator who is Executive Vice
President of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin., 2-7- 2017,
States, Not the Feds, Should Lead Education Reform," No Publication,
http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2017/02/07/states_not_the_feds_
should_lead_education_reform__110115.html, Accessed: 7-2-2017, /Kent
Denver-MB
The era of Donald Trump offers conservative reformers opportunities they
have not seen since the 1980s. The most significant are in education,
where the federal government has aggrandized its power , rendering states
impotent. This overreach comes at the expense of two things very dear to
the nation—our schoolchildren and our understanding of shared power.
Though the Trump administration will no doubt address the former problem, its means of doing so may
very well exacerbate the latter. Too often, well-intentioned, conservative executives end up using federal
President Trump
power to heal the wounds caused by the very same bludgeon—federal power. If
is correct in his inaugural exhortation that “now is the hour of action,” then
states—not federal bureaucrats—need to lead the charge on education
policy. Among the many problems facing American education, the most significant may be our schools’
and colleges’ utter failure to teach civic education. Two generations of American students
have been taught precious little about the American Founding or the
Constitution, let alone the philosophical foundation of the American system
of government—federalism. That notion of shared power between the federal
government and states has, as a result, withered. How fitting, then, that Texas—where the
American spirit of independence, work ethic, freedom and a vibrant notion of state power is palpable—
take the lead in renewing federalism. And how fitting that it do so in the policy area where revitalized
state power is most needed: education. During the otherwise-bleak years of the previous administration,
the Lone Star State has shined as a beacon of liberty, deregulation and restrained government authority.
Harkening to Justice Louis Brandeis's early-20th-century comment that “states are the laboratories of
democracy,” Texas-based initiatives have sprouted across the nation. It's no Texan braggadocio to observe
that nationwide, efforts in tort reform, deregulation, tax reduction and criminal justice reform originated
And
in Texas. The resulting “Texas Model” has become the blueprint for leaders in dozens of states.
that is precisely how our system should work. Though we are all familiar with the
legitimate claims based on state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment, our Founders viewed those as
In the realm of public policy, they saw the states as
mere baseline expectations.
taking the initiative, being so bold and innovative that the federal
government would have to serve as a check on them—not the other way
around, as the case has been in recent years. As the Obama administration would be the
first to say, Texas has led those efforts to check federal power. That defensive posture was necessary—
now Texas and other states must seize the field
and, for the Republic, crucial. But
of education policy, exercising their own power with bold policy initiatives.
The timing for Texas policymakers is perfect. The state's biennial legislative session has just begun, and
the momentum for an education overhaul has never been stronger. At the National School Choice Week
rally earlier this week, both Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick gave rousing, full-throated
endorsements of school choice reforms. There are obstacles, to be sure, but even the defenders of the
status quo recognize that it's hard to defend the mediocrity of the status quo. Among the many school
choice vehicles, the most far-reaching—for Texas and the United States—is an Education Savings Account
(ESA). Built on the successes of early choice vehicles such as tax-credit scholarships, ESAs offer wider
and easier usage, removing the barriers to access that have been foisted on choice programs by
opponents. Parents may use an ESA to pay for a host of education-related expenses, including private
school tuition, tutoring, special needs programs and books. In sum, an ESA gives parents an
unprecedented means for customizing their child’s education—the exact opposite of the conveyor-belt,
cookie-cutter approach that has become modern American education. Though some reformers have
advocated for federal ESAs, the inefficiency inherent in the large federal bureaucracy begs for states to
take the lead. Texas, the most populous state with a bent toward conservative, free-market reforms, has a
unique opportunity to showthat states, as our Founders expected, can be at the forefront of
policy innovation. There could not be more at stake. Our children deserve an
end to zip-code discrimination, which dramatically limits their access to decent educational
options. Furthermore, the civic health of our American Republic—in particular, the
long-standing view that states, not the feds, would lead—hangs in the
balance.
The plan decks federalism

Frederick M. Hess OPINION CONTRIBUTOR Frederick M. Hess is director
of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and author
of the new book, “Letters to a Young Education Reformer” (Harvard
Education Press). And Andrew Kelly CONTRIBUTOR Andrew P. Kelly is a
resident scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at
the American Entrprise Institute., 9-15-2015, More Than a Slogan," US
News & World Report, https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-
bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-federalism-in-education-matters, Accessed: 7-2-
2017, /Kent Denver-MB
The response to these concerns should not be shallow sloganeering around the virtues of limited government, but a
competing vision of how to order our community affairs and an explanation of why, at least in the American system,
the federal government just isn't well suited to govern education.
Anything less makes it all too easy for liberals, and even well-intentioned
moderates, to dismiss federalism as an inconvenient obstacle to be
overcome rather than an asset to be embraced. Federalism matters for at
least five reasons. It's a matter of size. Education advocates suffer from severe bouts of Finland and
Singapore envy. They tend to ignore that most of these nations have populations of 5 million or so, or about the
population of Maryland or Massachusetts. Trying to make rules for schools in a nation that's
as large and diverse as the U.S. is simply a different challenge. It aligns
responsibility and accountability with authority. One problem with tackling education reform
from Washington is that it's not members of Congress or federal bureaucrats
who are charged with making things work or who are held accountable when
they don't. Instead, responsibility and blame fall on state leaders and on the leaders in those schools, districts and
colleges who do the actual work. The more authority moves up the ladder in education, the more this divide worsens. It
steers decisions towards the practical. No Child Left Behind promised that 100 percent of students would be proficient
in reading and math by 2014. President Barack Obama wants to ensure that all students can attend community college
It's easy for D.C. politicians to make
for "free" – though most of the funds would come from states.
grand promises and leave the consequences to someone else. State leaders
must balance the budget and are answerable to voters for what happens in
schools and colleges; this tends to make them more pragmatic in pursuing
reform. When policymakers are embedded in a community, as mayors and state legislators are, there is also more
trust and opportunity for compromise. That kind of practicality might disappoint firebrands eager for national solutions,
but it's a better bet for students than the wish lists and airy promises of Beltway pols. It leaves room for varied
approaches to problem-solving. One of the perils of trying to "solve" things from Washington is that we wind up with
one-size-fits-all solutions. No Child Left Behind emerged from a wave of state-based efforts to devise testing and
accountability systems. Those state efforts were immensely uneven, but they allowed a variety of approaches to emerge,
yielding the opportunity to learn, refine and reinvent. That's much more difficult when Washington is seeking something
that can be applied across 50 states. It ensures that reform efforts actually have local roots. The Obama administration's
Race to the Top program convinced lots of states to promise to do lots of things. The results have been predictably
disappointing. Rushing to adopt teacher evaluation systems on a political timeline, states have largely made a hash of
the exercise. Free college proposals make the same mistake; they depend on states and colleges promising to spend
more money and adopt federally sanctioned reforms, an approach that seems destined to frustrate policymakers' best-
laid plans. To be sure, local control has its downsides. Local school politics tend to be dominated by interests like
teachers unions. School boards are often parochial and shortsighted. And the federal government is uniquely positioned
to do some jobs that states can't, like providing a national bully pulpit to spotlight problems, funding research and
promoting interstate transparency. The feds also have opportunities to take on the dominance of entrenched local
interests by playing a "trust-busting" role. Federal recognition of alternative approaches like charter schools,
nontraditional teacher licensure programs and innovative postsecondary programs can challenge incumbents' privileged
market position. Federal funding is another trust-busting lever; wherever possible, reformers should ensure that public
dollars flow to students and families and empower them to choose. Rather than write prescriptive rules that all schools
must obey, trust-busting gives local problem-solvers an opportunity to change politics and policy from the bottom up. But
the feds are not well equipped to fix schools. More to the point, getting
Washington involved undermines the many benefits of state-driven
reform in our federal system. Limiting the federal government's role in
education isn't a slogan, it's a way to ensure that American education is both
accountable to the public and dynamic enough to meet today's
challenges.
Progressive federalism is the basis for resistance to
Trump’s agenda.
Chemerinsky 17 — Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, Distinguished
Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at
the University of California-Irvine School of Law, Fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, former Alston & Bird Professor of Law and
Political Science at Duke University, holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School,
2017 (“Embracing Federalism,” Take Care—a scholarly legal blog, March
16th, Available Online at https://takecareblog.com/blog/embracing-
federalism, Accessed 06-14-2017)
It is time for progressives to embrace federalism and to use Supreme Court
precedents protecting states’ rights to fight against Trump administration
policies. Throughout American history, “states’ rights” have been used by
conservatives to oppose progressive change. In the early 19th century,
those opposing abolition of slavery did so in the name of states’ rights. In
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Supreme Court struck down
many progressive federal laws, including the first federal statute restricting
the use of child labor, on federalism grounds. In the 1950s and 1960s,
Southerners opposed desegregation by invoking states’ rights. In more
recent decades, the Supreme Court, in a series of ideologically split 5-4
decisions, used federalism to strike down desirable federal laws, including
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, the Brady Handgun Control
Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
But now, with the Trump administration taking far right positions on almost
every issue, state and local governments are a key hope. For example,
President Donald Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary
cities” is coercion of local governments that violates principles of federalism
long advocated by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.
A great deal of confusion exists over what it means for a city to declare itself
to be a “sanctuary.” It does not mean that a city will conceal or shelter
undocumented immigrants from detection. Instead, when a city says that it
is a “sanctuary,” it means that the city will not be an arm of federal
immigration authorities. For example, a sanctuary city will not investigate,
arrest, or detain individuals on the basis of immigration status. Rather, the
city will provide services to all, regardless of immigration status, and
generally will not turn over undocumented individuals to federal
immigration authorities.
There are compelling reasons for cities to adopt such policies. Victims of
crime and witnesses to crime will not come forward to the police if they fear
deportation. Public health officials worry that sick people, including those
with communicable diseases, will not go for treatment if they fear that it
could lead to their deportation. Of course, their untreated communicable
diseases can spread to all of us. Education officials worry that parents will
not send their children to school if they think it might lead to deportation.
Educating children, whether documented or undocumented, is a moral
obligation and obviously essential for society.
Nonetheless, President Trump issued an executive order on January 25,
2017, which threatens sanctuary cities with loss of federal funds. But this
violates the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that it is
unconstitutional for Congress to commandeer state and local governments
and force them to administer federal mandates.
For example, in United States v. Printz, in 1997, the Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional a provision of the federal Brady Handgun Control Act that
required that state and local governments do background checks before
issuing permits for firearms. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, said
that such coercion violated principles of federalism and the Tenth
Amendment.
Nor may Congress do this by putting strings on grants to state and local
governments. The Supreme Court has said that such strings are
constitutional only if the conditions are clearly stated, relate to the purpose
of the program, and are not unduly coercive. None of these requirements
are met by the Trump Executive Order. No federal statute conditions
federal funds on cities denying themselves sanctuary status. And most
federal grants to local governments have nothing to do with immigration.
But most of all, the Trump Executive Order is impermissibly coercive. In
2012, in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the
Supreme Court, 7-2, declared unconstitutional the Medicaid provisions of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provided that if a
state accepted federal Medicaid funds, it had to provide coverage for those
within 133% of the federal poverty level. The federal government paid 100%
of these costs until 2019 and 90% thereafter. The Court, in an opinion by
Chief Justice Roberts, declared this unconstitutional as impermissibly
coercing state governments in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The Court
referred to this as like “a gun to the head” of the states and as “dragooning”
them. The Trump Executive Order does exactly the same thing.
The federal government can use its agencies and agents to enforce federal
immigration law however it chooses. But it cannot turn local governments
into enforcement arms of the federal government. That is exactly what the
Trump Executive Order does.
This is just one of many examples where principles of federalism must be

used by progressives. In the area of environmental law, it will be crucial
for state governments to adopt stricter pollution control laws in the face of
the dismantling of federal environmental protections. Just last week, Scott
Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, once more denied
any link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It is clear
that he and the Trump administration will gut federal environmental
regulations. But there long has been a principle that states can have stricter
environmental laws, so long as Congress does not explicitly preempt this.
Another important area concerns decriminalization of marijuana. A

number of states, including California, have repealed laws that make it a
crime to possess small amounts of this drug. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
has expressed opposition to these laws. But Congress cannot force state
governments to enact or enforce laws. A state does not need to have any
law prohibiting marijuana, or can have one with exceptions for possession
for medical use or for small amounts. To be sure, the federal government
can enforce its own drug laws however it wants, but it cannot compel state
governments to do so.
States, of course, will vary enormously in their policies. But that, too,
is what federalism and states’ rights are about. Progressives should not
be hesitant to use conservative decisions to achieve desirable results. We
will need all the tools we can find to fight over the next four years.
Resisting Trump’s agenda is essential to lower the risk of

multiple existential threats.
Baum 16 — Seth Baum, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Global
Catastrophic Risk Institute, Affiliate Researcher at the Center for Research
on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University, and Affiliate Scholar at
the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and a Research Scientist
at Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, earned a Ph.D. in Geography from
Pennsylvania State University, an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from
Northeastern University, and a B.S. in Optics and a B.S. in Applied
Mathematics from the University of Rochester, 2016 (“What Trump means
for global catastrophic risk,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, December 9th,
Available Online at http://thebulletin.org/what-trump-means-global-
catastrophic-risk10266, Accessed 07-09-2017, Lil_Arj)
In 1987, Donald Trump said he had an aggressive plan for the United States
to partner with the Soviet Union on nuclear non-proliferation. He was
motivated by, among other things, an encounter with Libyan dictator
Muammar Qaddafi’s former pilot, who convinced him that at least some
world leaders are too unstable to ever be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Now, 30 years later, Trump—following a presidential campaign marked by
impulsive, combative behavior—seems poised to become one of those
unstable world leaders.
Global catastrophic risks are those that threaten the survival of human
civilization. Of all the implications a Trump presidency has for global
catastrophic risk—and there are many—the prospect of him ordering the
launch of the massive US nuclear arsenal is by far the most worrisome. In
the United States, the president has sole authority to launch atomic
weapons. As Bruce Blair recently argued in Politico, Trump’s tendency
toward erratic behavior, combined with a mix of difficult geopolitical
challenges ahead, mean the probability of a nuclear launch order will be
unusually high.
If Trump orders an unwarranted launch, then the only thing that could stop
it would be disobedience by launch personnel—though even this might not
suffice, since the president could simply replace them. Such disobedience
has precedent, most notably in Vasili Arkhipov, the Soviet submarine officer
who refused to authorize a nuclear launch during the Cuban Missile Crisis;
Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer who refused to relay a warning (which
turned out to be a false alarm) of incoming US missiles; and James
Schlesinger, the US defense secretary under President Richard Nixon, who
reportedly told Pentagon aides to check with him first if Nixon began talking
about launching nuclear weapons. Both Arkhipov and Petrov are now
celebrated as heroes for saving the world. Perhaps Schlesinger should be
too, though his story has been questioned. US personnel involved in nuclear
weapons operations should take note of these tales and reflect on how they
might act in a nuclear crisis.
Risks and opportunities abroad. Aside from planning to either persuade or
disobey the president, the only way to avoid nuclear war is to try to avoid
the sorts of crises that can prompt nuclear launch. China and Russia, which
both have large arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons and tense
relationships with the United States, are the primary candidates for a
nuclear conflagration with Washington. Already, Trump has increased
tensions with China by taking a phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai
Ing-wen. China-Taiwan relations are very fragile, and this sort of disruption
could lead to a war that would drag in the United States.
Meanwhile, Trump’s presidency could create some interesting opportunities
to improve US relations with Russia. The United States has long been too
dismissive of Moscow’s very legitimate security concerns regarding NATO
expansion, missile defense, and other encroachments. In stark defiance of
US political convention, Trump speaks fondly of Russian President Vladimir
Putin, an authoritarian leader, and expresses little interest in supporting
NATO allies. The authoritarianism is a problem, but Trump’s unconventional
friendliness nonetheless offers a valuable opportunity to rethink US-Russia
relations for the better.
On the other hand, conciliatory overtures toward Russia could backfire.
Without US pressure, Russia could become aggressive, perhaps invading the
Baltic states. Russia might gamble that NATO wouldn’t fight back, but if it
was wrong, such an invasion could lead to nuclear war. Additionally, Trump’s
pro-Russia stance could mean that Putin would no longer be able to use anti-
Americanism to shore up domestic support, which could lead to a dangerous
political crisis. If Putin fears a loss of power, he could turn to more
aggressive military action in hopes of bolstering his support. And if he were
to lose power, particularly in a coup, there is no telling what would happen
to one of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. The best approach for the
United States is to rethink Russia-US relations while avoiding the sorts of
military and political crises that could escalate to nuclear war.
The war at home. Trump has been accused many times of authoritarian
tendencies, not least due to his praise for Putin. He also frequently defies
democratic norms and institutions, for instance by encouraging violence
against opposition protesters during his presidential campaign, and now via
his business holdings, which create a real prospect he may violate the
Constitution’s rule against accepting foreign bribes. Already, there are signs
that Trump is profiting from his newfound political position, for example
with an end to project delays on a Trump Tower in Buenos Aires. The US
Constitution explicitly forbids the president from receiving foreign gifts,
known as “emoluments.”
What if, under President Trump, the US government itself becomes
authoritarian? Such an outcome might seem unfathomable, and to be sure,
achieving authoritarian control would not be as easy for Trump as starting a
nuclear war. It would require compliance from a much larger portion of
government personnel and the public—compliance that cannot be taken for
granted. Already, government officials are discussing how best to resist
illegal and unethical moves from the inside, and citizens are circulating
expert advice on how to thwart creeping authoritarianism.
But the president-elect will take office at a time in which support for
democracy may be declining in the United States and other Western
countries, as measured by survey data. And polling shows that his
supporters were more likely to have authoritarian inclinations than
supporters of other Republican or Democratic primary candidates.
Moreover, his supporters cheered some of his clearly authoritarian
suggestions, like creating a registry for Muslims and implying that through
force of his own personality, he would achieve results where normal elected
officials fail.
An authoritarian US government would be a devastating force. In theory,
dictatorships can be benevolent, but throughout history, they have been
responsible for some of the largest human tragedies, with tens of millions
dying due to their own governments in the Stalinist Soviet Union, Nazi
Germany, and Maoist China. Thanks to the miracles of modern technology,
an authoritarian United States could wield overwhelming military and
intelligence capabilities to even more disastrous effect.
Return to an old world order. Trump has suggested he might pull the U nited
States back from the post-World War II international order it helped build
and appears to favor a pre-World War II isolationist mercantilism that would
have the United States look out for its unenlightened self-interest and
nothing more. This would mean retreating from alliances and attempts to
promote democracy abroad, and an embrace of economic protectionism at
home.
Such a retreat from globalization would have important implications for
catastrophic risk. The post-World War II international system has proved
remarkably stable and peaceful. Returning to the pre-World War II system
risks putting the world on course for another major war, this time with
deadlier weapons. International cooperation is also essential for addressing
global issues like climate change, infectious disease outbreaks, arms control,
and the safe management of emerging technologies.
On the other hand, the globalized economy can be fragile. Shocks in one
place can cascade around the world, and a bad enough shock could collapse
the whole system, leaving behind few communities that are able to support
themselves. Globalization can also bring dangerous concentrations of wealth
and power. Nevertheless, complete rejection of globalization would be a
dangerous mistake.
Playing with climate dangers. Climate change will not wipe out human
populations as quickly as a nuclear bomb would, but it is wreaking slow-
motion havoc that could ultimately be just as devastating. Trump has been
all over the map on the subject, variously supporting action to reduce
emissions and calling global warming a hoax. On December 5th he met with
environmental activist and former vice president Al Gore, giving some cause
for hope, but later the same week said he would appoint Oklahoma Attorney
General Scott Pruitt, who denies the science of climate change, to lead the
Environmental Protection Agency. Trump’s energy plan calls for energy
independence with development of both fossil fuels and renewables, as well
as less environmental regulation. If his energy policy puts more greenhouse
gas into the atmosphere—as it may by increasing fossil fuel consumption—it
will increase global catastrophic risk.
For all global catastrophic risks, it is important to remember that the US
president is hardly the only important actor. Trump’s election shifts the
landscape of risks and opportunities, but does not change the fact that each
of us can help keep humanity safe. His election also offers an important
reminder that outlier events sometimes happen. Just because election-
winning politicians have been of a particular mold in the past, doesn’t mean
the same kind of leaders will continue to win. Likewise, just because we
have avoided global catastrophe so far doesn’t mean we will continue to do
so.
1NC – Warming
Trump is increasing federalism now – the plan destroys the
balance of federal-state power
Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D., is a longtime educator who is Executive Vice
President of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin., 2-7- 2017,
States, Not the Feds, Should Lead Education Reform," No Publication,
should_lead_education_reform__110115.html, Accessed: 7-2-2017, /Kent
Denver-MB
have not seen since the 1980s. The most significant are in education,
where the federal government has aggrandized its power , rendering states
Though the Trump administration will no doubt address the former problem, its means of doing so may
very well exacerbate the latter. Too often, well-intentioned, conservative executives end up using federal
power to heal the wounds caused by the very same bludgeon—federal power. IfPresident Trump
is correct in his inaugural exhortation that “now is the hour of action,” then
states—not federal bureaucrats—need to lead the charge on education
policy. Among the many problems facing American education, the most significant may be our schools’
and colleges’ utter failure to teach civic education. Two generations of American students
have been taught precious little about the American Founding or the
Constitution, let alone the philosophical foundation of the American system
of government—federalism. That notion of shared power between the federal
government and states has, as a result, withered. How fitting, then, that Texas—where the
American spirit of independence, work ethic, freedom and a vibrant notion of state power is palpable—
take the lead in renewing federalism. And how fitting that it do so in the policy area where revitalized
state power is most needed: education. During the otherwise-bleak years of the previous administration,
the Lone Star State has shined as a beacon of liberty, deregulation and restrained government authority.
Harkening to Justice Louis Brandeis's early-20th-century comment that “states are the laboratories of
democracy,” Texas-based initiatives have sprouted across the nation. It's no Texan braggadocio to observe
that nationwide, efforts in tort reform, deregulation, tax reduction and criminal justice reform originated
And
in Texas. The resulting “Texas Model” has become the blueprint for leaders in dozens of states.
that is precisely how our system should work. Though we are all familiar with the
legitimate claims based on state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment, our Founders viewed those as
In the realm of public policy, they saw the states as
mere baseline expectations.
taking the initiative, being so bold and innovative that the federal
government would have to serve as a check on them—not the other way
around, as the case has been in recent years. As the Obama administration would be the
first to say, Texas has led those efforts to check federal power. That defensive posture was necessary—
now Texas and other states must seize the field
and, for the Republic, crucial. But
The timing for Texas policymakers is perfect. The state's biennial legislative session has just begun, and
the momentum for an education overhaul has never been stronger. At the National School Choice Week
rally earlier this week, both Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick gave rousing, full-throated
endorsements of school choice reforms. There are obstacles, to be sure, but even the defenders of the
status quo recognize that it's hard to defend the mediocrity of the status quo. Among the many school
choice vehicles, the most far-reaching—for Texas and the United States—is an Education Savings Account
(ESA). Built on the successes of early choice vehicles such as tax-credit scholarships, ESAs offer wider
and easier usage, removing the barriers to access that have been foisted on choice programs by
opponents. Parents may use an ESA to pay for a host of education-related expenses, including private
school tuition, tutoring, special needs programs and books. In sum, an ESA gives parents an
unprecedented means for customizing their child’s education—the exact opposite of the conveyor-belt,
cookie-cutter approach that has become modern American education. Though some reformers have
advocated for federal ESAs, the inefficiency inherent in the large federal bureaucracy begs for states to
take the lead. Texas, the most populous state with a bent toward conservative, free-market reforms, has a
unique opportunity to showthat states, as our Founders expected, can be at the forefront of
policy innovation. There could not be more at stake. Our children deserve an
end to zip-code discrimination, which dramatically limits their access to decent educational
options. Furthermore, the civic health of our American Republic—in particular, the
long-standing view that states, not the feds, would lead—hangs in the
balance.
Federal education policy destroys federalism in unrelated

areas including environmental policy.
Kazman et al. 16 — Sam Kazman, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
general counsel, with Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies
at the Cato Institute, editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review,
former special assistant/adviser to the Multi-National Force in Iraq on rule-
of-law, and Joshua P. Thompson, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal
Foundation, 2016 (Amicus Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, and CATO Institute in support of the petitioner in the
Supreme Court case Christopher J. Christie, Governor of New Jersey, et al.,
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., November, Available Online
at https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-
content/uploads/christie_v_ncaa_cert-stage.pdf, Accessed 06-30-2017)
For instance, the federal government could compel states to continue

implementing education policies well after they have proven unpopular.
Previously, the need to convince states to cooperate has given them
significant leverage to influence federal policy. See Young, supra at 1074-75
(explaining that state resistence to federal education policy forced a federal
agency to change its requirements). If, once adopted, the federal
government could compel states to continue to implement particular
policies, the political consequences could be far reaching. The federal
government could dictate curricula or testing requirements in those states
that previously embraced the federal policy. But see Milliken v. Bradley, 418
U.S. 717, 741-42 (1974) (recognizing education as an area of traditional
state and local control). It could also require states to continue enforcing
their current bathroom policies, whatever those may be. Cf. G.G. ex rel.
Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), cert.
granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016). Limiting the anti-commandeering
doctrine could also have severe repercussions in environmental policy.
Federal-state cooperation on environmental regulation is particularly useful
because states have greater local knowledge and more available
enforcement officers. See Richard B. Stewart, Pyramids of Sacrifice?
Problems of Federalism in Mandating State Implementation of National
Environmental Policy, 86 Yale L.J. 1196, 1243-50 (1977). But if the federal
government could indefinitely impose its will on states after they initially
agree, that would threaten these cooperative federalism arrangements,
with far reaching affects. Cf. Robert V. Percival, Environmental
Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 Md. L. Rev.
1141, 1174 (1995).
Federalism is key to solve global warming—only way to

overcome Trump intransigence
John Ibbitson, 6-2-2017, Federalism might be our best hope in fighting
climate change," Globe and Mail,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federalism-might-be-our-
best-hope-in-fighting-climate-change/article35197342/, Accessed: 6-28-2017,
/Kent Denver-MB
Federal systems of government are splendid things: robust, flexible, able to
accommodate conflicting local values. When it comes to the fight against global
warming, federalism is the ace up Canada’s sleeve, while south of the border
it’s America’s last, best hope. Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper was right to
withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2011. The Chrétien government had
made promises at Kyoto that no Canadian government could keep without wrecking the economy. The
expanding oil sands in Alberta had become a major driver of growth. The U.S. Congress was blocking
president Barack Obama’s efforts to fight global warming. Any Canadian tax on carbon without an
equivalent American action would simply kill Canadian jobs, without lowering the planet’s temperature
even a smidgeon, Mr. Harper argued, and that argument made sense. Tony Keller: How Donald Trump
became China’s brand ambassador Read more: U.S. governors, mayors defend Paris accord after Trump’s
rejection But, although Ottawa wasn’t ready to fight climate change, some provincial governments
thought differently. Quebec had a natural advantage, because most of its electricity is generated by
hydro. The Liberal government in Ontario wanted to replace lost manufacturing jobs in traditional
industries by developing green-energy technology. British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell believed
that a carbon tax was the most business-friendly way to lower emissions. When Rachel Notley’s NDP
came to power in Alberta, committed to bringing that province in line with others in the fight against
climate change, Mr. Harper shrugged. Ottawa’s job, he believed, was to get a pipeline to tidewater
somehow, somewhere. If the provinces wanted to go all green, they were welcome to knock themselves
The
out. But then Mr. Harper was replaced by Justin Trudeau, and Mr. Obama by Donald Trump.
White House is now even more of a climate-change-denier than the House of
Representatives or Senate, while the Liberal government is as enthusiastic about fighting
climate change as any province. In Canada’s case, federalism worked to provide in advance what Ottawa
now seeks: a national (if piecemeal) strategy to reduce carbon emissions through provincial cap-and-
In America’s
trade or carbon tax schemes, with only Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall seriously offside.
case, federalism and the entrepreneurial energy of the private sector
have combined to limit the damage inflicted by Washington. About 30
states have green-energy strategies in place. Elon Musk resigned Thursday from two of
Mr. Trump’s advisory councils in protest over the President’s decision to withdraw the United States from
the Paris accord on climate change. Of course he resigned: His Tesla Model 3 electric car will soon hit the
streets in an increasingly competitive electric vehicle market, going head-to-head with, among other
competitors, the Chevy Bolt and the Volkswagen eGolf. The battle in North America against global
warming will be most successfully fought in dealer show rooms. Mr. Trump, with his Luddite refusal to
recognize the transformation under way in his own country’s economy, is making that battle harder to
win, which is why dozens of mayors and CEOs vowed to continue efforts to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions in the wake of the President’s announcement. Federations aren’t perfect, as both
Canadians and Americans know. Local turf wars can prevent unified action – just witness the
years of effort, mostly futile, to eliminate internal barriers to trade in Canada. And while the
Trump White House is egregious in its foolishness on climate change (and so
much else), the Trudeau Langevin Block has its own issues. Threatening to punish recalcitrant
provinces with a federally imposed carbon tax is a mistake; in federal politics coercion is generally a
mistake. And if Washington has replaced the eagle with the ostrich (thank you, Bob Rae, for that tweet),
Mr. Trudeau’s green rhetoric fails to match his actions: The Liberal climate-reduction targets are
Still, this is a good time
essentially identical to the old Conservative climate-reduction targets.
to celebrate the diversity of federalism, which is working both to
Canada’s and America’s advantage on the climate-change file.
Something to remember the next time we grind our teeth at the
unwieldiness of federalism. Unwieldy is good. It limits the damage of stupid.
We control magnitude—causes extinction

Mccoy 14 (Dr. David McCoy et al., MD, Centre for International Health
and Development, University College London, “Climate Change and Human
Survival,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL v. 348, 4—2—14, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its report on the impacts of
the
global warming. Building on its recent update of the physical science of global warming [1],
IPCC’s new report should leave the world in no doubt about the scale and
immediacy of the threat to human survival, health, and well-being. The IPCC has
already concluded that it is “virtually certain that human influence has warmed
the global climate system” and that it is “extremely likely that more than half
of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is
anthropogenic [1]. Its new report outlines the future threats of further global
warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh water; extreme weather events;
rise in sea level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and
mass human migration, conflict and violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions
displaced in a little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) added its voice: “the
well being of people of all nations [is] at risk.” [2] Such
climate change is “the
comments reaffirm the conclusions of the Lancet/UCL Commission: that
greatest threat to human health of the 21st century.” [3] The changes seen so far—massive
arctic ice loss and extreme weather events, for example—have resulted from an estimated average
Further changes will depend on how much we
temperature rise of 0.89°C since 1901.
continue to heat the planet. The release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would
probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an amount that could be emitted in less than
eight years. [4] “Business as usual” will increase carbon dioxide concentrations
from the current level of 400 parts per million (ppm), which is a 40% increase from 280 ppm 150 years
ago, to 936 ppm by 2100, with a 50:50 chance that this will deliver global mean temperature rises of
more than 4°C. It is now widely understood that such a rise is “incompatible with an organised global
The IPCC warns of “tipping points” in the Earth’s system, which, if
community.” [5].
crossed, could lead to a catastrophic collapse of interlinked human and
natural systems. The AAAS concludes that there is now a “real chance of abrupt,
unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly
damaging impacts on people around the globe.” [2] And this week a report from the World
Meteorological Office (WMO) confirmed that extreme weather events are accelerating. WMO secretary
general Michel Jarraud said, “There is no standstill in global warming . . . The laws of physics are non-
negotiable.” [6]
Uniqueness
2NC Uniqueness – Generic
Trump is dedicated now to reducing federal role in
education– Republican controlled government supports
him – prefer out evidence, it is predictive
Kamenetz 5/22 (Anya, lead education writer, “President Trump's Budget
Proposal Calls for Deep Cuts To Education”, NPR, 5/22/2017,
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/05/22/529534031/president-trumps-
budget-proposal-calls-for-deep-cuts-to-education)AVR
Trump's full budget proposal for fiscal year 2018, to be released Tuesday,
President
calls for a $9.2 billion, or 13.5 percent, spending cut to education. The cuts would
be spread across K-12 and aid to higher education , according to documents released
by the White House. None of this can be finalized without Congress. And the political track record for
Presidents who want to reduce education funding is not promising, even in a far less poisoned
Student loans This proposal
atmosphere than the one that hovers over Washington right now.
calls for big changes to federal student aid: The federal government would
stop subsidizing the interest on student loans, for a cut of $1 billion in the
next fiscal year. This would add thousands of dollars to the cost of college,
primarily for low-income graduates. Simplifying student loan repayment plans — a proposal
that enjoys broad, bipartisan support. Currently, borrowers have a dizzying array of options: standard
repayment (a 10-year term), graduated, extended, pay-as-you-earn, income-based, income-contingent and
Trump's budget would create just one repayment
public service loan forgiveness.
plan that caps monthly payments at 12.5 percent of discretionary income . For
undergraduate borrowers, the balance would be forgiven after 15 years. In the process of that
simplification, the budget would phase out the program known as public
service loan forgiveness, which erases student loans after 10 years of
employment for the government or a qualifying nonprofit . Almost half a million
people are enrolled in this program. Those with graduate, not bachelor's, degrees, have the largest
balances, such as teachers, doctors and lawyers. It's not yet clear whether the program would be sunset
or canceled immediately. The first group of participants was set to have their loans forgiven this coming
Another proposal in this budget with broad support: making Pell
October.
Grants, which provide tuition aid for low-income students, available year-
round. Currently you can only get one in the fall and one in the spring. Lauren Asher is a college
affordability advocate with the Institute for College Access and Success. That group has supported
simplifying student loan repayment. However, she says, all told, this budget amounts to, "multiple cuts
that will exacerbate student debt by increasing the need to borrow, and increase the cost of repayment
This would affect public schools and students in
for many but not all students.".
several ways. For both special-needs students, as well as millions of poor students, public
schools provide services, from vision screening to speech therapy, to the
tune of $4 billion in reimbursements a year, or 1 percent of all Medicaid
dollars. "It does represent quite a bit of money for schools and it's significant
for them in terms of what they're able to use it for ," says Jessica Schubel of the left-
leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. School choice Title I is the biggest K-12 federal education
program. It supports high-poverty schools. Under Trump's budget, regular Title I funding would be flat.
And $1 billion more would be dedicated to a new grant program for states that allow poor students to
leave neighborhood schools for other public schools, and take that extra money with them. This concept
is known as "portability," or as it's sometimes known, the "backpack of cash" idea. It's controversial,
because in practice it means redistributing funds from poorer schools and potentially poorer districts to
richer ones. In addition, $250
million would go to create vouchers for private
schools, and $167 million for charter schools. The administration is also
expected to unveil — outside this budget process — a tax credit scholarship
program (sometimes called neo-vouchers), as part of tax reform. Cuts Some of the biggest
axes would fall on a $2.3 billion program for teacher training and class-size reduction, and a $1.2 billion
after-school program, which serves nearly 2 million children, many of them poor. A $190 million literacy
program would also be cut. What are the chances? We should note that, though this document has more
details than the "budget blueprint" released earlier, nothing becomes law until it passes through
Congress. If history is any guide, budget reductions won't be so extreme. The Department of Education
Ronald Reagan is the only president since
was established under President Jimmy Carter.
then to seek a significant cut in its budget . In fact, Reagan campaigned on a proposal to
eliminate the department altogether. Once elected, his initial budget proposal asked for cuts of 20 to 25
percent in elementary and secondary education, among other programs. But total appropriations for
Reagan was dealing with a House
1981 ended up higher than the year before. Of course,
and Senate controlled by the opposing party.
Trump and DeVos take action to give states more control

Hansen, Mann, and Valant 5/2/17
(Michael Hansen- The Herman and George R. Brown Chair and Director -
Brown Center on Education Policy Senior Fellow/ Governance studies and
holds a PhD in economics. Elizabeth Mann- Ph.D., M.A., and B.A. in
political science at the University of Michigan. Jon Valant-Ph.D. in Education
and M.A. in Political Science from Stanford University, an M.P.P. from the
Harvard Kennedy School, and a B.A. from the University of Michigan.
“Reflecting on education policy during Trump’s first 100 days–and predicting
what’s next” https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2017/05/02/reflecting-on-education-policy-during-trumps-first-
100-days-and-predicting-whats-next/ ) MGM
To assess President Donald Trump’s first 100 days of education governance
is to assess a president who fundamentally believes that a president should
not do much education governing. Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire
to increase local control of schools, and just last week he signed an
executive order that calls for a review of federal overreach in education.
Between Trump’s reluctance to engage in education policy and the recent
passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which provided states
with greater control over education policymaking, one might have expected
a relatively quiet first 100 days for Trump and the Department of Education.
However, beginning with Trump’s controversial nomination of Education
Secretary Betsy DeVos, the first 100 days have been anything but quiet.
Here, we review the key focus areas of the first 100 days for Trump and
DeVos. We consider not only what has already happened—which, with
respect to policymaking, has been modest—but also the signals of what
might come. PROMOTING SCHOOL CHOICE Perhaps the most consistent,
controversial drumbeat of education news from the Trump administration’s
early days has been its promotion of school choice reforms. DeVos has an
unconventional background for an education secretary, coming to the
Department of Education from a school choice advocacy group, the
American Federation for Children, that was supported by the DeVos family’s
private wealth. Her comments and public appearances to date reflect a
strong commitment to expanding parents’ school choice options, whether
those options are charter, district, or private schools. The degree of
antagonism toward public schools in those comments has varied, from
calling public schools (and their supporters) “the backbone of our education
system” to “the entrenched status quo.” However, DeVos’s support for
school choice reforms has not wavered, nor has the chilly reception she
received from Democrats and, especially, interest groups such as teachers
unions. A legislative effort on school choice appeared in Trump’s “Contract
with the American Voter” for his first 100 days in office. He pledged to work
with Congress to introduce and pass the “School Choice and Education
Opportunity Act,” which would redirect funds to school choice programs
(among other priorities). That has not happened, although Trump’s “skinny
budget” proposed increased funding for an assortment of school choice
programs. A widely anticipated federal tax-credit scholarship program—
which could have helped Trump fulfill a campaign pledge for $20 billion in
federal funding for school choice programs—appears to be on hold, leaving
uncertainty about what is to come. However, with state governments better
positioned to enact school choice reforms than the federal government, the
administration’s school choice efforts might focus on public advocacy and
encouragement for states to prioritize choice programs in their ESSA plans.
ESSA IMPLEMENTATION Perhaps the most significant federal policy action
in Trump’s first 100 days was, in fact, a rollback of federal authority. Trump
signed a congressional resolution to repeal the Obama administration’s
State Plan and Accountability rule. This rule had specified requirements for
state accountability plans under ESSA. With the repeal of the embattled
rule, the Trump administration indicated that they are likely to take a hands-
off approach to federal oversight of state policymaking under ESSA. Indeed,
during her confirmation, DeVos vowed to grant states “maximum flexibility ”
to implement the new law. At least initially, she seems to be sticking to this
approach: EdWeek reports that the Department of Education’s newly
released state accountability plan application template “is shorter and
includes fewer requirements than an earlier application released by the
Obama administration in November.” The Department of Education will
review and approve state plans for implementing the law in the coming
months. Twelve states and D.C. have submitted plans thus far, and the next
deadline for states to submit application is in September. As applications
continue to trickle in, the department’s review of decisions over the summer
and fall will shed more light on just how much deference it will show states,
setting the stage for the federal-state balance of power in the early years of
the ESSA era. A SHRINKING EDUCATION BUDGET? The “skinny budget”
that Trump initially proposed also reflects his perception of education as
primarily a state and local responsibility rather than a federal responsibility.
For example, Trump’s original budget proposed cutting the Education
Department’s funding by 13.5 percent ($9.2 billion). With the budget
process unfolding in fits and starts—and the current congressional budget
agreement more generous toward education programs (and Democratic
priorities) than Trump’s proposal—the fate of specific programs that Trump
initially proposed cutting remains unclear. However, the current spending
bill to fund the government through September would decrease research
funding for the department’s Institute of Education Sciences by $12.7
million. The Department of Education has also sought guidance for
conducting a “reduction in force” for its own employees. Together, these
signs point toward a decreased federal footprint in education.
Trump Administration pushing for increased state power

now – new executive order signifies increased commitment
to federalism
Goad, 4/26
Rob, senior department of education official for the Trump Administration. “On-the-Record Press Call on the Education
Federalism Executive Order”. The White House. 26 April, 2017. Web. 30 June, 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-
press-office/2017/04/26/record-press-call-education-federalism-executive-order/-KL
Hi, this is Rob Goad. I'm a senior Department of Education official. I'm just going to read a brief
the
statement about the President's executive order, and then I'll take a few questions. So, today,
President is signing an executive order that delivers on his commitment to
ensure education decisions are made by those closest to students. Since our
founding, education was intended to be under state and local control . In recent
years, however, too many in Washington have advanced top-down mandates
that take away autonomy and limit the options available to educators, administrators, and
parents. Today's executive order puts an end to this overreach , ensuring that
states and localities are free to make educational decisions as required by law .
This executive order makes certain that local leaders will be making the decisions about what happens in
the classroom.
Parents will no longer have to worry about the federal
government enacting overreaching mandates or requiring states to adopt a
federal curriculum at the expense of local education innovation. This EO takes the
next needed step toward identifying and eliminating D.C.-driven regulations that attempt to control what
this executive order directs Secretary
students are or aren’t taught. Over the next 300 days,
DeVos to review and, if necessary, modify and repeal regulations and guidance issued
by the Department of Education with a clear mandate to identify places
where D.C. has overstepped its legal authority. The Department's regulatory review task
force will manage this process, among other critical regulatory issues, and work with the public to help
determine which regulations are inconsistent with federal law.One-size-fits-all policies never
work, especially for individual students with individual and unique needs. Supporting local
control means supporting education better tailored to the students the
school serves. States should have the freedom and flexibility to advance
creative and innovative ideas to determine the best ways to provide the
highest-quality education possible to every student. With this executive
order, President Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to getting the federal
government out of the way and to returning control over education back where it
belongs, at the state and local level. When communities and parents make the educational
choices, students win. Today's executive order puts us firmly on that track .
Recent legislation signifies a major departure from federal
education control – that spills over to all federalism
Saultz et al., 17 - *Assistant Professor of education @ Miami
University**Interim Department Head, Educational Leadership, Policy and
Human Development Professor @ NC State University***PhD in education
policy @ USC, MA in economics @ USC, AB in history @
Cornell(*Andrew,**Lance D. Fusarelli,***Andrew McEachin, “The Every
Student Succeeds Act, the Decline of the Federal Role in Education Policy,
and the Curbing of Executive Authority”, Publius, 11 April 17,
https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/3603290, Accessed: 6/30/17)//SL
In December 2015, Congress dramatically reversed the course of federal

education policy and returned significant power back to the states,
when it passed, and President Obama signed, the ESSA. The law curbs
federal authority in several ways and severely limits use of executive
waivers, by specifying a number of areas in which the Secretary of
Education may not issue waivers. For example, Section 1001 (20 U.S.C.
6301, G, ii) was amended to read, “The Secretary shall not have the
authority to mandate, direct, control, coerce, or exercise any direction or
supervision over any of the challenging State academic standards adopted
or implemented by a State.”
Explaining Adoption of ESSA and the Curbing of Executive Waiver Authority
Research on ESSA has focused primarily on describing the contents of the
law and explaining how it differs from its predecessor, NCLB. For example,
McGuinn (2016) provides a thorough overview of ESSA and argues that it is
the result of a political backlash against reforms of the Obama
Administration. He argues that “the unprecedented level of prescriptiveness
of federal mandates … set the stage [not only] for a political backlash
against the law [but also] against federal authority in education more
broadly” (McGuinn 2017). According to McGuinn, therefore, one of the
Obama administration’s legacies was, ironically, to generate an expanded
state role in educational policy.
We build on this and other research in this article, in part for the purpose of
delving in more detail into the role of key groups and the dynamics of the
congressional policy process, but also with the aim of generating
conclusions about the conditions associated with successful limitation of
federal authority. The curtailment of waiver authority accomplished by the
ESSA represents a significant and unusual policy development that stands in
marked contrast to the expansive use of waivers in education policy prior to
ESSA and also in contrast to the continued use of waivers in other policy
areas, especially health care policy (see Saultz, McEachin, and Fusarelli
2016 for a detailed comparison of education waiver use to waivers in health
and child welfare). It is therefore worth examining the process and politics
of passing ESSA, with an eye not only to understanding a key change in
education policy with significant implications for American federalism
but also to generating insights applicable to other policy areas.
The Trump administration has set a trend of state control

over education reform and a limited federal role
Jacob 17
(Brian A., Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Walter H.
Annenberg Professor of Education Policy, Professor of Economics, and
Professor of Education at the University of Michigan, Co-Director of the
Education Policy Initiative (EPI) and former director of the Center for Local,
State and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), Research Associate at the National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 2.2.17, Brookings, “How the U.S.
Department of Education can foster education reform in the era of Trump
and ESSA,” https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-the-u-s-department-of-
education-can-foster-education-reform-in-the-era-of-trump-and-essa/,
Accessed: 6.22.17)VW
The current administration has vowed to leave education matters up

to the states, continuing a movement started with the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), which dramatically limited the federal
government’s role in school accountability. While greater local control certainly
has some benefits, it risks exacerbating the massive disparities in educational performance across states
that already exists. In 2015, there was almost a 30 percentile point difference in 4th grade math
proficiency rates between the top and bottom states, only some of which can be explained by state-level
social and economic factors. The massive disparity in progress is perhaps even more disturbing. Between
2003 and 2015, student proficiency rates grew by over 40 percent in some states, while remaining flat or
even declining in other states. The Department of Education (DoED) should take steps to highlight these
disparities by identifying the lowest performing states and providing information on the status and
progress of all states on a variety of educational metrics. The DoED might also provide modest funding
and technical assistance to help demographically similar states work together to improve their public
Trump often called for giving more
education systems. On the campaign trail, President
discretion over education policy to states and localities, critiquing
Common Core and what he viewed as other instances of federal overreach.
In her recent confirmation hearing, President Trump’s nominee for
Education Secretary—Betsy DeVos—repeatedly argued for leaving education
matters up to the states. And this desire for local control is not limited to
the current administration. In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) with strong bipartisan support. This legislation
replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) system of school accountability
with a more narrowly tailored and flexible approach to school reform.
Instead of requiring all schools to meet annual performance targets, ESSA
requires states to focus on a small set of low-performing schools and gives
them considerable latitude to design the interventions they deem
appropriate. In discussing ESSA, chair of the Senate Education Committee Lamar
Alexander claimed, “The department was in effect acting as a national school board for the 42
states with waivers—100,000 schools. The states were doing fine until the federal
government stuck its nose into it…So it was important to get the balls back
in the hands of the people who really should have it .”[i] But the evidence suggests
that not all states are doing fine. Indeed, there are massive disparities across states in terms of current
student performance, and these differences are not merely a factor of the social and economic conditions
in the state. All states have been actively engaged in efforts to turnaround failing schools, but the
Public education will
effectiveness of such efforts has varied dramatically across jurisdictions.
(and should) always be driven predominantly by local actors —
teachers, administrators, school board members, and state
legislators. Even under NCLB, states and districts had a mostly unfettered
ability to run schools as they saw fit. But with autonomy comes the potential for greater
disparity, as more capable, focused, and well-resourced states pull even further ahead of those with less
capacity, fewer resources, and greater political dysfunction.
Trump is overturning federal education regulations now –

shift to state authority
Brown 17
(Emma, MJ in Journalism, reporter at the Washington Post, 3.27.17, The
Washington Post, “Trump signs bills overturning Obama-era education
regulations,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/03/27/trump-
signs-bills-overturning-obama-era-education-regulations/?
utm_term=.ab3c0e434996, Accessed: 6.22.17)VW
PresidentTrump signed bills Monday overturning two Obama-era education
regulations, continuing the Republican majority’s effort to undo key pieces
of the previous administration’s legacy. Trump’s move scraps new
requirements for programs that train new K-12 teachers and rolls
back a set of rules outlining how states must carry out the Every
Student Succeeds Act, a bipartisan federal law meant to hold schools accountable for student
performance. In a signing ceremony at the White House Monday, the president
hailed the measures for “removing an additional layer of bureaucracy
to encourage freedom in our schools.” Leaders of the Republican
majority claimed that the accountability rules represented an
executive overreach by former president Barack Obama. Democrats argued
that rescinding the rules opens loopholes that states can use to shield poorly performing schools from
scrutiny, especially when they fail to serve poor children, minorities, English-language learners and
students with disabilities. Civil rights and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
also opposed doing away with the rules. The measure to repeal the regulations passed easily in the GOP-
dominated House, but barely made it out of the Senate on a 50 to 49 vote, mostly along party lines. The
teacher-preparation regulation, which stemmed from the Higher Education Act, required
states to issue annual ratings for training programs within their borders. It was meant to ensure that
was broadly unpopular from the
novice teachers enter classrooms more prepared, but it
start. Teachers unions said the regulations wrongly tied ratings of teacher-
training programs to the performance of teachers’ students on standardized
tests; colleges and states argued that the rules were onerous and
expensive, and many Republicans argued that Obama’s Education
Department had overstepped the bounds of executive authority. Both
sets of rules were overturned using the Congressional Review Act , a rarely used
law that empowers a new president and Congress to overturn regulations promulgated during the last 60
days of the previous administration.
Trump has revitalized federalism — state control of
education policy is key.
Roberts 17 — Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D., a longtime educator who is
Executive Vice President of the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin,
2017 (“States, Not the Feds, Should Lead Education Reform,” Real Clear
Education, February 7th, Available Online at
should_lead_ education_reform__110115.html, Accessed 06-22-2017)
have not seen since the 1980s. The most significant are in education, where
the federal government has aggrandized its power, rendering states
Though the Trump administration will no doubt address the former problem,
its means of doing so may very well exacerbate the latter. Too often,
well-intentioned, conservative executives end up using federal power to heal
the wounds caused by the very same bludgeon—federal power.
If President Trump is correct in his inaugural exhortation that “now is the
hour of action,” then states—not federal bureaucrats—need to lead the
charge on education policy.
Among the many problems facing American education, the most significant
may be our schools’ and colleges’ utter failure to teach civic education. Two
generations of American students have been taught precious little about the
American Founding or the Constitution, let alone the philosophical
foundation of the American system of government—federalism. That notion
of shared power between the federal government and states has, as a result,
withered.
How fitting, then, that Texas—where the American spirit of independence,
work ethic, freedom and a vibrant notion of state power is palpable—take
the lead in renewing federalism. And how fitting that it do so in the policy
area where revitalized state power is most needed: education.
During the otherwise-bleak years of the previous administration, the Lone
Star State has shined as a beacon of liberty, deregulation and restrained
government authority. Harkening to Justice Louis Brandeis's early-20th-
century comment that “states are the laboratories of democracy,” Texas-
based initiatives have sprouted across the nation. It's no Texan braggadocio
to observe that nationwide, efforts in tort reform, deregulation, tax
reduction and criminal justice reform originated in Texas. The resulting
“Texas Model” has become the blueprint for leaders in dozens of states.
And that is precisely how our system should work. Though we are all
familiar with the legitimate claims based on state sovereignty and the Tenth
Amendment, our Founders viewed those as mere baseline expectations. In
the realm of public policy, they saw the states as taking the initiative, being
so bold and innovative that the federal government would have to serve as a
check on them—not the other way around, as the case has been in recent
years.
As the Obama administration would be the first to say, Texas has led those
efforts to check federal power. That defensive posture was necessary—and,
for the Republic, crucial. But now Texas and other states must seize the field
The timing for Texas policymakers is perfect. The state's biennial legislative
session has just begun, and the momentum for an education overhaul has
never been stronger. At the National School Choice Week rally earlier this
week, both Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick gave rousing, full-
throated endorsements of school choice reforms.
There are obstacles, to be sure, but even the defenders of the status quo
recognize that it's hard to defend the mediocrity of the status quo.
Among the many school choice vehicles, the most far-reaching—for Texas
and the United States—is an Education Savings Account (ESA). Built on the
successes of early choice vehicles such as tax-credit scholarships, ESAs offer
wider and easier usage, removing the barriers to access that have been
foisted on choice programs by opponents. Parents may use an ESA to pay for
a host of education-related expenses, including private school tuition,
tutoring, special needs programs and books.
In sum, an ESA gives parents an unprecedented means for customizing their
child’s education—the exact opposite of the conveyor-belt, cookie-cutter
approach that has become modern American education.
Though some reformers have advocated for federal ESAs, the inefficiency
inherent in the large federal bureaucracy begs for states to take the lead.
Texas, the most populous state with a bent toward conservative, free-market
reforms, has a unique opportunity to show that states, as our Founders
expected, can be at the forefront of policy innovation.
There could not be more at stake. Our children deserve an end to zip-code
discrimination, which dramatically limits their access to decent educational
options. Furthermore, the civic health of our American Republic—in
particular, the long-standing view that states, not the feds, would lead
—hangs in the balance.
Federalism is seen as in balance now---education reform
remains largely under state control
Jacob 17 – Brian A. Jacob, Nonresident Senior Fellow - Economic Studies,
Center on Children and Families, February 2, 2017, How the U.S.
and ESSA, https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-the-u-s-department-of-
education-can-foster-education-reform-in-the-era-of-trump-and-essa/
The current administration has vowed to leave education matters up to the
states, continuing a movement started with the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA), which dramatically limited the federal government’s role in
school accountability. While greater local control certainly has some benefits, it risks
exacerbating the massive disparities in educational performance across states that already exists.
In 2015, there was almost a 30 percentile point difference in 4th grade math proficiency rates between
the top and bottom states, only some of which can be explained by state-level social and economic
factors. The massive disparity in progress is perhaps even more disturbing. Between 2003 and 2015,
student proficiency rates grew by over 40 percent in some states, while remaining flat or even declining
in other states.
The Department of Education (DoED) should take steps to highlight these disparities by identifying the
lowest performing states and providing information on the status and progress of all states on a variety of
educational metrics. The DoED might also provide modest funding and technical assistance to help
demographically similar states work together to improve their public education systems.
Trump often called for giving more discretion over

On the campaign trail, President
education policy to states and localities, critiquing Common Core and
what he viewed as other instances of federal overreach. In her recent
confirmation hearing, President Trump’s nominee for Education Secretary—
Betsy DeVos—repeatedly argued for leaving education matters up to the
states.
And this desire for local control is not limited to the current administration.
In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with
strong bipartisan support. This legislation replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) system of
school accountability with a more narrowly tailored and flexible approach to school reform. Instead of
requiring all schools to meet annual performance targets, ESSA requires states to focus on a small set of
low-performing schools and gives them considerable latitude to design the interventions they deem
appropriate.
In discussing ESSA, chair of the Senate Education Committee Lamar Alexander claimed, “The
department was in effect acting as a national school board for the 42 states with waivers—100,000
The states were doing fine until the federal government stuck its
schools.
nose into it…So it was important to get the balls back in the hands of the
people who really should have it.”
But the evidence suggests that not all states are doing fine. Indeed, there are massive disparities across
states in terms of current student performance, and these differences are not merely a factor of the social
All states have been actively engaged in efforts
and economic conditions in the state.
to turnaround failing schools, but the effectiveness of such efforts has varied dramatically
across jurisdictions.
Public education will (and should) always be driven predominantly by local

actors—teachers, administrators, school board members, and state
2NC Uniqueness – Now Key
Trump’s in a critical reassessment of educational
federalism—he’s trending towards states rights, but it’s
not locked in
Kenneth K. Wong Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of Education
Policy - Brown University"Redefining the federal role in public education:
The 1st quarter of the Trump “insurgent” presidency," Brookings, 3-27-
2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2017/03/27/redefining-the-federal-role-in-public-education-the-
1st-quarter-of-the-trump-insurgent-presidency/
On the cover of The Economist on Feb. 4, 2017, the bright red headline read:
“An insurgent in the White House.” In this context of an “insurgent”
President Donald Trump, K-12 education is subject to a critical reassessment
in the current White House. I offer a few observations on Trump’s first
quarter in the presidency and what this signals about the direction of federal
education policy.¶ THE INSURGENT PRESIDENCY ATTEMPTS TO SCALE
BACK THE FEDERAL ROLE¶ Trump’s White House aims to significantly
repurpose the federal role in K-12 education. The administration has
dismantled key initiatives that were associated with the Obama
administration. At this point, Trump’s proposed initiatives constitute a
critical reassessment, but do not yet amount to an all-out dismantling of
the federal role in K-12 as embedded in the long-established “marble cake”
federalism. In the FY18 budget proposal, for example, the Trump
administration maintains federal funding for major categorical programs for
high-needs students, such as Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reporting
requirement on performance among student subgroups remains a central
federal focus.¶ It is too early to tell whether the Trump administration plans
to fundamentally reconstruct the terms of federal engagement in public
education, which have been largely framed since the Great Society era of
the Lyndon Johnson administration. But the administration could be headed
in that direction, considering that the first quarter of the Trump presidency
has included the following education policy initiatives: ¶ Scaling back federal
direction and shifting substantial decisionmaking to state and local
government;¶ Proposing substantial budgetary reduction of the U.S.
Department of Education, such as programs in college and career access,
arts, health, after-school programs, teacher education, and technology; ¶
Expanding federal support for a broad portfolio of school choice, including
charter schools, vouchers for parents to enroll their children in public and
private schools, federal tax credit scholarship program, and magnet
programs;¶ Easing possible entry of for-profit providers in K-12 education; ¶
Placing limits on federal capacity to promote equal education access, such
as limiting the scope of Title IX enforcement; and ¶ Reducing investment in
data and research infrastructure.¶ SCHOOL CHOICE AS A FEDERAL
PRIORITY¶ The appointment of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
signals a strong commitment to school choice from the Trump
administration. To be sure, this is not the first time a U.S. president
advocated for school choice: Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of
school choice, but was unable to gain much congressional support. President
George H. Bush was receptive to the notion of charter schooling, when AFT
President Albert Shanker first proposed it in the 1980s. Further, President
Bill Clinton popularized charter schools with federal startup funding, a
position endorsed by both presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ¶
Related¶ Children play in the playground area at the Frederick, Maryland
Head Start facility March 13, 2012. When officials in Frederick County,
Maryland voted last year to stop paying for the local Head Start preschool
program, they pointed to a nearly $12 million projected budget shortfall as
proof that the mostly rural county could no longer afford it. Picture taken
March 13, 2012. To match story USA-EDUCATION/HEADSTART
REUTERS/Gary Cameron¶ A troubling contagion: The rural 4-day school
week¶ Students sit in the library of the university KU Leuven "Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven" in Leuven, Belgium, June 8, 2016. REUTERS/Francois
Lenoir/File Photo - RTX2G3MI¶ How much do for-profit colleges rely on
federal funds?¶ A Chinese language teacher sits in an empty classroom as
she teaches a class during an online course at Jingshan School, on a smoggy
day under a "red alert" for air pollution, in Beijing¶ Racial disparities in
school suspensions¶ But unlike his predecessors, Trump hopes to scale up his
school choice initiatives with a large infusion of federal funds. He first made
this promise on the campaign trail, pledging $20 billion in federal funding.
In his first presidential appearance before a joint session of Congress on
Feb. 28, 2017, Trump echoed his campaign promise, proposing a bill that
provides federal funding for school choice.¶ The new governing landscape
seems supportive of school choice expansion. First, the administration can
rely on the state policymaking authority under ESSA. Second, with two-
thirds of the states under one-party Republican control in both houses,
Trump’s school choice initiative has received favorable response in several
state houses. Third, charter schools have continued to receive steady,
favorable preference among parents in minority communities (though some
minority groups, including the NAACP, have grown more critical). It was a
calculated move on Trump’s part to mention that school choice will benefit
African-Americans in his joint session address last month. ¶ POSSIBLE
ROLLBACK ON THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY¶
Historically, equity has been a key justification for federal involvement in K-
12 education. Since the civil rights movement and the Great Society agenda,
federal education programs have been designed to promote equal
educational opportunities for all students. Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 was part of the president’s War on Poverty.
Since the presidency of Reagan, the federal government has broadened its
focus to include performance-based accountability. ¶ The Trump
administration is ready to reverse the federal-state dynamic on both equity
and accountability, and the Trump White House has an opportunity to do so
in the current political climate. First, the 2015 iteration of ESSA rebalanced
federal-state relations by granting states much more control over school
accountability and improvement strategies compared to the No Child Left
Behind era. Second, the Republican-controlled Congress recently used the
Congressional Review Act to further reduce federal authority under ESSA by
repealing the “Accountability and State Plans” regulation published by the
Obama administration. DeVos now has the opportunity to grant even more
power to states as they implement ESSA.¶ Third, the federal government may
also choose to withdraw from some of the equity-oriented practices. DeVos is
reviewing whether the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights will
continue an effort that began in 1968 to collect biennial data on schooling
opportunities and quality in public schools throughout the country. ¶
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD¶ The Trump administration
has embarked on an ambitious agenda in K-12 education. While the new
governing landscape may facilitate the president’s disruptive agenda, the
administration’s effectiveness depends on several conditions. First, the
Trump White House has to reorganize the federal administrative capacity
behind a coherent set of policy goals. Failure to do so limits any president’s
ability to accomplish their goals.
Trump is on the verge of devolving education authority to

the states
Wong 2017 - Annenberg Chair for Education Policy and the Director of
Urban Education Policy @ Brown U
Kenneth K, "Redefining the federal role in public education: The 1st quarter
of the Trump "insurgent," presidency," Mar 27,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
The Trump administration is ready to reverse the federal-state dynamic on
both equity and accountability, and the Trump White House has an
opportunity to do so in the current political climate. First, the 2015 iteration
of ESSA rebalanced federal-state relations by granting states much more
control over school accountability and improvement strategies compared to
the No Child Left Behind era. Second, the Republican-controlled Congress
recently used the Congressional Review Act to further reduce federal
authority under ESSA by repealing the “Accountability and State Plans”
regulation published by the Obama administration. DeVos now has the
opportunity to grant even more power to states as they implement ESSA.
Third, the federal government may also choose to withdraw from some of
the equity-oriented practices. DeVos is reviewing whether the Department of
Education’s Office for Civil Rights will continue an effort that began in 1968
to collect biennial data on schooling opportunities and quality in public
schools throughout the country.
Trump administration is decreasing regulations now –

accountability, federal authority, and equity
Wong 17
(Kenneth K., 3.27.17, Brookings, “Redefining the federal role in public
education: The 1st quarter of the Trump “insurgent” presidency,”
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
1st-quarter-of-the-trump-insurgent-presidency/, Accessed: 6.22.17)VW
POSSIBLE ROLLBACK ON THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EQUITY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY Historically, equity has been a key justification for
federal involvement in K-12 education. Since the civil rights movement and the Great
Society agenda, federal education programs have been designed to promote equal educational
opportunities for all students. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was part of
the president’s War on Poverty. Since the presidency of Reagan, the federal government has broadened
The Trump administration is
its focus to include performance-based accountability.
ready to reverse the federal-state dynamic on both equity and
accountability, and the Trump White House has an opportunity to do
so in the current political climate. First, the 2015 iteration of ESSA rebalanced
Congressional Review Act to further reduce federal authority under
ESSA by repealing the “Accountability and State Plans” regulation
published by the Obama administration. DeVos now has the opportunity to
grant even more power to states as they implement ESSA. Third, the federal
government may also choose to withdraw from some of the equity-oriented
practices. DeVos is reviewing whether the Department of Education’s Office
for Civil Rights will continue an effort that began in 1968 to collect biennial
data on schooling opportunities and quality in public schools throughout the
country.
2NC Uniqueness – ESSA
ESSA expands state power and allows states to shape their
own agendas
McGuinn, Drew University, Political Science Department,
17
[Drew, June 05, 2016, Oxford Academic, “From No Child Left Behind to the
Every Student Succeeds Act: Federalism and the Education Legacy of the
Obama Administration”,
https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/46/3/392/1753622/From-No-Child-
Left-behind-to-the-Every-Student, accessed: 7/9/17, SK]
However, ESSA for the most part is not likely to result in a return of education
policymaking authority to the local level, but rather to the state level. A 2015 report from the Council of
Chief State School Officers, for example, proclaimed that “Regardless of this uncertainty at the
federal level, state education leaders remain firmly committed to state

accountability systems that support educators, parents, and students by
providing useful information that leads to improved outcomes for all
students” (CCSSO 2015). While states have historically been relatively minor
players in school reform, one of the enduring legacies of the Obama presidency may
well be the invigoration and expansion of the state role in education
(Anagnostopolous 2013 ). Going forward states will now have considerably more
latitude to determine their own education agendas, though also less

political cover from federal mandates. What remains to be seen is if states
have developed (or can develop) sufficient political will and administrative capacity to maintain
the momentum that has built up behind education reform over the past two
decades ( Camera 2015 ). Precisely how states will utilize this newfound authority is unknown, but one thing is certain:
flexibility from federal mandates will result in widely divergent state levels of commitment to school
reform, a wide range of policy approaches , and widely varying levels of effectiveness in improving school
outcomes across the fifty states ( Weiss and McGuinn 2016 ). That is American federalism at work , for
better or worse.
The Every Student Succeeds Act – it gave states flexibility

and reversed Obama-era regs
Saultz, Miami University, Department of Educational
Policy, Politics of Education, Assistant Professor, et al. 17
[Andrew, Lance D. Fusarelli, North Carolina State University, Andrew
McEachin, Rand Corporation, April 11, 2017, Oxford Academic, “The Every
Student Succeeds Act, the Decline of the Federal Role in Education Policy,
and the Curbing of Executive Authority”,
https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/47/3/426/3603290/The-Every-
Student-Succeeds-Act-the-Decline-of-the, accessed: 7/9/17, SK]
We conclude by drawing several lessons from the passage of ESSA , both for an
understanding of policy change in other areas and for the future of federal–state relations in
education policy. We have sought to explain why Congress reversed a longstanding
trend in the direction of greater federal control over education policy by
passing ESSA and limiting the role of the executive branch and
returning a significant degree of power and authority back to the states. In
offering an explanation, we have highlighted changes in the views of key constituency groups toward federal education waivers stemming
from the use of waivers by the Obama administration. We have also focused on the way a bipartisan group of Senate leaders took advantage
of a policy window in the closing years of the Obama presidency to prevent the Secretary of Education from issuing waivers in a similar
manner in the future. This analysis is helpful for understanding the passage of the ESSA; but it might also offer broader lessons. Passage of
the ESSA provides insight into the relationship between states and the federal government in other policy areas, by helping explain why
Congress curbed federal waiver power regarding education policy but not in other policy areas. Most notably, ESSA was a product of
political backlash against certain policy tools. In the field of education policy, the use of waivers was associated with federal government
pressure to adopt unpopular policies including teacher evaluation and the Common Core standards. This association led important
constituencies in both parties to take a negative view of executive waivers and to oppose their use in the future. However, waivers in health
care and welfare policy have been structured differently and have been employed to different ends (Saultz, McEachin, and Fusarelli 2016).
In these other policy areas, regarding the Affordable Care Act and Temporary Aid to Needy Families especially, waivers have allowed states
to experiment with other methods of delivering services. In these other cases, the use of waivers was truly to provide states flexibility, and in
a way that has led many constituent groups and state officials to view waivers in the health care and welfare policy areas in a positive light.
A key lesson from the ESSA, then, is that federal executive departments’ power to issue waivers will be tolerated as long as the political
costs and benefits of using waivers to initiate policy changes redound to the benefit of key constituent groups. However, the situation is quite
different when constituent groups conclude that waivers are not being issued in a manner consistent with their interests, and when this
opposition comes not only from state officials but also from other influential groups. Under these circumstances, and especially when
groups’ opposition to waivers is bipartisan, as was the case with NCLB waivers, it becomes possible for Congress to take action to curtail
federal authority in general and federal executive waiver authority in particular. This study of ESSA’s passage also has implications for
understanding the future development of federal–state relations in education policy in particular. ESSA continues the NCLB legacy of
standards-based accountability. States are required to test and track students in reading and math, and must hold schools and districts
ESSA shifts the relationship between the federal

accountable for low performance. However,
and state government in important ways. First, it allows states greater

flexibility in determining which measures to include in their accountability
systems. For example, states may choose which “non-academic” factor to measure and report on. Furthermore, in March 2017,
Congress used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a pair of ESSA regulations designed under the Obama Administration. The
the
regulations intended to make clear how states should implement the accountability provisions under ESSA. Without the regulations,
states are left with just the original language of the bill , which clearly gives
states ample flexibility and reduces the USDOE’s role in the design and
oversight of state accountability systems. Second, states may choose how to
define teacher effectiveness and develop statewide plans for improving
the equitable distribution for effective teachers. While these components are mandated by ESSA,
the law provides states with the autonomy to determine the specifics of the
policy. This stands in opposition to use of competitive grants and waivers under the Obama Administration. In order to be eligible for
RTTT funding or an NCLB waiver, states had to implement teacher accountability systems that tied teacher evaluations to students’
achievement. Looking ahead, states are likely to play a larger role in education policy
over the next decade or longer. The Obama administration’s education waivers were in part a pragmatic solution to
a multi-year political deadlock over the reauthorization of ESEA. However, this study shows that the reaction to these
waivers in the subsequent passage of ESSA fundamentally changed the

role of the federal government in education policy and school accountability,
including the relationship between the USDOE and states and the use of waivers to adapt to
federal mandates. While the particularities of ESSA will be worked out over the next few years, it is unlikely that the USDOE will have the
flexibility to fundamentally shape education policy through the use of waivers.
AT: Devos
First extend our miller evidence – Trump is reversing
federal control now over education now – his stance is
more important than DeVos’s – that’s 1NC 1
Second, they’re both republicans, and they have always

supported state control – DeVos is only repealing
regulations – that’s also 1NC #1
DeVos supports state control of education

Pullmann 5/26/17
(Joy Pullmann, managing editor of The Federalist and previously was managing editor of
School Reform News at The Heartland Institute and the assistant editor for American
Magazine at the American Enterprise Institute “In Surprise Move, DeVos Resists
Pressure To Nationalize School Choice” http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/26/suprise-
move-devos-resists-pressure-nationalize-school-choice/ )MGM
Politico reported on May 18 that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was set to announce a national school
In front of the national school choice
choice program on May 22 in Indianapolis. She didn’t.
organization she chaired before becoming education secretary, the American
Federation for Children, DeVos instead emphasized that states and parents
ought to be leading the way in restoring self-government to American
education. It contained some riveting and pointed lines, including a reference to “flat earthers” who
don’t accept research showing that school choice generally boosts student outcomes. The point is to
provide quality options that serve students so each of them can grow. Every option should be held
accountable, but they should be directly accountable to parents and communities, not to Washington, DC
bureaucrats. … We shouldn’t view this, however, as a chance to mandate a one-size-fits-all school choice
We all fundamentally know one size doesn‘t fit all…and that we won’t
proposal.
accomplish our goals by creating a new federal bureaucracy or by bribing
states with their own taxpayers’ money. We should have zero interest in substituting the
current big government approach for our own big government approach. When it comes to education, no
solution, not even ones we like, should be dictated or run from Washington, DC. Let me be clear. I firmly
believe every state should provide choices and embrace equal opportunity in education. But those are
decisions states must make. No two states are the same and no two states’ approaches will be the same –
and that’s a good thing. States are the best laboratories of our democracy…This means we have the
opportunity to get Washington and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so parents can make the right
Preach it, Mrs. DeVos. Notice how her crack against bribing
choices for their kids.
states with their own money undermines the very basis on which her
department operates. Since it has no constitutional authority it scrounges up
a pretense at some through taxing Americans then letting them have some
of their money back only if they do what Congress demands. Yet these startlingly
non-establishment insights conflict not only with Democrats’ bent but with that of most Republicans at
the federal level. What do these remarks not include? A federal school choice proposal, or even an
endorsement of any currently floating, such as Sen. Marco Rubio’s, a model AFC has been pushing for
years. Attendees expected that announcement, said Ben DeGrow, education director at Michigan’s
DeVos’s speech
Mackinac Institute for Public Policy, who was there. Instead, however,
undermined any rationale for a federalized choice program, despite seeming
several times to set up such an announcement, then pivoting towards states
and away from federalization. See this one: The President is proposing the most
ambitious expansion of education choice in our nation’s history. The
proposal’s aim is to empower states and give leaders like Gov. Eric Holcomb
the flexibility and opportunity to enhance the choices Indiana provides for
Indiana students (emphasis original). This suggests a subtle rift between DeVos and the
organization she formerly chaired, despite accusations of improper confluence between the two. Ever
since DeVos was appointed to her current position, AFC has pushed for a federal version of Florida’s tax-
credit scholarship program, in which tax-deductible private donations to a scholarship nonprofit help
needy kids attend private schools. In a statement to Politico, for example, AFC spokesman Tommy Schultz
said “Congressand the Trump administration ‘have a unique window of
opportunity to facilitate a dramatic expansion of parental choice in America.
More than 3.5 million children are currently benefiting from charters and
private choice programs, while millions more are demanding access to these
same options.'”
Betsy DeVos has a history of supporting state control

of education policy.
Boehm 17 — Eric Boehm, a reporter at Reason, 2017 (“Federalism in the
Age of Trump,” Reason, January 19th, Available Online at
http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/19/federalism-in-the-age-of-trump-three-
are, Accessed 06-22-17)
Expanding Choice in Education
No Child Left Behind, the federal law that increased spending for schools in
exchange for more testing to track student learning, turned 15 this month.
It's old enough to be high school sophomore, but it's hasn't earned good
grades.
By the end of the 2014 school year, 100 percent of all American students
were supposed to meet the standards outlined by the Bush era law. Schools
that failed to meet those goals were supposed to face consequences like
restructuring.
Most of that hasn't happened. States lowered standards to make sure that
more students could meet them and the Obama administration issued
blanket waivers for the schools in states that adopted a new set of federal
teaching guidelines called Common Core.
The problems with No Child Left Behind illustrate two of the biggest
problems with the current status of public education. First, it was a one-size-
fits-all solution that, second, funded education infrastructure—school
buildings, administrators, and teachers—instead of funding students.
Yet the past decade-and-a-half has seen an upwelling of innovative education
policy ideas from the state level, including expansions of charter schools,
voucher programs, and education savings accounts. Many of those reforms
have been focused on giving families a choice when it comes to public
education, particularly for students trapped in failing schools for no reason
other than their ZIP code.
DeVos, in her home state of Michigan, has a long history of fighting for
those kinds of reforms. In 2000, she was heavily involved in an
unsuccessful effort to remove the state constitution's ban on voucher
programs via ballot initiative, and since then she has backed efforts to
expand public charter schools there.
In her new federal post, she could help nudge states towards reform, says
Ben DeGrow, director of education policy for the Michigan-based Mackinac
Center.
That's where conservatives and libertarians find themselves walking a bit of
a policy tightrope. Federal interventions, like No Child Left Behind, in state
education policy has not worked, DeGrow says, but school choice activists
should resist the urge to call for more federal action to implement policies
they like.
At best, DeVos should work to peel back layers of federal regulation and
encourage—not mandate—states to move in a direction that favors choice
for parents and students. Of all the things on this list, this is the area where
the greatest potential exists for the federal government to simply get out of
the way and let the states experiment with new ideas.
2NC - UQ – Jeff Sessions
Trump’s administration, including Sessions, is pushing for
a decentralized government
Blum 04/11/2017 (Bill Blum, a Los Angeles lawyer and a former State
of California Administrative Law Judge. “Has Jeff Sessions Ushered In A New
Kind Of Federalism?” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-progressive-
form-of-federalism-is-spreading-since_us_58ed3180e4b0145a227cb914 )
You really have to hand it to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. He knows
how to promote the doctrines of federalism and states’ rights, and tout the
importance of the 10th Amendment. The diminutive, 70-year-old attorney
general of the United States, whom “The Daily Show” loves to mock as a
mean-spirited hobbit from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth, has spent much of
his long and virulently conservative career in politics and the law supporting
such ideas in an effort to limit the scope of federal authority, especially in
the fields of civil and voting rights. Now, with the GOP firmly in control of all
three branches of government and Sessions hypocritically threatening to
enforce President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) No. 13,768—which, among
other provisions, calls for cutting off federal funds to so-called sanctuary
cities—Sessions has managed to convert a growing number of liberals and
progressives to the federalist cause. We are, as a result, witnessing the
spread of a new, progressive form of federalism. When you think about it,
the conversion makes perfect sense. To derail the Trump administration’s
domestic agenda—not just as it affects sanctuary jurisdictions, but also on
gay and transgender rights, criminal justice and police reform, abortion,
federal enforcement of marijuana laws, and the erosion of environmental
safeguards—progressives are taking a cue from the right to bolster the
autonomy of states and cities as they enact and defend initiatives aimed at
protecting minorities, the poor, the undocumented and our ecosystems. For
much of the 20th century to the present, federalism was code for political
reaction under the guise of strict constructionism. From economic questions,
such as the legality of the federal minimum wage, to issues of school
desegregation, conservatives time and again invoked the 10th Amendment
as a basis for preserving the privileges of local elites, corporations and racial
and misogynistic hierarchies, while liberals sought to expand the reach of
the Constitution and national regulatory oversight.
Impact Uniqueness – GW
States are currently emboldened to take independent
action on key issues including climate change and social
safety
Frank 17
(Robert H., Ph.D. in Economics, M.A. in statistics, economics professor at
the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, former
Goldwin Smith Professor of Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy, 1.20.17,
New York Times, “Federal Policy Will Shift. Not All States Will Shift With It,”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/upshot/federal-policy-will-shift-not-all-
states-will-shift-with-it.html?mcubz=1&_r=0, Accessed: 6.22.17)VWkorea
Bitter divisions about the proper role of government in the United States
have always been with us. Within broad limits, our Constitution’s response to
this reality has been to empower states to adopt policies tailored to their own
constituents’ beliefs and values. So in the wake of an unusually divisive
presidential election, vigorous state-level actions to offset specific
changes in federal policy are already underway. A case in point is the
response of Gov. Jerry Brown of California to President Trump’s skepticism about the
threat posed by climate change. Because effective measures to combat global warming must
be planetary in scope, most scientists saw the recent 195-nation Paris agreement as a hopeful step. But
Mr. Brown, a
many of Mr. Trump’s supporters have urged him to abandon that plan. In reaction,
Democrat, has doubled down on California’s efforts to negotiate carbon-
reduction agreements with other states and countries. That strategy, he explained, can
serve two ends: to demonstrate that such agreements not only do not destroy jobs, but actually increase
employment, and to show that the agreements work, leading to significant reductions in emissions even
as the struggle for broader action continues. Blue-state voters, who by definition tend to favor
Democrats, are more likely than others to oppose the Trump agenda. Yet those states are also likely to
find themselves in an intriguing financial position as a result of Mr. Trump’s policies. Consider that blue
states send much more money to Washington than they receive, while the reverse is true for red states,
which tend to favor Republicans. Blue states also enjoy significantly higher per capita income than red
states and are home to a disproportionate share of the nation’s highest earners. The upshot is that if the
Trump administration cuts taxes on top earners as expected, the federal tax burden on blue states will
states will thus have new fiscal flexibility, should
fall especially sharply. Those
they choose to offset other aspects of the Trump agenda. Blue states,
for example, are more likely to favor a generous social safety net . For the better
part of a century in many states, that safety net has included the services of Planned
Parenthood, which include the diagnosis and treatment of sexually
transmitted infections, contraception and cancer screening. For every dollar spent
on those services, the organization saves society many more dollars in future
social costs, not to mention untold human heartache. But a small percentage of its services involve
abortions, and Republicans in Congress have pledged to withdraw federal support for Planned
Parenthood entirely. Texas recently took that step at the state level, amid reports that its maternal death
rates have soared. Reasonable people can hold different views about how best to revere the sanctity of
States that wish to maintain support for Planned Parenthood can do so by
life.
imposing higher state levies on those whose federal taxes were cut by Mr.
Trump. Perhaps the most conspicuous problems for the social safety net arise from the Republican
pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As with efforts to curb greenhouse gases, the task of providing
broad access to health care is much better handled at the federal level than at the state level. The
concern is that guaranteeing coverage at the state level could attract new beneficiaries from neighboring
states that don’t provide such guarantees, making the program prohibitively costly. But the health care
initiative implemented by Mitt Romney during his governorship of Massachusetts, which was based on
proposals by the conservative Heritage Foundation, effectively put that concern to rest. Repeal of
Obamacare would mean large federal tax cuts for top earners in every state, creating budgetary
headroom for states to adopt their own versions of Romneycare. States don’t have absolutely unlimited
freedom to impose higher levies on top earners, because if any one state raised its rates, top earners
could flee to neighboring states. And there have indeed been examples of individuals who have relocated
in search of lower taxes. But here, too, experience in California is reassuring. Facing budget shortfalls
and cutbacks in essential public services, the state’s voters approved Proposition 30 in 2012, which
raised the state’s top marginal income tax rate to over 13 percent, significantly higher than that of any
other. Opponents predicted that wealthy California taxpayers would flee in droves to Nevada, Oregon and
beyond. But the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington reports that these fears were
overblown, citing a recent Stanford University study. It found that million-dollar income earners are
actually less likely to move than Americans earning only average wages; fewer than 2 percent of the tiny
fraction of those millionaires who did move cited taxes as a factor. Are wealthy blue-state voters chumps
for not fleeing the higher taxes? Perhaps they believe, plausibly, that their lives are better with a more
balanced mix of public and private consumption, with good parks and schools, highways and rail systems
for everyone, and not just spectacular homes for themselves and their own families. They may also
understand that their ability to bid successfully for things they prize — homesites with views, for instance
— depends almost entirely on their relative purchasing power, which isn’t affected much when they and
the drafters of our
their peers face slightly higher tax rates. Which approach is best? The genius of
Constitution was in eschewing attempts to answer such questions theoretically. They understood
that progress would be far more likely if the states were free to experiment,
often taking positions at odds with those of the federal government . When
Democrats controlled the White House in the Obama administration, for example, red states like Kansas
employed tax and service cuts to oppose federal budget policy. In the current climate, we can expect blue
states to take analogous steps.
AT: Brown thumps courts link
VS: Miliken
No – brown was an entirely different decision – Miliken V

Bradley would force the states to take a more active role
in desegregating schools – it imposes a harsher order than
seen before in history – also, federalism is high now, that’s
1NC UQ evidence – our evidence references much more
recent events
VS: Rodriguez
No – extend our 1NC Lawson evidence – it says that

Rodriguez was defined by federalism – this court case is a
much larger deal than Brown in the specific context of
federalism
First, extend our miller evidence – it says that Trump is

reversing any Obama-era regulations – he has issued
Executive orders that require all regulations to reviewed –
this evidence cites much more recent occurrences so
prefer it
AT: Thumpers
this is a much bigger shift that is ocurring right now
compared to a 15 year old bill that’s been repealed
Second, extend our impact Uniqueness – even if there are

past federal things, we’ll still win that states can still
resist the federal government effectively enough to stall
[Trump’s policies OR warming]
AT: Non-education thumpers

Third, prefer issue-specific evidence – education

federalism is uniquely high now because of trump – our
1NC evidence indicates that this is uniquely key to overall
federalism
AT: NCLB Thumps

NCLB wasn’t a major shift in federalism.

Parker ’08 (Jonathan; National Teaching Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, Senior
Lecturer of education politics at Keele University, PhD at the University of North Carolina; 2008; “No
Child Left Behind: Federalism and Education Policy”; The Federal Nation: Perspectives on American
Federalism; published by Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 242)
NCLB represents a major shift in federal education policy but continues a familiar trend in
federalism. Its use of mandates to compel states to act and incur costs that far exceed
what Washington provides them for the purpose puts the onus on state and local
governments to pay for the program, a pattern that has characterized much of
recent federal policymaking.5 NCLB marks a radical and significant shift in federal policy
that will influence education for the next generation. However, it does not constitute a new
approach to federalism. Its sweeping shifts in the context of education policy
obscure its more familiar manifestation of federal–state relations and the
limitations of this approach. NCLB represents an incremental addition to
the direction of federal policymaking that has been occurring for almost half a
century. In other words, it is evolution rather than revolution in the context of
federalism.
AT: Immigration Thumps
No Thumper – States are fighting back and winning now

Hans Von Spakovsky 17 (Hans Von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform
Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a
wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First
Amendment, immigration., 4-18-2017, "Sanctuary Cities? That's a
Constitutional 'Hell No'," Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sanctuary-cities-thats-
constitutional-hell-no, Accessed: 10-21-2017 /Kent Denver-YBJL)
Unfortunately, at the urging of certain states, the courts have in large part
ignored the Constitution, federal law, and prior precedents. They are instead
substituting their judgment for that of the president, and enjoining the
president’s executive order by implementing a temporary halt to entry from
certain terrorist safe havens. In essence, states such as Hawaii and
Washington are turning to activist federal judges to nullify the exclusive
authority of the federal government over immigration and the security of our
national border .
Even if they aren’t winning, immigration is a federal

domain, so no thumper
Hans Von Spakovsky 17 (Hans Von Spakovsky, Election Law Reform
Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a
wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First
Amendment, immigration., 4-18-2017, "Sanctuary Cities? That's a
Constitutional 'Hell No'," Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/sanctuary-cities-thats-
constitutional-hell-no, Accessed: 10-21-2017 /Kent Denver-YBJL)
The similarity between these events and what is happening today are eerie.
While there are many areas over which the states and the federal
government share responsibility — or where the Tenth Amendment gives
responsibility to the states — immigration is not one of them. Section 8
of Article I gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform
Rule of Naturalization,” just as Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive
authority to establish and collect all “Imposts and Excises” or tariffs. The
states have no authority in these areas at all. They can no more dispute the
immigration rules established by Congress than they could dispute the
tariffs imposed by Congress back in 1832.
AT: Marijuana Thumps
Trump cannot and will not beat the Marijuana industry,
means no thumper because he can’t and won’t fight
marijuana – this evidence is devastating – five awesome
warrants
1. Trump couldn’t raid them all – too many
2. It will trigger brutal court battles – no incentive
3. States will help fight trump
4. Could fail – states will fight back
5. Would be super unpopular
This piece of evidence is incredibly qualified – it sites polls, marijuana
business leaders, the attorney generals of states like Colorado and
Washington, basically everyone/everything you could want
Dominic Holden 8/25 (Dominic Holden, Dominic Holden is a political

reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York. 8-25-2017, "Here's
Why Trump Can't Beat Pot," BuzzFeed,
https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/6-reasons-why-trump-would-hit-a-
wall-if-he-tried-to-crack?utm_term=.yewey9a65#.giyEPmkA2, Accessed: 10-
21-2017 /Kent Denver-YBJL)
1. Trump can’t bust all the legal pot businesses because there are way too
many already. Trump can't possibly conduct raids on every pot business
simultaneously. In Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington combined, state officials have
approved 4,769 licenses for recreational pot businesses, according to a BuzzFeed News analysis of
reports from state agencies. “Who would be kicking in all these doors?” asked John Walsh, who was the
The Drug
US attorney in Colorado from 2010 to 2016, in an interview with BuzzFeed News.
Enforcement Administration maintains about 5,600 employees for domestic
enforcement across the country, budget figures show. That’s roughly equal
to the number of pot businesses in operation, and thus hardly enough staff
to raid them all at once. Adding to the math, the number of doors is growing. Farms and stores
are applying for licenses now in Nevada, where voters passed a law last November. Officials in California,
Maine, and Massachusetts will launch their systems in 2018 — and California’s market alone will dwarf
the rest. “It’s
not as if there are unlimited cadres of federal agents with nothing
to do but take down state-compliant businesses,” added Walsh, who was the top federal
prosecutor in Colorado when stores opened there. But it might be possible, theoretically, for Trump to
reassign federal agents from other regions to make sweeps, said Durkan. Yet in that far-fetched scenario,
raids would only lead to an unworkable court logjam. Even with more
prosecutors on deck, also shipped in from around the nation, each case
would require building up evidence, issuing indictments, scheduling trials or
negotiating plea deals, and then going to hearings. Federal courts would
then need to find judges and staff for those thousands of cases — and courts
lack that capacity. “It would shut down the criminal docket,” Durkan said, arguing that
prosecutors and the general public would fume at seeing nonviolent pot cases prioritized over human
traffickers and violent cartels. “If they wanted to do a law enforcement crackdown, they will lack both the
resources and the will to get it done.” 2.
If Trump were to even threaten pot
businesses, he would still end up in brutal court battles . The least strenuous way for
Trump to try to bring weed to heel is by sending letters that threaten every business owner with a lawsuit
if they don’t close. Durkan sent similar letters to medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington state a
“There were no legal dispensaries at that
few years ago — but that won’t work now.
time, so they had no defense,” she explained. “If you send a letter now
against any of the existing legal dispensaries, you basically are attacking the
state system itself.” That gives defendants a stronger hand in court, she
added, “and it tees up the question of whether the state has a legal right to
do that.” The Justice Department's Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety is considering
the best way to proceed, including whether to rewrite Obama’s 2013 policy for pot. A subcommittee
reported back to Sessions last month, saying it wanted to study the issue more, according to an
Associated Press report. Ian Prior, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, declined to comment to
BuzzFeed News on its approach, saying, “We’ll make announcements on policy changes as appropriate.”
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment. But the problem with simply scaring
“I’m not going to give
businesses into shuttering is that many won't close even under pressure.
up easy,” Shilo Morgan, owner of the Lucky Leaf Co. in Spokane County,
Washington, told BuzzFeed News. She’s built a coalition with dozens of
nearby pot businesses called the Eastern Washington Cannabis Association,
in part to brace against Trump and Sessions. “We’d have to call in the troops
and put together our crew and fight as a whole.” “We have all worked our tails off to
get to where we are,” she said. “We have a lawyer on standby.” Hardly an anomaly, the pot industry is
built on former activists used to risking jail, explained Taylor West, the spokesperson for the National
Cannabis Industry Association. “They’ve fought before and they can do it again if they have to — and now
3. Even if Trump only makes a few busts, the
with a lot more allies on their side.”
states will get involved and fight Trump, too. West’s idea about allies is critical: They’re
state governments. Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson told
BuzzFeed News that, since 2012, his lawyers have been preparing to fend off
any federal intrusion that would disrupt the regulatory machinery there —
possibly even if the Justice Department targets just a few licensees
complying with state law. “If they truly wish to shut down legal marijuana in
Washington state, whatever mechanism they choose, they would end up in
court,” said Ferguson. “I would litigate that. This is a priority for our
office.” Ferguson and his local counterparts have repeatedly humbled the
Trump administration, successfully freezing parts of Trump’s travel ban and orders on sanctuary
cities. Most notably, Ferguson was behind the lawsuit that led to the broadest restraining order against
“I think we state AGs are the most
Trump's first travel ban executive order.
important counterbalance to the administration.” “The federal
government cannot avoid a fight with my office if they are seeking to
dismantle marijuana legalization,” he said. “There is zero chance we
are caught flat-footed.” But Sessions is sharpening his glare, telling governors this summer
that a White House drug enforcement agency found legalization has exacerbated drug problems. In
Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee this month fired back that Sessions’
response,
“allegations...are outdated, incorrect, or based on incomplete information.”
Yet the Justice Department hasn’t let up, with Prior, the spokesperson, telling BuzzFeed News that
reports about states with legal pot “foreshadowed troubling developments.” He said evidence shows
residents are driving with some level of impairment, more schoolchildren are expelled for marijuana-
“Washington’s purported legalization did not diminish or
related reasons, and
eliminate the black market." Targeting one business — thereby creating a domino effect of
closures — was a topic for Sessions and radio host Hugh Hewitt in March. That approach could let the
Justice Department “take all the money from one retailer, and the message would be sent,” Hewitt
remarked. “I mean, if you want to send that message, you can send it.” Sessions said he would "be
evaluating" that option, but also acknowledged the limits of his reach, saying, “It’s not possible for the
federal government, of course, to take over everything the local police used to do in a state that’s
Prosecuting a lone individual who's fully complying with state law
legalized it.”
could raise obstacles in the courtroom, provoking “hostility, not just from the
jury, but from the judge,” Walsh said. When prosecutors have tried to single out defendants
before, he explained, “We found that federal judges wanted to know why we brought criminal charges
against some people when there are so many other people engaged in this conduct under state law.” A
defendant facing down Trump could find backing from numerous states, too. The National Association of
Attorneys General created a working group among the eight states with legal marijuana, which holds
All eight of the state AGs offices
conference calls every couple of months to coordinate.
have participated, individuals familiar with the process told BuzzFeed News .
Janet Mills, the attorney general of Maine, declined to speculate on how her office would respond to any
scenario, but said by email, "I would hope [Sessions] has more important things to
do with his time and position, like fighting terrorism and violent crime and combatting the deadly
opiate epidemic." A spokesperson for the Colorado attorney general, likewise, didn't commit to any
action, but said the office held a "productive meeting" recently with the Justice Department. “ I
think
if the federal government tried to target a specific state, other states
that legalized marijuana could rally to the defense of that state,” said
Ferguson. “You have red states, blue states, you have purple states — and that number is
growing.” 4. Trying to overturn state legalization laws themselves would be
difficult and time-consuming — and could still fail. Here’s the big, linchpin question:
Do courts think the Controlled Substances Act, or CSA, preempts state systems that allow legal
marijuana to be grown and sold? Just so there’s no ambiguity here: The dispute is not whether the Justice
Department can bust people for recreational pot. It can. The unanswered question is if the machinery of
regulation — that is, the state bureaus issuing permits, inspecting premises, collecting taxes, etc. — is
Could the Trump administration
illegal. It’s whether that system conflicts with federal law.
win this argument? It’s a toss-up, according to several legal experts who
spoke to BuzzFeed News. A key problem for the Justice Department is that the CSA
doesn’t speak directly to this question. Nor does the CSA require states to
mirror federal law. In fact, Congress, when it passed the law in 1970, made
clear states can have their own drug laws, including their own criminal
penalties. The CSA says state laws aren’t preempted — they may indeed
exist — “unless there is a positive conflict…so that the two cannot consistently stand
together.” What, then, is a positive conflict? There are two strains. The first is a direct conflict, when a
person cannot comply with both state and federal rules. This was a prime consideration when pot
initiatives were crafted by lawyers like Alison Holcomb, the author of Washington state’s legalization law,
who sought to avoid that clash. As she explained in a 2013 class for lawyers, the state law doesn't require
The
anyone to deliver or use pot. So this is considered an uphill argument for the Justice Department.
second strain is called “obstacle preemption” — and several legal experts
believe this is more likely to become the 50-yard line of any big court fight.
In this scenario, the Justice Department would assert that pot systems
undermine the purposes of the CSA. Federal prosecutors, thus, would argue
that state pot systems undermine the federal law’s goal, not its tactics. What
is the law's goal? The CSA’s preamble says it’s to reduce harm and
strengthen police power: Holcomb’s dictum for lawyers points out states
aren’t required to have any pot law on the books. And they cannot be
forced to enforce federal laws, per two Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s and a 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2002. So if a state chooses to have a pot law, what would boost or
obstruct the goals of the CSA? Holcomb contends that regulating the legal market so buyers must be 21
or older — while creating clear penalties for driving stoned — actually nurtures the CSA’s goals more
than broad criminal penalties. Further, pot tax revenues fund anti-addiction programs. “How can it be
said that a law creating a tightly regulated system….poses a greater obstacle to achievement of the CSA’s
actual purposes?” Holcomb asked. “It cannot.” The Justice Department basically acknowledged the
benefits of regulation over a free-for-all in 2013 in a memo former deputy attorney general James Cole
issued that August. Cole placed a low priority on businesses that stuck to a set of guidelines — like
As he later
stopping pot from crossing state lines, funding cartels, or falling into the hands of minors.
testified to the US Senate, simply quashing the regulatory systems in those
states while adults continued to use pot legally is "probably not a good
situation to have." It could, he said, lead to a black market with revenues flowing to “organized
criminal enterprises instead of going into state tax coffers.” State AGs declined to share their legal
strategies. But you can be certain this will be a cornerstone argument if it comes to it: States will contend
5. Fighting long
their systems actually do a better job of achieving these goals than prohibition.
legal battles would be unpopular for Trump, and it would grow more toxic by
the day. While Trump’s approval rating plummets — to 33% as of early August — support for legal pot
is on the upswing, according to Quinnipiac University. In April, the university found 60% of
US voters support legalizing pot, the highest level in its polling history,
up from 51% in 2012. But activists like Jeff Hunt, the vice president of public policy at Colorado
Christian University, hope people who witness legalization firsthand can dissuade others. He advanced
that strategy in an essay on Fox News this month, writing that legalization is responsible for a spike of
marijuana-related hospital visits and people driving while high. “We’ve seen the effects in our
neighborhoods in Colorado, and this is nothing we wish upon the nation.” But direct exposure seems to
have the opposite effect on public opinion. In April, a scientific report published in the journal Drug and
Alcohol Dependence found enthusiasm for marijuana legalization in Washington state has shot up.
Sixty-four percent of adults supported legalization when researchers asked in January 2014, six months
By spring of 2016, support for legal marijuana
before the pot stores opened their doors.
was up to 77.9%. These trends suggest that as Americans become more
familiar with how legal pot systems operate, their popularity will
keep growing — making it increasingly politically perilous for Trump to try
stopping them. Meanwhile, Michael Collins at the Drug Policy Alliance said legalization could come
to Michigan, Rhode Island, and Vermont by 2018. Voters across party lines are also hostile to federal
interloping, according to the April Quinnipiac poll, which found 73% of US voters opposed busting people
for medical or recreational pot offenses where it’s legal. Among Republican and independents, 53% and
79% oppose it, respectively. Trump would run up against those people — his own voters — if he tried. “I’d
say 30% of my customers are Trump supporters,” said Morgan, the store owner in Spokane County,
which voted both for legalization and for Trump. Although Morgan backed Libertarian candidate Gary
Johnson last year, she likes much of Trump’s agenda, including his stance on terrorism. “I have two kids,
so of course I want to protect them,” she said. But if he clamped down on pot and ran for reelection, “I
probably would not — definitively not — vote for him.” If you made a Venn diagram of places that voted
Take Alaska: Pot
for Trump and legalization, you’d find thousands of square miles of overlap.
passed with a larger percentage of the vote in 2014 than Trump got when he
won there last year. Likewise, in Colorado, 13 counties went for Trump and pot; in Washington
state, there were eight. “I like some of what Trump is doing,” said Sam Calvert, owner and founder of
Green Star Cannabis, which is also in Spokane County. He said he serves plenty of Trump voters. “I like
the fact that he stands up for what he believes in, and he doesn’t fall for the political language,” he
added, though Calvert is an independent and picked a write-in last year. “I like his leadership style
overall — it’s different, it’s refreshing, and don’t care that it creates conflict.” But Calvert wouldn’t like
Trump’s style of conflict if it put him and his eight employees out of business. “It would be crushing. It
Not only would layoffs in Trump territory play
would mean unemployment.”
terribly on TV, the president would be waging war on popular
conservative values about state independence and the Constitution .
“It should absolutely be left to the states under the 10th Amendment,” Mark Holden, general counsel of
Koch Industries, told BuzzFeed News, saying the Justice Department should focus on major violent drug
networks, such as cartels, and other problems squarely within federal purview. “That’s how it’s supposed
Plenty of lawmakers have
to be in the Constitution, and that’s a conservative principle.”
already rebuffed the Trump administration's threats, particularly those who
served alongside Sessions in the Senate. Among them are 11 US senators
from states with recreational marijuana laws, including Republican Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska, who sent Sessions a letter in March urging him to
leave current rules intact, saying, “It is critical that states can continue to
implement these laws.” Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, also “believes that it
should be left up to the states to make their own determination,” his spokesperson, Sergio Gor, told
BuzzFeed News, echoing similar statements made by Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee about
state pot laws in recent years. “This issue is better handled at a local level.” Of course, leaving it to the
states was Trump’s own message a year ago. And if he reversed course, it may suddenly be weaponized
against him.
AT: Tax Thumps
First, this thumper makes no sense – taxes have and
always will be a federal issue – the constitution specifically
gives the the fed power to levy taxes, to quote, “The
Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,”
therefore there is no debate over who taxes who – what
even
Here is their card, rehighlighted, saying trump fixes the

tax issue – it also is an awful card, def. not a thumper
If they don’t read this card, don’t read that^
Mayer 3/20(Matt is the CEO of Opportunity Ohio and former senior

official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “An Era of True
Competitive Federalism”, https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-
intelligence/articles/2017-03-20/donald-trump-ushers-in-era-of-true-
competition-for-states-with-his-budget)MRS
With the release of his federal budget, President Donald Trump appears to
be making good on his promise to send power back to the states. This
proposed devolution over federal programs, long demanded by the right
(and, after Trump's election, on the left), pits theory and rhetoric against
reality and governing. This power shift must come with tax reform that
lowers the federal taxes on Americans and businesses, as well as a reduction
in the federal bureaucracy connected to devolved programs. After all, it is
fundamentally unfair for the federal government to devolve power but keep
the money taxpayers send to it for that power and force states to fund the
inefficient federal bureaucracy built up around these programs. Some on the
right promote the use of block grants, but that vehicle is a poor substitute for cutting federal taxes by the
amount currently appropriated to those federal programs. Under block grants, the federal government
still determines how much each state gets and ties strings to those grants. Block grants are better than
the status quo, but we can do even better by cutting federal taxes and letting states determine how best
to fund the programs they design with the funds that used to head to Washington, which now remain in
With decentralization, federal tax cuts and shrinkage of the
the states.
administrative leviathan, states will be able to compete against each other
more meaningfully than at any point in the last 85 years. Specifically, under
the current nationalized model, states really can only compete on the
margins of areas like welfare, education, transportation and energy, as they
are burdened by federal rules, regulations and mandates and limited to act
based on the amount of funds they get from and waiver requests approved
by Washington. In a truly decentralized system based on our constitutional principle of competitive
federalism, states retain both the power over programs and the decisions on how much to tax their
citizens to fund those programs. A core benefit of eliminating the bureaucracy in Washington is it will
save $0.15 to $0.35 of every dollar allocated to programs, which means beneficiaries could see enhanced
services at a lower total cost. It also means state tax increases could be offset by the federal tax cuts,
which is a win for everyone. States then compete not just over the quality and efficacy of programs, but
also over the costs. This system allows citizens to hold state elected officials accountable for poorly
In most
performing programs and/or high taxes when there is little to no return on those taxes.
homes today, Americans don't sit around complaining about state income
taxes, as those rates are fairly low (6 percent or less in 32 states); rather,
they vent about how much of their paycheck gets swallowed by federal
taxes, followed by property taxes. As a result, Americans focus their anger at and attention
on the federal government and local school issues. State government usually only gets attention when it
cuts funding to schools or tackles a big issue like public sector collective bargaining or the abortion issue.
At the same time, over the last 30 years, a greater share of state budget revenues has come not from
state income or sales taxes, but federal funds. These funds arrive laden with strings and a costly
bureaucracy attached. It isn't a misnomer that Medicaid has become the Pac-Man of state budgets, as it
eats a growing share of the budget each passing year. As states budgets are driven increasingly by
federal funds and mandates, the areas in which states can truly compete with each other have decreased.
AT: Trump Thumps
Prefer our evidence specific to education: Trump is
pulling the federal government out of K-12 education now
Miller 4/26
(S.A., B.A., White House Correspondent at the Washington Times, 4.26.17,
The Washington Times, “Trump to pull feds out of K-12 education,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/26/donald-trump-pull-feds-
out-k-12-education/, Accessed: 7.4.17)VW
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling

the federal government out of K-12 education, following through on a
campaign promise to return school control to state and local officials. The
order, dubbed the “Education Federalism Executive Order,” will launch a
300-day review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts
and directs Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to modify or repeal measures
she deems an overreach by the federal government. “For too long the
government has imposed its will on state and local governments . The
result has been education that spends more and achieves far, far, far less,” Mr. Trump said. “ My
administration has been working to reverse this federal power grab
and give power back to families, cities [and] states — give power back
to localities.” He said that previous administrations had increasingly forced schools to comply
with “whims and dictates” from Washington, but his administration would break the trend. “We know
local communities know it best and do it best,” said Mr. Trump , who was joined by
several Republican governors for the signing. “The time has come to empower teachers and parents to
make the decisions that help their students achieve success.” Ms. DeVos and Vice President Mike Pence
were on hand for the ceremony, which was attended by about 25 people, including teachers, lawmakers
and the governors.
U/Q—Trump’s XO ceding control of education to the states

Reuters 4/26/17
“Trump seeks to shrink federal role in education with new order”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-education-trump-idUSKBN17S2U8
Trump on Wednesday ordered Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to review the
President Donald
U.S. government's role in school policy, which supporters cheered as the first step in creating
more local control in education and critics worried could lead to lower quality schools in poorer neighborhoods.
DeVos has 300 days "to review and, if necessary, modify and repeal regulations and
guidance issued by the Department of Education with a clear mandate to identify places where D.C. has overstepped its
legal authority," said Rob Goad, a Department of Education official, according to a transcript of a White House call with
reporters.
the
The second most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, California's Kevin McCarthy, said
federal government had in recent years exceeded its legal authority in
creating regulations and guidance.
AT: Obama was 2 much
Trump means states are winning across the board – he’s a
functional reset button
AP, writing in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, 17
(Associated Press, “Walker calls for more states' rights under Trump”,
http://www.startribune.com/walker-calls-for-more-states-rights-under-
trump/414620243/)
MADISON, Wis. — Gov. Scott Walker says he is optimistic that states will get more
power under President Donald Trump's administration. Walker spoke about
transferring more power to the states Thursday at the Conservative Political Action
Conference's annual meeting in suburban Washington. He says other than the military and
"maybe preserving things like Social Security and Medicare , I think just about
everything else is better done by the states." Walker says he "loved"
Trump's Cabinet and hoped it, along with Congress, would make
transformational changes to send more power back to the states. He says
"this is a unique opportunity in time to have transformational change."
AT: States Inevitable
The federal government exerts an equal and opposite
informal influence on the states.
Bulman-Pozen 15 — Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Associate Professor of
Law at Columbia Law School, was a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens of
the Supreme Court and Judge Merrick B. Garland of the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, received her J.D. from Yale Law School,
where she served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal and was awarded
the Israel H. Peres Prize by the faculty for the best student note in the Yale
Law Journal. She also earned a M.Phil. from the University of Cambridge as
a Gates Cambridge Scholar and a B.A. summa cum laude from Yale
University, 2015 (“The Rite of Dissent: Notes on Nationalist Federalism:
Responding to Heather K. Gerken's Childress Lecture, Federalism and
Nationalism: Time for a Détente?,” Saint Louis University Law Journal (59
St. Louis U. L.J. 1133), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Hein
Online, Accessed 06-26-2017, Lil_Arj)
The nationalist school of federalism has responded to federalist concerns
about waning state power by describing how states continue to exercise
[End Page 1144] meaningful authority without separate, sovereign spheres
of action. A set of normative questions has, as Gerken argues, been met in
part with empirical answers. 55 But understandings of nationalism do not
emerge from this study unscathed. If state power today inheres in its
integration with federal power, so too federal power today inheres in its
integration with state power. State and federal actors alike use both state
and federal governments to advance national agendas. They work together
to articulate and further particular national interests, and, in so doing,
oppose other combinations of state and federal actors who are championing
distinct national interests. Nationalism is not something that exists apart
from, let alone in distinction to, federalism. Instead, states play a
constitutive role in our national rites of dissent.
AT: UQ Overwhelm Link
First, extend our 1NC link evidence – it says that moves on
education where the federal government orders states
around will force a huge change in the balance of
federalism – and,
Trump’s in a critical reassessment of educational
federalism—he’s trending towards states rights, but it’s
not locked in
Kenneth K. Wong Walter and Leonore Annenberg Professor of Education
Policy - Brown University"Redefining the federal role in public education:
The 1st quarter of the Trump “insurgent” presidency," Brookings, 3-27-
2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
On the cover of The Economist on Feb. 4, 2017, the bright red headline read:
“An insurgent in the White House.” In this context of an “insurgent”
President Donald Trump, K-12 education is subject to a critical reassessment
in the current White House. I offer a few observations on Trump’s first
quarter in the presidency and what this signals about the direction of federal
education policy.¶ THE INSURGENT PRESIDENCY ATTEMPTS TO SCALE
BACK THE FEDERAL ROLE¶ Trump’s White House aims to significantly
repurpose the federal role in K-12 education. The administration has
dismantled key initiatives that were associated with the Obama
administration. At this point, Trump’s proposed initiatives constitute a
critical reassessment, but do not yet amount to an all-out dismantling of
the federal role in K-12 as embedded in the long-established “marble cake”
federalism. In the FY18 budget proposal, for example, the Trump
administration maintains federal funding for major categorical programs for
high-needs students, such as Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) reporting
requirement on performance among student subgroups remains a central
federal focus.¶ It is too early to tell whether the Trump administration plans
to fundamentally reconstruct the terms of federal engagement in public
education, which have been largely framed since the Great Society era of
the Lyndon Johnson administration. But the administration could be headed
in that direction, considering that the first quarter of the Trump presidency
has included the following education policy initiatives: ¶ Scaling back federal
direction and shifting substantial decisionmaking to state and local
government;¶ Proposing substantial budgetary reduction of the U.S.
Department of Education, such as programs in college and career access,
arts, health, after-school programs, teacher education, and technology; ¶
Expanding federal support for a broad portfolio of school choice, including
charter schools, vouchers for parents to enroll their children in public and
private schools, federal tax credit scholarship program, and magnet
programs;¶ Easing possible entry of for-profit providers in K-12 education; ¶
Placing limits on federal capacity to promote equal education access, such
as limiting the scope of Title IX enforcement; and ¶ Reducing investment in
data and research infrastructure.¶ SCHOOL CHOICE AS A FEDERAL
PRIORITY¶ The appointment of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
signals a strong commitment to school choice from the Trump
administration. To be sure, this is not the first time a U.S. president
advocated for school choice: Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of
school choice, but was unable to gain much congressional support. President
George H. Bush was receptive to the notion of charter schooling, when AFT
President Albert Shanker first proposed it in the 1980s. Further, President
Bill Clinton popularized charter schools with federal startup funding, a
position endorsed by both presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ¶
Related¶ Children play in the playground area at the Frederick, Maryland
Head Start facility March 13, 2012. When officials in Frederick County,
Maryland voted last year to stop paying for the local Head Start preschool
program, they pointed to a nearly $12 million projected budget shortfall as
proof that the mostly rural county could no longer afford it. Picture taken
March 13, 2012. To match story USA-EDUCATION/HEADSTART
REUTERS/Gary Cameron¶ A troubling contagion: The rural 4-day school
week¶ Students sit in the library of the university KU Leuven "Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven" in Leuven, Belgium, June 8, 2016. REUTERS/Francois
Lenoir/File Photo - RTX2G3MI¶ How much do for-profit colleges rely on
federal funds?¶ A Chinese language teacher sits in an empty classroom as
she teaches a class during an online course at Jingshan School, on a smoggy
day under a "red alert" for air pollution, in Beijing¶ Racial disparities in
school suspensions¶ But unlike his predecessors, Trump hopes to scale up his
school choice initiatives with a large infusion of federal funds. He first made
this promise on the campaign trail, pledging $20 billion in federal funding.
In his first presidential appearance before a joint session of Congress on
Feb. 28, 2017, Trump echoed his campaign promise, proposing a bill that
provides federal funding for school choice.¶ The new governing landscape
seems supportive of school choice expansion. First, the administration can
rely on the state policymaking authority under ESSA. Second, with two-
thirds of the states under one-party Republican control in both houses,
Trump’s school choice initiative has received favorable response in several
state houses. Third, charter schools have continued to receive steady,
favorable preference among parents in minority communities (though some
minority groups, including the NAACP, have grown more critical). It was a
calculated move on Trump’s part to mention that school choice will benefit
African-Americans in his joint session address last month. ¶ POSSIBLE
ROLLBACK ON THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EQUITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY¶
Historically, equity has been a key justification for federal involvement in K-
12 education. Since the civil rights movement and the Great Society agenda,
federal education programs have been designed to promote equal
educational opportunities for all students. Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 was part of the president’s War on Poverty.
Since the presidency of Reagan, the federal government has broadened its
focus to include performance-based accountability. ¶ The Trump
administration is ready to reverse the federal-state dynamic on both equity
and accountability, and the Trump White House has an opportunity to do so
in the current political climate. First, the 2015 iteration of ESSA rebalanced
Congressional Review Act to further reduce federal authority under ESSA by
repealing the “Accountability and State Plans” regulation published by the
Obama administration. DeVos now has the opportunity to grant even more
power to states as they implement ESSA.¶ Third, the federal government may
also choose to withdraw from some of the equity-oriented practices. DeVos is
reviewing whether the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights will
continue an effort that began in 1968 to collect biennial data on schooling
opportunities and quality in public schools throughout the country. ¶
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD¶ The Trump administration
has embarked on an ambitious agenda in K-12 education. While the new
governing landscape may facilitate the president’s disruptive agenda, the
administration’s effectiveness depends on several conditions. First, the
Trump White House has to reorganize the federal administrative capacity
behind a coherent set of policy goals. Failure to do so limits any president’s
ability to accomplish their goals.
Federalism is at a crucial turning point

Goelzhauser & Rose, 17 – *Associate Professor @ Utah State
University**Associate Professor @ Claremont McKenna, received Certificate
of Distinction in teaching from Harvard University(*Greg**Shanna, “The
State of American Federalism 2016–2017: Policy Reversals and Partisan
Perspectives on Intergovernmental Relations”, Publius, 8 June 2017,
https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/doi/10.1093/publius/pjx038/386538
1/The-State-of-American-Federalism-2016-2017-Policy, Accessed:
6/30/17)//SL
The state of American federalism in 2016–2017 is characterized by
transition and uncertainty following the presidential handover from
Barack Obama to Donald Trump. The arrival of a new administration with
radically different priorities foretells broad policy reversals in arenas such as
health care, immigration, and the environment, with potentially important
implications for federalism and intergovernmental relations. The
preceding six years were characterized by divided government and
congressional deadlock, with the resulting policy vacuum filled by a variety
of political actors including state lawmakers, voters (through direct
democracy), and judges (Rose and Bowling 2015). The 2016 election
ushered in a period of unified Republican control of the federal government,
as Republicans kept control of the House (which they have held since the
2010 election) and the Senate (held since the 2014 election) and won the
presidency. This could translate into a more productive Congress in 2017–
2018, assuming Trump and congressional leaders can work out their
differences. It also gives the GOP a historic opportunity to pursue its
conservative agenda not only at the federal level but also in the states,
where Republicans control a majority of governorships and legislative
chambers.
Federalism isn’t static---it can flip based on education

policy
Weaver, 17 – Georgetown University & the Brookings Institution (Kent,
“Martha Derthick on Federalism and Policy Implementation”, Publius, 20
February 2017,
https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/47/2/188/3038373/Martha-
Derthick-on-Federalism-and-Policy?searchresult=1, Accessed: 7/6/17)//SL
A fifth important theme in Derthick’s work is that American federalism is
neither fixed nor teleological, but rather “highly protean in form, subject to
constant reinterpretation, long on change and confusion and very low on
fixed, generally accepted principles” (Derthick 2001, 153). While she saw
the overall direction of policymaking as trending toward greater
centralization, she also recognized important counter-currents. Moreover,
appearances can be deceiving: she argues, that “in education as in welfare,
the subject of waivers would never even have arisen [in the 1990s] had not a
vast body of law and regulation developed from which relief was to be
sought” (Derthick 2001, 158). Intergovernmental relations in the United
States, she argues, are an ever-changing function of several factors,
notably Supreme Court decisions, the ability or failure of national level elites
to overcome multiple veto points and reach a consensus to force decisions
on the states, and what she vaguely calls the “mores” of intergovernmental
relations (Derthick 2001, 158).
A sixth major theme in Derthick’s work is a disdain for what she saw as
overreaching by the federal government in both objectives and
intrusiveness, especially in the use of federal grant programs. No Child
Left Behind, for example, led to state responses, but as the changes
sought by federal policymakers “become more exacting and prescriptive,
they risk goal-displacing responses that falsify results” (Derthick 2015,
137). In her brilliant postmortem of New Towns in Town (1972, 93), written
more than forty years earlier, Derthick traced the federal government’s
“tendency to set unrealistic goals” in part to its:
Links
Generic
Federal action on education upsets the overall balance of
federalism.
Lawson 13 – Aaron Lawson, Associate at Edelson PC where his practice
focuses on appeals and complex motion practice, J.D. from UMich,
Educational Federalism: A New Case for Reduced Federal Involvement in K-
12 Education, Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, Article
5, Volume 2013, Issue 2, Published in the summer of 2013,
http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1333&context=elj
Every state constitution, in contrast with the Federal Constitution, contains
some guarantee of education.18 State courts split into two groups on how
to give effect to these guarantees: (1) by evaluating education policy under
Equal Protection by declaring education a fundamental right or by treating
wealth as a suspect classification,19 or (2) by evaluating education policies
under a framework of educational adequacy.20 In either case, these clauses
establish substantive educational guarantees on the state level that do
not exist at the federal level and provide the courts with a role in
ensuring the fulfillment of these guarantees.21 These clauses also help to
create a valuable political dynamic, which has inured to the benefit of
children. As part of this political dynamic, courts define the contours of
these affirmative guarantees, and the legislature fulfills its own
constitutional duty by legislating between those boundaries.2
However, when the federal government legislates or regulates in a given
field, it necessarily constrains the ability of states to legislate in that
same field.23 In the field of education, the ability of courts to protect the
rights of children is dependent on the ability of legislatures freely to react to
courts. As such, anything that constrains state legislatures also
constrains state courts and upsets this valuable political dynamic
created by the interaction of state legislatures and state courts. An
expansive federal role in educational policymaking is normatively
undesirable when it threatens to interfere with this political dynamic. This
dynamic receives scant attention in the literature described above. However,
mindfulness of this dynamic is crucial to the proper placement of the
educational policymaking and regulatory epicenter.
Constraints on state legislatures would not be as problematic if the federal

government had proven itself adept at guaranteeing adequate educational
opportunity for all students. However, RTTT and NCLB have, in some cases,
proven remarkably unhelpful for poor and minority students.24 These
negative outcomes, of course, are not guaranteed. However, the fact that
federal involvement in education has produced undesirable outcomes for
poor and minority students should cause policymakers to reexamine whether
it is most desirable for the federal government to play such a significant role
in education. This Comment argues that it is not.
Education policy is a matter of states’ rights---fed lead

decks the balance of federalism
Courts are important players in education reform not by articulating the
content of educational policy but by setting the rules governing how
education reform can proceed. Educational reform involves an important
give and take as interested parties advance their own solutions, but there
are constitutional limits on this give and take that should be defined by
state courts. The experience of educational adequacy lawsuits indicates
that there is an important political dynamic at play here, which involves
courts and ultimately inures to the benefit of students, as all education
reform should.
To the extent that the federal government is involved, through programs like
NCLB and RTTT, that involvement has the potential to diminish the
effectiveness of state legislative response to state courts by binding the
legislature to the requirements of federal funding programs. Thus, through
NCLB and RTTT, the federal government threatens this valuable
political dynamic in which courts play an important role in vindicating the
substantive educational entitlements enjoyed by students. Although state
legislatures may be able to respond to both the federal government and to
state courts simultaneously, the very real possibility that state legislatures
may, in some instances, be placed in an untenable position between
federal requirements and state court dictates should counsel against
extensive federal involvement in education.
An adequacy framework for educational policy requires more than that a
state legislature commit to a certain level of education funding. It requires
also that a legislature be sensitive to the ways in which educational policies,
especially those that go beyond the funding context, affect student
performance and achievement. NCLB and RTTT focus legislatures in ways
that may not actually be helpful. These policies may have any number of
constitutionally relevant consequences, particularly for poor and minority
students.
There is a role for courts to play in educational policy, and that role is to
make sure that legislatures remain sensitive to the ways educational policies
affect students and especially that they remain sensitive to the unique
challenges posed to racially and socioeconomically isolated students within
our educational systems and society. State constitutional text demands that
closing the achievement gap cannot merely be a legislative priority. State
courts cannot effectively play that role in a system riddled with federal
commands. There are reasons for federal involvement in local educational
policy, but protection of student interests counsels in favor of more
restrained involvement, rather than the ever-expanding role the federal
government has given itself in the last decade.
State resistance to federal law sets a precedent

Josh Blackman "How the States Can Help Trump Make Federalism Great
Again," National Review, 1-18-2017,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443943/federalism-state-attorneys-
general-donald-trump-should-work-entrench-federalism
State attorneys general should work together to roll back the federal
government’s overreach.¶ Over the last eight years, more than two dozen
state attorneys general have mustered a veritable legal army to thwart the
unconstitutional overreach of the Obama presidency. With the change in
administrations, however, these elite forces should not disband, but rather
must retool. If the Trump White House is to succeed in restoring
constitutional governance, it will need the support, cooperation, and
sometimes pressure from the states.¶ In the short term, state attorneys
general can coordinate with the incoming Justice Department to identify the
cases and appeals that should be dismissed or settled. Further, these legal
officers should roadmap how Congress and the president can rescind
unlawful executive actions. Going forward, when progressive states seek to
resist federal incursions, conservative states should consider supporting the
principles underlying those cases: State capitols, not the central
government, should decide local matters. Precedents set during this period
will, in the long run, entrench the separation of powers, and ultimately
promote individual liberty.¶ The first order of business for the states on
January 20, 2017, will be to discuss with the Justice Department the status
of all pending federal–state litigation. These discussions can help to resolve,
or settle, a number of current cases and appeals trickling through the
judicial system. This practice should not be limited to state-led litigation. For
example, with less than 15 days left in the Obama presidency, the solicitor
general asked the Supreme Court to reverse a rare judicial victory for the
Second Amendment. Following a precedent set by the Obama administration
in an EPA case from 2009, on further reflection, the new solicitor general
can simply withdraw that petition for a writ of certiorari. ¶ ROLLING BACK
REGULATIONS¶ Over the next six months, congressional Republicans have a
unique opportunity to rescind regulations that were published in the waning
days of the Obama administration. The Congressional Review Act (CRA),
passed in 1996 as part of the Contract with America, allows Congress to
disapprove of a regulation that is less than 60 legislative days old. If the
president agrees, the regulation is rescinded, and the agency is permanently
prohibited from regulating on that issue ever again. It salts the earth in the
Code of Federal Regulations. The CRA has been used only once — by
President George W. Bush in 2001 to rescind an inconsequential regulation
concerning ergonomics in the workplace. Now, Republicans have a unique
opportunity to kill a bevy of rules that were finalized following May 30, 2016
(counting backwards 60 legislative days from the end of the previous
session).¶ With respect to the CRA, the states can help, big league: by
combing through every page of the Federal Register since Memorial Day,
attorneys general can identify each and every regulation that warrants
recision. Most regulations, though onerous, are perfectly lawful. However,
those regulations that violate federal law, or intrude upon the separation of
powers, or are flat-out unconstitutional, should be jettisoned. There is no
need to wait for the courts to act. To provide an even greater help to the
overworked staff in Washington, the states should use their sophisticated
staff to draft precise disapproval resolutions. Further, the attorneys general
should use their leverage to lobby their representatives and senators to get
these disapproval resolutions on the congested congressional calendar. The
president must sign these disapproval resolutions by the middle of the year,
so this unique opportunity has a limited window for success. ¶ For those
unlawful regulations that cannot be killed by the CRA — either due to a lack
of floor time or a lack of congressional will — there is still hope. Executive-
branch agencies can initiate new rulemakings, where they announce that
upon further reflection, they’ve determined that old regulations are contrary
to law, and can no longer stand. To assist this process, state attorney
generals should thumb through the Federal Register over the past eight
years, flag all arbitrary and capricious regulations, and draft proposed rules
to wipe out the Obama-era regimes. This support can help relieve the
burden from overworked executive-branch agencies that will likely find little
support from the entrenched bureaucracies. Indeed, civil servants may even
oppose and resist the incoming administration’s agenda through slow-
downs, leaks to the media, or flat-out disobedience. Finally, not that he
needs it, but the states can give direction to President Trump as he uses his
pen and phone (sharpie and twitter?) to systematically unravel President
Obama’s unlawful executive actions.¶ LITIGATING FOR THE CAUSE OF
FEDERALISM¶ Beyond the regulatory process, Republican attorneys general
should continue to use their elite legal teams to litigate for the cause of
federalism — even if it incidentally helps progressive states. For example,
California has recently boasted that it seeks to become the new Texas — like
orange is the new black — and rely on the principles of federalism to resist
incursions from the Trump administration into their sanctuary cities. While
conservatives may oppose sanctuary cities as a matter of policy, federalists
should never lose sight of the fact that the states — and not the central
government — should have control over local law-enforcement matters.
(Consider the controversies over efforts by the Justice Department to
monitor police departments.) Indeed, legislators in Austin are currently
debating a bill to defund Texas municipalities that refuse to assist with
federal immigration enforcement. That is the right way to handle this sort of
issue. When California challenges the Trump administration in court,
conservative states should not sit by idly. There is a unique opportunity to
advance the cause of federalism, and in the process, benefit from any
precedents set by fair-weathered federalists on the Supreme Court. ¶ First,
California will likely assert that it is unconstitutional for the Trump
administration to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. Once, and
only once, has the Supreme Court held that clawing back federal funding
violates the principles of federalism. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if
a state refused to expand its Medicaid rolls, the federal government
threatened to withhold all of its Medicaid funding. For example, the Obama
administration warned Arizona that it stood to lose nearly $8 billion of
federal funding, which was nearly a quarter of its state budget. The Court
observed that across the board, “Medicaid spending accounts for over 20
percent of the average State’s total budget, with federal funds covering 50
to 83 percent of those costs.” In other words, states stood to lose on average
10 percent of their budgets for failing to comply with Obamacare. The ACA’s
“financial ‘inducement,’” explained Chief Justice Roberts, “is much more
than ‘relatively mild encouragement’ — it is a gun to the head.” Because
“pressure turned into compulsion,” the Court concluded that the ACA’s
Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional.¶ This precedent, however, does not
mean that every effort to withhold money from noncompliant states is
unconstitutional. Congress routinely dangles aid to encourage states to
comply with federal programs. For example, South Dakota challenged a law
that would withhold 5 percent of otherwise available federal highway funds
if the state refused to raise its drinking age to 21. In 1987, the Supreme
Court upheld this law, finding that “Congress has offered relatively mild
encouragement to the States to enact higher minimum drinking ages than
they would otherwise choose.” However, the amount at issue was miniscule.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court pointed out that “the federal funds at stake,”
roughly $4 million, “constituted less than half of one percent of South
Dakota’s budget at the time.”¶ If sanctuary cities seek to halt President
Trump’s withdrawal of funding, and the amount falls somewhere between
0.5 percent and 10 percent, the Supreme Court will have to make new
precedent. It will not be sufficient to rely solely on NFIB v. Sebelius. In that
case, Chief Justice Roberts admitted that there was “no need to fix a line”
between “persuasion” and “coercion.” Yet, to rule against Trump, Justices
Ginsburg and Sotomayor (who dissented in NFIB) will have to go along with
a new rule that withholding an amount of money less than that at issue in
the Obamacare case is now coercive. Conservative states, rather than
waiting on the sidelines, should gladly point out to the Court this necessary
departure from NFIB. And more specifically, they can flag all of the other
federal programs, which threaten to withhold comparably small amounts,
are now at risk of invalidation in subsequent litigation. In the long run, a
unanimous decision that puts more teeth into the spending-clause
jurisprudence inures to the benefit of red states. Attorneys general in flyover
country should gladly hoist these coastal fair-weathered federalists on their
own petards.¶ Attorneys general in flyover country should gladly hoist these
coastal fair-weathered federalists on their own petards. ¶ Second, California
may assert that Congress did not provide adequate notice before changing
the criteria for receipt of federal funds. The Supreme Court has held that “if
Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it
must do so unambiguously.” The federal government cannot “surpris[e]
participating States with postacceptance or ‘retroactive’ conditions.” Like
the states opposing Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, California could
assert that it was “surprise[ed]” by the Trump administration’s imposition of
“‘retroactive’ conditions,” which “transform[ed]” the policy “so
dramatically.” Once again, conservative states should support this fight, and
urge the Supreme Court to reaffirm the so-called clear-statement rule. Such
a precedent would provide an important precedent for attorneys general to
challenge executive-branch agencies that suddenly, and unexpectedly,
impose massive new conditions on the states, without any adequate notice.
By pointing out the implications of ruling for fair-weathered federalists,
conservative attorneys general can establish another important check on
federal power.¶ To use a contemporary example, the Department of
Education recently reinterpreted Title IX, a 40-year-old law that prohibits
sex discrimination in educational institutions, to require all public schools to
allow students to use bathrooms based on their gender identity. This term
the Supreme Court will consider the validity of this new policy (if it is not
first withdrawn by the Trump administration). West Virginia, joined by 20
other states, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the agency’s
rewriting of federal law, which imposed transformative conditions on the
states. If the Supreme Court would be willing to strike down the Trump
administration’s changes with respect to immigration funding, then the
Obama administration’s dramatic changes to Title IX cannot stand. ¶ Third,
California may resist any efforts to cooperate with federal immigration
officials — and perhaps could even impede their work. For example, several
cities already refuse to transfer to the federal government certain criminal
aliens who are not lawfully present — ignoring so-called detainers — unless
a federal court orders the release. Here, progressives are rallying behind
Justice Scalia’s opinion in United States v. Printz, which held that Congress
cannot commandeer state officials to perform firearm background checks.
(Ironically, a gaggle of blue states filed a brief in Printz supporting the
constitutionality of the Clinton administration’s conscriptive gun-control
law.)¶ But there is another precedent for California to contend with.
Arizona’s S.B. 1070, commonly referred to as the “show your papers” law,
gave local law enforcement the power to arrest aliens who were in violation
of federal immigration law. The Supreme Court invalidated this provision of
S.B. 1070, finding that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and
execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Federal control
over immigration, the Court held, is “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no
room for the States to supplement it.” In other words, state immigration
policies that interfere with the comprehensive federal immigration scheme
are preempted. If Arizona is not allowed to adopt a policy that arguably
helps federal law enforcement (by arresting those subject to removal), then
California certainly cannot adopt a policy that explicitly impedes federal law
enforcement. This precedent does not help sanctuary cities. (For more irony,
California filed a brief supporting the Obama administration, and opposing
Arizona.)¶ There is a tension, however, between these two cases. Under
Printz, local officials cannot be conscripted to enforce federal law-
enforcement duties. At the same time, a state law or policy that serves as an
“obstacle” to Congress’s federal immigration scheme violates the holding of
Arizona. Conservative attorneys general should cheerfully point out this
tension to the courts. For California to prevail, the Supreme Court will have
to shake things up. Printz’s commandeering doctrine will be expanded, thus
reigning in the power of the central government; Arizona’s preemption
analysis will be curtailed, which expands a state’s internal police powers.
This rejiggering of precedent would be a boon to federalism. ¶ Conservative
states should consider supporting the principle that courts can enforce the
president’s duty to faithfully execute the law.¶ Fourth, California may attempt
to sue the Trump administration’s for its failure to enforce various laws. If
that paradigm sounds familiar it should: Texas challenged the legality of the
Obama administration’s non-enforcement of the immigration laws, known as
DAPA. This suit, however, was not unprecedented. In 2005, Massachusetts
(joined by California) sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing
to regulate greenhouse gasses. The Supreme Court held that because the
Massachusetts coastline could be eroded by the effects of climate change,
the state was sufficiently injured to sue in federal court. Citing the basis of
Massachusetts v. EPA, the lower courts held that Texas had standing to
challenge DAPA. (The Supreme Court ultimately deadlocked on this issue 4-
4.)¶ While California supported President Obama’s illegal executive actions
on immigration (filing a brief in support of DAPA), it may not be so keen
when the Trump administration decides to exercise its discretion with
respect to environmental, financial, and other regulatory prosecutions. If
progressive states attempt to challenge executive non-enforcement of the
law — beyond the context of climate change — conservative states should
consider supporting the principle that courts can enforce the president’s
duty to faithfully execute the law. They should point out that it is not
sufficient to merely reply on Massachusetts, but will need to make new
precedent — a precedent that could one day prevent a future a wholesale
suspension of the immigration laws.¶ Fifth, blue states will likely adopt a
powerful tool used by red states to reign in federal policy: the nationwide
injunction. Over the past three years, federal district judges (mostly in
Texas) have single-handedly halted President Obama’s unlawful policies
concerning immigration, labor law, and financial regulations. Using these
injunctions, the judges have bound executive-branch officials in all 50 states
— even those that welcomed the executive policy. For example, California
urged Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville that President Obama’s
immigration orders should be allowed to go into effect in states that wanted
it. No dice, the court held.¶ Soon enough, these dynamics will flip, as federal
judges in San Francisco, Brooklyn, and Chicago, are confronted with
requests for nationwide injunctions to halt the Trump administration. As the
progressives reverse course, Republican attorney generals should maintain
their consistency. More often than not, federal officials will overreach, rather
than underreach. The nationwide injunction is one of the only remedies
available to quickly halt illegal actions before they take effect — and become
entrenched. So long as the president takes executive action, especially
outside the formal notice-and-comment process of rulemaking, courts should
be able to quickly put a hold on violations of law. This is a policy that
attorneys general of all stripes should unwaveringly support.
State led-policymaking is key to uphold the balance of

federalism
Evers 14 – Williamson Evers (member of the Editorial Board of Education
Next and a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
Evers was the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for policy, from 2007 to
2009). “How the Common Core Suppresses Competitive Federalism.”
Education Next. September 8th, 2014. http://educationnext.org/common-
core-suppresses-competitive-federalism/
We know that national standards are not needed for success in international comparisons. Back in the
1970s, the United States and Canada were both in the middling, mediocre ranks internationally. Both
The
countries are rather similar in culture and level of commercial and industrial development.
United States has continued to wallow in mediocrity, even as we centralize
K-12 education. Yet Canada (which has more competitive federalism in
education than the United States and has no Ministry of Education in its
central government) has climbed into the ranks of advanced nations in
academic performance. Why is this important? Because one of the pillars of the case for national
curriculum-content standards is that they are necessary for individuals to succeed in a global
marketplace and that all top-performing countries have them. The case of Canada refutes that. Let’s turn
to the background of the Common Core. Content standards, tests, and curriculum that had been provided
by the states—thus far—will now because of Common Core be provided by federally-endorsed national
curriculum-content standards, federally-funded tests, and curriculum (some of it federally funded) based
on those tests and curriculum-content standards. The Common Core national standards had their origins
in several Washington, D.C.-centric lobbying and policy-advocacy groups—namely, the National Governors
Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve Inc. Shortly after the
Obama administration came to power, it adopted and endorsed the national standards. It used
competitive grants to coerce states into adopting Common Core. It paid for Common Core national tests
and intervened in the test-creation process. It created a panel to oversee and monitor the national tests.
It granted states waivers from the burdens of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—conditional on continued
adherence to Common Core or a federally-approved alternative. Central to the thinking (and rhetoric) of
the advocates of Common Core on education reform was the idea that state performance standards were
already on a downward slide and that, without nationalization, standards would inexorably continue on a
“race to the bottom.” The name given to the Obama administration’s signature school reform effort, the
Race to the Top program (RttT), reflects this belief. The idea is that to prevent states from following their
supposed natural dynamic of a race to the bottom, the federal government needs to step in and lead a
While providers of public education certainly face
race to the top. I would disagree.
the temptation to do what might look like taking the easy way out by letting
academic standards slip, there is also countervailing pressure in the
direction of higher standards (especially, as long as there are competing
standards in other states). If policymakers and education officials let content
standards slip, low standards will damage the state’s reputation for having a
trained workforce. Such a drop in standards will even damage the policymakers’ own reputations.
In 2007, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute looked empirically at state
performance standards over time in a study called The Proficiency Illusion.
The study showed that while states had a variety of performance standards
(as would be expected in a federal system), the supposed “race to the
bottom” was not happening. The proponents of the Common Core wrong in their claims
that state performance standards were inevitably and everywhere on a downward slide. Why is this
important? Because the other case for national curriculum-content standards is that without
nationalization there will be a race to bottom and that only national standards can reverse a supposedly
already-existing “race to the bottom.” But the facts refute this. This topples the other principal argument
for national standards. To finance its Race to the Top program, the U.S. Department of Education took
discretionary stimulus money that could be used as conditional grants, and then turned a portion of that
money into a competitive grant program. It used the grants to encourage states to adopt the national
standards. Policy analyst Michael Petrilli aptly called inducements to adopt the standards “the carrot that
feels like a stick.” The department also paid for national consortia to develop national tests aligned with
the national curriculum–content standards. The administration created another inducement in the form of
No Child Left Behind waivers. In return for adopting the national standards or a federally approved
alternative, states could escape NCLB sanctions for not making timely gains in student achievement. U.S.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan went beyond what the law allows, by substituting the Obama
administration’s favored education reforms (including national curriculum-content standards and tests)
for NCLB’s accountability measures. I would add that the new accountability systems under the waivers
can all too easily hide deficiencies in the performance of children in previously closely watched sub-
To some extent,
groups and may weaken incentives to improve performance of those children.
federal officials have commandeered state curriculum -content standards and
tests and substituted national standards and tests; to some extent, some
state officials embraced the national standards-and-testing cartel as a relief
from political pressure within their state and a relief from competitive
pressure from other states. In any case, national standards and tests will change curriculum
content, homogenize what is taught, and profoundly alter the structure of American K-12 public
education. Nationalizing standards and tests would, according to this analysis, eliminate them as
differentiated school-reform instruments that could be used by states in competition over educational
attainment among the states. Sonny Perdue, governor of Georgia at the time Common Core was created,
did not like it when the low-performing students of his state were compared with students in other states
that had different standards from Georgia’s. He became the lead governor in bringing the NGA into the
national standards effort. So, Yes, Common Core does undermine “competitive federalism.” Indeed, in
part, it was designed to do so. Federalism is not only distinction from and rivalry between the federal
government and the states; it is also rivalry among the states and among local governments within the
states. As economist Richard McKenzie writes, the Founders sought to disperse power “among many
different and competing governments—at the federal, state, and local levels.” The insight of competitive
federalism is that fifty-one state school boards are better than a single federal Executive-branch office.
Fifteen-thousand local school boards are better than either fifty-one state school boards or a single
federal office. As political scientist Thomas Dye puts it, “intergovernmental competition” was seen by the
Founders as an “auxiliary precaution” against the “monopoly abuse of power by a single centralized
government.” Competitive federalism encourages innovation, allows movement between jurisdictions that
enhances liberty, and permits a better match between policies and voter preferences. Common Core’s
national uniformity runs counter to competitive federalism . Let’s turn to
Alexis de Tocqueville, the most famous observer of American society in our history and see what he can
tell us about national education standards. Tocqueville is famous for his portrait of nineteenth-century
America and his philosophic insights on why the American society has flourished—and also where it
might go wrong. It is worth reminding ourselves what some of Tocqueville’s insights were. Once we do,
we can consider the current nationalization of K-12 public-school curriculum, with Tocqueville’s insights
in mind. One of Tocqueville’s major insights was that Americans have benefited from popular
participation in the large number of churches, charities, clubs, and voluntary associations in our country,
as well as in state and local governments, which stand between the individual and the national
government in Washington, D.C. In essence, Tocqueville believed that the civic health of America
depended on popular participation in entities like associations to create and maintain religious, private,
or charter schools, as well as in local authorities like school districts with fully-empowered schools
boards. Such activity fosters civic virtue and “habits of the heart” and encourages everyday citizens to
take on necessary social tasks that in pre-modern society lowly subjects were not allowed to undertake,
but were instead the duty of the aristocracy. When Tocqueville described nineteenth-century American
society he spoke, for example, of township school committees that were deeply rooted in their local
communities. In those days, state control of local public education took the form of an annual report sent
by the township committee to the state capital. There was no national control. Large sums (much of it
taxed from laborers and farmers) were spent by these school committees, and their efforts reflected,
Tocqueville thought, a widespread American desire to provide basic schooling as a route to opportunity
and advancement. He admired the fact that in self-activating America, one might easily chance upon
farmers, who had not waited for official permission from above, but were putting aside their plows “to
deliberate upon the project of a public school.” At the same time, Tocqueville observed in European
countries that activities like schooling that had formerly been part of the work of guilds, churches,
municipalities, and the like were being taken over by the national government of those countries.
Tocqueville feared that if either Americans neglected their participation in associations or local
governments or Europeans lost their intermediate entities to the national governments, the tendency
would be toward a loss of a liberty and a surrender to a soft despotism. In Democracy in America,
Tocqueville described how in Europe “the prerogatives of the central power” were increasing every day
and making the individual “weaker, more subordinate, and more precarious.”Once, he said, there had
been “secondary powers” that represented local interests and administered local matters. Local
judiciaries, local privileges, the freedoms of towns, provincial autonomy, local charities—all were gone or
going. The national central government, he wrote, “no longer puts up with an intermediary between it
and the citizens.” Tocqueville said that, in Europe, education, like charity, “has become a national affair.”
The national government receives or even takes “the child from the arms of his mother” and turns the
child over to “the agents” of the national government. In nineteenth-century Europe, the national
governments already were infusing sentiments in the young and supplying their ideas. “Uniformity
reigns” in education, Tocqueville said. Intellectual diversity was disappearing. He feared that both
Europe and America were moving toward “centralization” and “despotism.” Tocqueville believed that in
non-aristocratic societies (like America), there is strong potential for the national government to become
immense and influential, standing above the citizens, not just as a mighty and coercive power, but also as
a guardian and tutor. Tocqueville maintained that religion (as a moral anchor) as well as involvement in
local government (such as school districts) and voluntary organizations could help America counter the
tendency toward tyranny. Joseph Califano, President Jimmy Carter’s Health, Education and Welfare
Secretary, articulated Tocqueville-style concerns about a centralization of schooling: “Any set of test
questions that the federal government prescribed should surely be suspect as a first step toward a
national curriculum. … [Carried to its full extent,] national control of curriculum is a form of national
control of ideas.” Unless Common Core is stopped, its officials will dismantle what remains of state and
local decision-making on classroom lessons and replace it with a new system of national tests and a
national curriculum. This policy is Tocqueville’s nightmare: As in Europe, education “has become a
Common Core is the vehicle for imposing in America a one-
national affair” and
size-fits-all centralization like that administered by the National Ministry of
Education in France. Federalism, including horizontal inter-jurisdictional competition, allows
policies better matched to needs and preferences of voters. It allows individuals and families to “vote
with their feet”—to move to jurisdictions that they like, where the authorities don’t act counter to their
liberties and preferences. Competitive federalism allows experimentation by alternative
jurisdictions. One state can try one policy, while another state tries something else. This is why it is called
the “laboratory of democracy.” This feature of federalism is what brought
Massachusetts, Indiana, California and several other states to have the
outstanding curriculum-content standards that they had before the Common
Core. This is the feature of federalism that facilitates an exit strategy from Common Core: It allows
states that are leaving Common Core to repeal and replace the national curriculum-content standards
with outstanding pre-Common Core state standards. This can be done on an interim basis, while those
states design their own replacement standards for the long run. Then the rivalry that takes place
under competitive federalism will go back to work to the benefit of teachers,
students, and everyone who wants a well-educated citizenry —and also
everyone who wants to have the freedoms that are protected by the U.S.
Constitution’s Madisonian system of federalism.
Constitution mandates no federal invention in education---

the alternative “crowds out” what the states are doing
Berry citing McCluskey 17[Dr Susan citing Neal, Neal McCluskey is the
director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. Prior to arriving at Cato,
McCluskey served in the U.S. Army, taught high-school English, and was a
freelance reporter covering municipal government and education in
suburban New Jersey. More recently, he was a policy analyst at the Center
for Education Reform. McCluskey is the author of the book Feds in the
Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises
American Education, and his writings have appeared in such publications as
the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Forbes. In addition to his
written work, McCluskey has appeared on C-span, CNN, the Fox News
Channel, and numerous radio programs. McCluskey holds an undergraduate
degree from Georgetown University, where he double-majored in
government and English, has a master’s degree in political science from
Rutgers University, and has a PhD in public policy from George Mason
University, "Heritage Panel Warns Trump About Making School Choice a
Federal Program," Breitbart, March 31st, http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2017/03/31/heritage-panel-warns-trump-making-school-choice-
federal-program/,] KS
Cato Institute education policy director Neal McCluskey said he suspects Washington, D.C. will
develop a “tax credit proposal,” that could come up in a tax plan. He reminded attendees the
Constitution “does not give the federal government the authority to
intervene in education like this, to govern education, and that includes to
spend money on education, to have tax credits…” “The reasons the Constitution
doesn’t do this is we want federalism, and there are real advantages to
federalism,” McCluskey added, explaining that if the federal government
creates a tax credit or voucher program, it is likely that effort would “crowd
out” whatever states are already doing to provide school choice. Such a
move by the federal government could “kill the ‘laboratories of democracy”
when it comes to education, he warned: We want to have states trying
different ways to deliver education and deliver school choice so we can see
what works well, what works well for specific populations, and – only when
you have this competition – can you start to really see what might work
better than what we think right now is the best program. McCluskey added to
dismiss federalism would be “dangerous” for the nation. Lindsey Burke,
education policy director at the Heritage Foundation, agreed that while “there is general
consensus we’re going to see some movement at the federal level on school
choice,” she fears federal control of school choice policy across the country
could lead to the “homogenization of school supply.” Burke added that states also
have more flexibility and can more easily make corrections to school choice
systems when needed, while change in the federal government happens
much more slowly, if at all.
Federal education policy destroys federalism – causes

bureaucratic expansion, undermines accountability
Marshall, 11 – Vice President @ Institute for Family Community &
Opportunity(Jennifer, “Effects of the Federal Role and Intervention in
Education”, The Heritage Foundation, 15 March 2017,
http://www.heritage.org/testimony/effects-the-federal-role-and-intervention-
education, Accessed: 7/5/17)//SL
Major federal intervention into local schools began with the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Since then, a half-century of
continually expanding, ever-shifting federal intervention into local schools
has failed to improve American academic achievement.
But it has caused an enormous compliance burden, dissipating dollars

and human capital that could have been more effectively directed to
achieve educational excellence. The damage should be calculated not only in
terms of decades of wasted fiscal and human resources and on-going
opportunity costs. We must also take stock of how federal intervention has
created a dysfunctional governance system that undermines direct
accountability to parents and taxpayers, while at the same time
encouraging bureaucratic expansion and empowers special interests.
Specifically, we should count the following costs of compliance with federal
policy:
The proliferation of federal programs and increased federal prescription to
leverage “systemic reform” have created a confusing policy maze that
only a limited set of experts can navigate.
The growth of state bureaucracies to administer and comply with federal
programs has given rise to a “client mentality” that undermines effective
educational governance and accountability that ought to be directed toward
parents and other taxpayers.
Federal control of education is overreach and takes

autonomy away from the states.
Burke et al 13 - Jennifer Marshall, Lindsey Burke, Rachel Sheffield,
Brittany Corona and Sandra Stotsky, 10-7-2013, "Common Core National
Standards and Tests: Empty Promises and Increased Federal Overreach Into
Education," Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/common-core-national-standards-
and-tests-empty-promises-and-increased-federal
Education is no exception. Growing federal intervention in education over the past
half century has come at the expense of state and local school autonomy,
and has done little to improve academic outcomes. Every new fad and
program has brought not academic excellence but bureaucratic red tape for
teachers and school leaders, while wresting away decision-making authority
from parents. Despite significant growth in federal intervention, American
students are hardly better off now than they were in the 1970s . Graduation
rates for disadvantaged students, reading performance, and international
competitiveness have remained relatively flat, despite a near tripling of real
per-pupil federal expenditures and more than 100 federal education
programs. Achievement gaps between children from low-income families and
their more affluent peers, and between white and minority children, remain
stubbornly persistent. While many of these problems stem from a lack of educational choice and a
monopolistic public education system, the growth in federal intervention, programs,
and spending has only exacerbated them
Top down funding and regulation comes at the expense of
federalism
McCluskey, 17 – director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom
(Neal, “Obama’s Education Legacy: Overreach and Misrule”, CATO, 11
January 2017, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-
education-legacy-overreach-misrule, Accessed: 7/6/17)//SL
That shift was welcome. Taking power away from parents and children has
made education an increasingly lifeless, test-obsessed endeavor. And
although tests are hardly the sum of education, reading scores for 17-year-
olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the “Nation’s
Report Card”) have basically not budged since the early 1970s. Meanwhile,
inflation-adjusted spending per pupil has roughly doubled.
Remarkably, he united the Left and the Right, against a federal power grab.
Alas, the Obama administration seemed determined to continue the trend.
The handwriting of president-centric education policy was on the wall early
in Obama’s first term. In the administration’s first year, it encouraged every
school in the country to have students watch the president lead what was
essentially a televised back-to-school pep rally. The Department of Education
even produced lesson guides suggesting that students do such things as
“write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”
The Constitution gives the federal government no education authority. But at
least the rally — though symbolically awful for federalism — was mainly
hype. It was the substantive things the administration did that eventually led
to Obama’s unfortunate legacy in education.
The key to unprecedented concentration of power was the so-called
stimulus program in 2009. It plowed roughly $100 billion into education,
mainly to fill state and district budgets. The program also specified
reforms that states were supposed to make to get funding, including
“making progress toward rigorous college- and career-ready standards and
high-quality assessments,” and making “improvements in teacher
effectiveness.”
Much of the money was to be quickly doled out no matter what, but the
funds included $4.35 billion that became known as Race to the Top, which
allowed the administration to tell states, You want some of this, do as
we say. To get maximum “Race” points, states had to commit to standards
common to a majority of states and to shared assessments aligned with
those standards. The only standard that fit was Common Core, which the
administration championed despite little research even suggesting that
national standards improve achievement.
Funding
Federal funding crushes federalism - eliminates state
incentives for innovation
Neal McCluskey is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational
Freedom March 14, 2017 For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize It
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/love-choice-dont-federalize-it
IB
The first question facing any federal proposal should be whether it is allowed by the Constitution. That may seem quaint
the Constitution gives Washington specifically enumerated
or quixotic, but it is fundamental:
powers, and that is all. Governing education, aside from enforcing civil rights legislation and
regulating schooling on federal lands, is not among them.¶ There are sound practical reasons for
respecting these constitutional limits. First and foremost, federalism defends against centralized control of America’s
diverse communities and people. In addition, when sub-national units, such as states and school districts, try something
new, the damage is isolated if a plan does not work; if it succeeds, others are free to replicate it and adapt it to their
needs.¶ But isn’t school choice fundamentally different from and better than federalism? Doesn’t it inherently move
power from higher, more centralized levels to the lowest levels possible: children and families? ¶ It does, and that is a
tremendous strength. But as we’ve learned from roughly a quarter-century of
experience with state-level school choice programs and federal higher education policy,
any connection to the federal government can have unintended
consequences for choice, including incentivizing government control of the
schools to which public money flows. That control can diminish and even eliminate the core value of
school choice: the ability to choose something truly different. ¶ Federal money means federal
regulation¶ We should protect federalism both to ensure that differing methods of delivering choice can be tried
without having to compete against a choice monopolist—an oxymoronic but all-too-real concept when discussing the feds
—and to prevent national homogenization of private schools via the kinds of regulations that inevitably get attached to
federal dough.¶ On the first major concern—avoiding a monopoly choice system—I believe the most meaningful form of
accountability is having to satisfy parents. But while I oppose most rules and regulations on schools participating in
choice programs, I would never declare that my preferred amount of regulation is always and everywhere
incontrovertibly right. Research does not make a slam-dunk case for any specific system. Research is limited, as are our
minds. The way we learn what’s best now and continue to discover methods that may be better is to allow free action on
a level playing field. Federalism helps us do just that. ¶ On the second point—federal
“help” rendering
once-autonomous private institutions increasingly homogenous—all major
forms of choice are susceptible to government control to varying degrees. The
danger is far greater when that control comes from Washington, because you
can’t even move to another state to escape it.
Regulations
We need one
Accountability
Accountability includes the proliferation of federal
programs---puts burdens on states and localities---detracts
from “proper” accountability
Marshall 11 [Jennifer A---- Vice President Institute for Family, Community &
Opportunity, Director of Domestic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, and
oversees research into a variety of issues that determine the strength and
character of American society, “Testimony before House Education
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
United States House of Representatives,” The Heritage Foundation, March
15th, http://www.heritage.org/testimony/effects-the-federal-role-and-
intervention-education,]
Washington’s role in education has grown to the point where it is difficult to
keep track of all the odds and ends of federal intervention into this or that
aspect of education. Programs include things like Women’s Educational Equity, the Native
Hawaiian Education Program, the Carol M. White Physical Education Program, and the Challenge
newsletter to spread the word about how to fight drugs and violence in schools.[1] Even the Government
Accountability Office (GAO)
has had a hard time counting up all the education
programs, or even defining what a federal program is. Using a narrow definition that
excludes programs that don’t “enhance student learning through school activities and curricula” (which
leaves out, for example, food and nutrition programs administered through schools ),
GAO
determined in 2010 that there were 151 K-12 and early childhood education
programs housed in 20 executive branch and independent federal agencies,
totaling $55.6 billion in average annual expenditures . According to GAO, 91
percent of these programs are federal grant programs , distributed primarily
to state and local school districts. States were eligible for 65 of the grant programs; local districts for 57
programs.[2] This multiplication of programs means multiple applications, monitoring of program
This increases administrative overhead and
notices, and program reporting.
erodes coherent, school-level strategic leadership based on the needs
of individual students. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is the most
significant of the federal laws affecting K-12 education. Programs funded
under NCLB constituted $25 billion in 2010. NCLB includes more than 50
programs under 10 titles, running more than 600 pages. NCLB is the eighth
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The original ESEA
included just five titles and 32 pages. In 2006, the Office of Management and Budget found that No Child
Left Behind cost states an additional 7 million hours in paperwork at a cost of $141 million.[3] Federal
Prescription Increased through “Systemic Reform” Between 1965 and the mid-1990s, the federal role in
education focused on compensatory and categorical aid, aiming to supplement resources for specific
student populations (e.g., low-income or English language learners) or categorical purposes . In the
mid-1990s, the federal role expanded beyond these specific
interventions to leveraging system-wide education reform from
Washington. This systemic or comprehensive reform seeks to influence all
aspects of the public school system to produce change in all public
schools by working top-down from Washington, D.C. No area of
education policy is off limits from federal oversight and federal
regulation in this model, opening the door to ever-deeper encroachments
into and ever-wider compliance demands on local schools. For example, No Child
Left Behind prescribes in great detail the measurement of student progress on a specified testing
regimen for all schools and all students. Each state must complete a “Consolidated State Application
Accountability Workbook” to explain in great detail how it will meet the law’s prescriptive requirements
for judging student progress.[4] Most states’ completed “accountability workbooks” run around 50 pages
long, though some are much longer. For example, Georgia’s is 95 pages and Florida’s is 128 pages.
Accountability is important, but we also need to ask, accountability to whom
and for what? The accountability prescribed by No Child Left Behind focuses on fine-tuned
aggregate calculations that are most useful for bureaucrats to chart school-wide, district-wide, or state-
wide progress—information that is useful for the application of federal carrots and sticks. Calculations
like “safe harbor” to account for differences in progress among groups are not the kinds of information
that empower parents. On the other hand, that kind of detail does absorb countless hours of bureaucratic
That’s
explanation and compliance calculations on the part of schools, districts, and states.
characteristic of federal intervention as whole: it is distracting because of
the many compliance burdens it puts on states and localities , but it is
also detracts from proper accountability to those who have the most
at stake in education, parents and other taxpayers.
Court-Miliken
Desegregation of schools needs local control – Federal
involvement violates federalism
Parker 04 Wendy Parker Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School
of Law. B.A., 1986, The University of Texas; J.D., 1990, The University of
Texas School of Law. Co-counsel, Brief of the Society of American Law
Teachers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents in Grutter v. Bollinger,
123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003) (No. 02-241). I wish to thank participants in the
workshops at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law,
University of San Diego School of Law, and Wake Forest University School of
Law, at which I presented earlier versions of this paper. Comments from
Jane Dolkart, David Levine, Frank Partnoy, and Mike Selmi, and from my
former colleagues at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, Jack Chin,
Donna Nagy, Suja Thomas, Verna Williams, and Ingrid Wuerth, were
particularly helpful. I also thank my research assistants, Billy Guinigundo
and Tim Cahill, who provided invaluable assistance. “Connecting the Dots:
Grutter, School Desegregation, and Federalism” William & Mary Law Review
Volume 45 | Issue 4 Article 6 p.1752-1754
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1334&context=wmlr, EP
Yet, one cannot disconnect the idea of local control from federalism . Local
control, at its core, prefers state and local authority over federal intervention; and this approach is, by
definition, federalism at work. In addition, the American history of education rests on a solid foundation
of "local control" of schools.32 Schools are typically governed not by the national government, but by
state and, particularly for primary and secondary schools, local governments.325 Granted, public schools
are not operated entirely independently of the national government, but local and state governance still
predominates in theory and practice. Three of the four values associated with state and local authority
support school desegregation's allowance of local control over the remedial process. First ,
the value
of public participation in democracy is furthered by state and local power
over desegregating schools. If the alternative is authority by non-elected, life-tenured judges,
then the opportunity for participation will only exist within the confines of party participation in litigation.
Affording authority to officials in the state and local executive and legislative
branches will further democratic ideals by increasing the number of voices
heard in the remedial process and by holding the decision makers
accountable through any attending electoral process. Second, promoting state
and local officials' authority will decrease the chances for tyranny because
the checks on the abuses of judicial power-appellate review and
impeachment-are significantly weaker than that afforded by the electoral
process. Third, local control furthers experimentation in school desegregation
more than exclusive judicial control. Given educators' superior knowledge of education,
promoting local control has the strong possibility of increasing experimentation. While judges could
certainly draw upon the educators' knowledge in any number of ways, imagining judges taking
responsibility for educational innovation in school desegregation is difficult. Educators, on the other
hand, likely would have the necessary confidence and incentive to undertake experimentation. Further,
because school desegregation will vary by locality-local conditions
will affect every aspect of school desegregation-then experimentation
is of high value and a national standard is of low value . In sum, not only is
school desegregation's promotion of local control faithful to the American
tradition of school governance, but it is consistent with three values supporting state and
local authority. Left open is the impact of the fourth value associated with state and local authority-
creating communities of shared interest-and the value supporting federal authority over schools--
establishing a national standard. The two are obviously related. When is it acceptable for Americans to
form their own unique communities, or when must they live by the same standard? Federalism itself
provides no answer to these two questions, for they relate not to who should be the decision maker but
what should be the available decisions. The questions depend on policy unrelated to federalism. For
example, Brown I established a national standard because the Court had determined that the Equal
Protection Clause must outlaw dejure segregation.327 Green and Swann evidenced ajudicial conclusion
that the local experimentation with remedying school desegregation had gone astray because of the
continued segregation.3 " Only then was a national rule again necessary. None of these cases asserted a
need to usurp state and local authority in every instance, but only when the Equal Protection Clause
required a uniform standard. Thus, the national rule in Brown I was the end to de jure segregation, and
the national value in Green and Swann was the end to continued segregation. These Equal Protection
Clause values, unrelated to federalism, were enough to overcome the American tradition of local control.
Despite these exceptions, however, federalism provides a solid foundation for the
promotion of local control in school desegregation. When a uniform standard is
necessary, the national judiciary will assert its authority. More typically, the values supporting
state and local authority are found in the school desegregation setting
Courts-Rodriguez
Overturning Rodriguez disrupts balance of federalism in
education
Lawson 13 (Aaron Lawson, JD from University of Michigan, 3/1/13,
“EDUCATIONAL FEDERALISM: A NEW CASE FOR REDUCED FEDERAL
INVOLVEMENT IN K–12 EDUCATION,” Brigham Young University
Education and Law Journal: Volume 2013, Issue 2, Accessed 7/13/17, MH)
In the Rodriguez decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs
did not have a right under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which
required the state of Texas to remedy disparities in funding for schools in
high-wealth and low-wealth school districts. One of the principal reasons
that the Court rejected the plaintiffs' claims was the need to
maintain the current balance of power between the federal and state
governments over education. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Rodriguez
that even though all equal protection claims implicate federalism, " it would
be difficult to imagine a case having a greater potential impact on
our federal system than the one now before us," because upholding the
plaintiffs' claims would ultimately lead the Court to invalidate the school
systems in all fifty states. Although some contend that these decisions and results are driven
more by a lack of political will rather than education federalism, the consistency with which
federalism has arisen as a real or imagined obstacle to reforms aimed at
ensuring equal educational opportunity suggests that federalism is a
significant contributing factor, even if other factors also adversely influenced
these reforms. I contend that the United States should strategically restructure and strengthen the
federal role in education to establish the necessary foundation for a national effort to ensure equal access
to an excellent education. This restructuring and strengthening of the federal role in education would
require shifting some power away from the state and local governments and toward the federal
The United States would then need to adopt a new understanding
government.
of education federalism that embraces the federal government as the
guarantor of equal opportunity, because it is the only government with the
capacity and sufficient incentive to lead a national effort to achieve this
widely supported, yet persistently elusive, goal. Although this would not require
federalizing the nation's education system as at least one scholar has recommended, it would require
acceptance of a larger federal role in education to hold the states accountable for ensuring that all
students receive equal access to an excellent education.
Common Core
Common core crushes competitive federalism writ large
Williamson M. Evers Is A Member Of The Editorial Board Of Education
Next and A Research Fellow At Stanford University’S Hoover Institution. He
Was A Member Of The California State Academic Standards Commission In
Late 1990s And Again In 2010, When The Common Core National
Curriculum-Content Standards Were Under Consideration. He Supervised,
Together With Others, The School System In Iraq In 2003. He Was
The U.S. Assistant Secretary Of Education For Policy, From 2007 To 2009.
"How the Common Core Suppresses Competitive Federalism," Education
Next, 9-8-2014, http://educationnext.org/common-core-suppresses-
competitive-federalism/
Do the Common Core national curriculum-content

The question I would like to address is:
standards undermine “competitive federalism,” which is a feature of our Madisonian
system of federalism?¶ First, I want to discuss federalism under our Constitution as designed by James
Madison. What is federalism? U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a recent case that
the allocation of powers as set forth in the Constitution sets legal “boundaries” between the federal
government and the states and provides a way for each of them to maintain their “integrity.” But, just as
importantly, having a system of federalism “secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion
of sovereign power.”¶ Thus, there is vertical federalism between the states and the federal government,
and there is horizontal federalism among, for example, water districts, countries, cities, school districts,
and among states.¶ We can see that the debate about federalism continues in America. In another case,
the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on ObamaCare, the court said that the federal government cannot use
the threat of cutting off federal spending to coerce states into expanding Medicaid. (This decision may or
may not apply to Common Core, but it shows the continuing importance of federalism.)¶ Now, I want to
turn to the closely related matter of competitive federalism. Competitive federalism is horizontal
competition among jurisdictions. We know that it works in education at the inter-district level. Economist
Caroline Hoxby studied metropolitan areas with many school districts (like Boston) vs. metropolitan areas
contained within one large district (like Miami or Los Angeles). She found that student performance is
better in areas with competing multiple districts, where parents at the same income level can move—at
the margin—from one locality to another nearby, in search of a better education for their children.¶ We
have seen competitive federalism work in education at the inter-state level. Back in the 1950s,
Mississippi and North Carolina were at the same low level. Over the years, North Carolina tried a number
of educational experiments and moved well ahead of Mississippi. We have likewise seen Massachusetts
move up over the years from mediocre to stellar (though under Common Core, Massachusetts is sinking
We know that national standards are not needed for success in
back again).¶
international comparisons. Back in the 1970s, the United States and Canada were both in the
middling, mediocre ranks internationally. Both countries are rather similar in culture and level of
commercial and industrial development. The United States has continued to wallow in mediocrity, even as
we centralize K-12 education.
Yet Canada (which has more competitive federalism in
education than the United States and has no Ministry of Education in its
central government) has climbed into the ranks of advanced nations in
academic performance.¶ Why is this important? Because one of the pillars of the case for
national curriculum-content standards is that they are necessary for individuals to succeed in a global
marketplace and that all top-performing countries have them. The case of Canada refutes that.¶ Let’s
turn to the background of the Common Core. Content standards, tests, and curriculum that had been
provided by the states—thus far—will now because of Common Core be provided by federally-endorsed
national curriculum-content standards, federally-funded tests, and curriculum (some of it federally
funded) based on those tests and curriculum-content standards.¶ The Common Core national standards
had their origins in several Washington, D.C.-centric lobbying and policy-advocacy groups—namely, the
National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve
Inc. Shortly after the Obama administration came to power, it adopted and endorsed the national
standards. It used competitive grants to coerce states into adopting Common Core. It paid for Common
Core national tests and intervened in the test-creation process. It created a panel to oversee and monitor
the national tests. It granted states waivers from the burdens of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—
conditional on continued adherence to Common Core or a federally-approved alternative.¶ Central to the
thinking (and rhetoric) of the advocates of Common Core on education reform was the idea that state
performance standards were already on a downward slide and that, without nationalization, standards
would inexorably continue on a “race to the bottom.” The name given to the Obama administration’s
signature school reform effort, the Race to the Top program (RttT), reflects this belief. The idea is that to
prevent states from following their supposed natural dynamic of a race to the bottom, the federal
government needs to step in and lead a race to the top.¶ I would disagree. While providers of public
education certainly face the temptation to do what might look like taking the easy way out by letting
academic standards slip, there is also countervailing pressure in the direction of higher standards
(especially, as long as there are competing standards in other states).¶ If policymakers and education
officials let content standards slip, low standards will damage the state’s reputation for having a trained
workforce. Such a drop in standards will even damage the policymakers’ own reputations.¶ In 2007, the
Thomas B. Fordham Institute looked empirically at state performance standards over time in a study
called The Proficiency Illusion. The study showed that while states had a variety of performance
standards (as would be expected in a federal system), the supposed “race to the bottom” was not
happening. The proponents of the Common Core wrong in their claims that state performance standards
were inevitably and everywhere on a downward slide.¶ Why is this important? Because the other case for
national curriculum-content standards is that without nationalization there will be a race to bottom and
that only national standards can reverse a supposedly already-existing “race to the bottom.” But the facts
refute this. This topples the other principal argument for national standards.¶ To finance its Race to the
Top program, the U.S. Department of Education took discretionary stimulus money that could be used as
conditional grants, and then turned a portion of that money into a competitive grant program. It used the
grants to encourage states to adopt the national standards. Policy analyst Michael Petrilli aptly called
inducements to adopt the standards “the carrot that feels like a stick.” The department also paid for
national consortia to develop national tests aligned with the national curriculum–content standards.¶ The
administration created another inducement in the form of No Child Left Behind waivers. In return for
adopting the national standards or a federally approved alternative, states could escape NCLB sanctions
for not making timely gains in student achievement. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan went beyond
what the law allows, by substituting the Obama administration’s favored education reforms (including
national curriculum-content standards and tests) for NCLB’s accountability measures. I would add that
the new accountability systems under the waivers can all too easily hide deficiencies in the performance
of children in previously closely watched sub-groups and may weaken incentives to improve performance
of those children.¶ To some extent, federal officials have commandeered state curriculum-content
standards and tests and substituted national standards and tests; to some extent, some state officials
embraced the national standards-and-testing cartel as a relief from political pressure within their state
and a relief from competitive pressure from other states. In any case, national standards and tests will
change curriculum content, homogenize what is taught, and profoundly alter the structure of American K-
Nationalizing standards and tests would, according to this
12 public education.¶
analysis, eliminate them as differentiated school-reform instruments that
could be used by states in competition over educational attainment among
the states. Sonny Perdue, governor of Georgia at the time Common Core was created, did not like it
when the low-performing students of his state were compared with students in other states that had
different standards from Georgia’s. He became the lead governor in bringing the NGA into the national
Common Core does undermine “competitive federalism.”
standards effort.¶ So, Yes,
Indeed, in part, it was designed to do so.¶ Federalism is not only distinction from and
rivalry between the federal government and the states; it is also rivalry among the states and among local
governments within the states. As economist Richard McKenzie writes, the Founders sought to disperse
power “among many different and competing governments—at the federal, state, and local levels.”¶ The
insight of competitive federalism is that fifty-one state school boards are
better than a single federal Executive-branch office. Fifteen-thousand local school
boards are better than either fifty-one state school boards or a single federal office. As political scientist
Thomas Dye puts it, “intergovernmental competition” was seen by the Founders as an “auxiliary
precaution” against the “monopoly abuse of power by a single centralized government.”¶
Competitive federalism encourages innovation, allows movement between
jurisdictions that enhances liberty, and permits a better match between
policies and voter preferences. Common Core’s national uniformity runs
counter to competitive federalism.¶ Let’s turn to Alexis de Tocqueville, the most famous
observer of American society in our history and see what he can tell us about national education
standards. Tocqueville is famous for his portrait of nineteenth-century America and his philosophic
insights on why the American society has flourished—and also where it might go wrong. It is worth
reminding ourselves what some of Tocqueville’s insights were. Once we do, we can consider the current
nationalization of K-12 public-school curriculum, with Tocqueville’s insights in mind.¶ One of
Tocqueville’s major insights was that Americans have benefited from popular participation in the large
number of churches, charities, clubs, and voluntary associations in our country, as well as in state and
local governments, which stand between the individual and the national government in Washington, D.C.¶
In essence, Tocqueville believed that the civic health of America depended on popular participation in
entities like associations to create and maintain religious, private, or charter schools, as well as in local
authorities like school districts with fully-empowered schools boards. Such activity fosters civic virtue
and “habits of the heart” and encourages everyday citizens to take on necessary social tasks that in pre-
modern society lowly subjects were not allowed to undertake, but were instead the duty of the
aristocracy.¶ When Tocqueville described nineteenth-century American society he spoke, for example, of
township school committees that were deeply rooted in their local communities. In those days, state
control of local public education took the form of an annual report sent by the township committee to the
state capital. There was no national control.¶ Large sums (much of it taxed from laborers and farmers)
were spent by these school committees, and their efforts reflected, Tocqueville thought, a widespread
American desire to provide basic schooling as a route to opportunity and advancement. He admired the
fact that in self-activating America, one might easily chance upon farmers, who had not waited for official
permission from above, but were putting aside their plows “to deliberate upon the project of a public
school.”¶ At the same time, Tocqueville observed in European countries that activities like schooling that
had formerly been part of the work of guilds, churches, municipalities, and the like were being taken over
by the national government of those countries.¶ Tocqueville feared that if either Americans neglected
their participation in associations or local governments or Europeans lost their intermediate entities to
the national governments, the tendency would be toward a loss of a liberty and a surrender to a soft
despotism.¶ In Democracy in America, Tocqueville described how in Europe “the prerogatives of the
central power” were increasing every day and making the individual “weaker, more subordinate, and
more precarious.”Once, he said, there had been “secondary powers” that represented local interests and
administered local matters. Local judiciaries, local privileges, the freedoms of towns, provincial
autonomy, local charities—all were gone or going. The national central government, he wrote, “no longer
puts up with an intermediary between it and the citizens.”¶ Tocqueville said that, in Europe, education,
like charity, “has become a national affair.” The national government receives or even takes “the child
from the arms of his mother” and turns the child over to “the agents” of the national government.¶ In
nineteenth-century Europe, the national governments already were infusing sentiments in the young and
supplying their ideas. “Uniformity reigns” in education, Tocqueville said. Intellectual diversity was
disappearing. He feared that both Europe and America were moving toward “centralization” and
“despotism.”¶ Tocqueville believed that in non-aristocratic societies (like America), there is strong
potential for the national government to become immense and influential, standing above the citizens, not
just as a mighty and coercive power, but also as a guardian and tutor. Tocqueville maintained that
religion (as a moral anchor) as well as involvement in local government (such as school districts) and
voluntary organizations could help America counter the tendency toward tyranny.¶ Joseph Califano,
President Jimmy Carter’s Health, Education and Welfare Secretary, articulated Tocqueville-style concerns
about a centralization of schooling: “Any set of test questions that the federal government prescribed
should surely be suspect as a first step toward a national curriculum. … [Carried to its full extent,]
Unless Common Core is
national control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas.”¶
stopped, its officials will dismantle what remains of state and local decision-
making on classroom lessons and replace it with a new system of national
tests and a national curriculum. This policy is Tocqueville’s nightmare: As in Europe,
education “has become a national affair” and Common Core is the vehicle
for imposing in America a one-size-fits-all centralization like that administered by
the National Ministry of Education in France.¶ Federalism, including horizontal inter-jurisdictional
competition, allows policies better matched to needs and preferences of voters .
It allows individuals and families to “vote with their feet”—to move to
jurisdictions that they like, where the authorities don’t act counter to their
liberties and preferences.¶ Competitive federalism allows experimentation by
alternative jurisdictions. One state can try one policy, while another state
tries something else. This is why it is called the “laboratory of democracy.” ¶
This feature of federalism is what brought Massachusetts, Indiana, California and several other states to
have the outstanding curriculum-content standards that they had before the Common Core. This is the
feature of federalism that facilitates an exit strategy from Common Core: It allows states that are leaving
Common Core to repeal and replace the national curriculum-content standards with outstanding pre-
This can be done on an interim basis, while those
Common Core state standards.
states design their own replacement standards for the long run. Then the
rivalry that takes place under competitive federalism will go back to work to
the benefit of teachers, students, and everyone who wants a well-educated
citizenry—and also everyone who wants to have the freedoms that are protected by the U.S.
Constitution’s Madisonian system of federalism.
Common core suppresses state determination

Aaron Gushin Is A Policy Intern For State Budget Solutions. "Ed Reform
& Competitive Federalism," Federalism in Action, 8-16- 2015,
http://www.federalisminaction.com/2015/08/ed-reform-competitive-
federalism/#sthash.gv0zUolV.rMNgBv1F.dpbs
Aaron Gushin | State Budget Solutions The national drive to improve K-12
education, and Common Core in particular, have captured the attention of
those who believe in a strong defense of the 10th amendment and local
control of education. The overriding issue, from a states' rights perspective,
is not Common Core's lesson plans or educational standards. It is rather the
fact that these standards are being implemented without sufficient input or
oversight from the states. Apple Image Advocates of the new K-12 standards
have repeatedly offered assurances that Common Core is not a federal
mandate – and this is technically true. It is misleading, however, to claim
that the states have any real freedom to maneuver under the Core. The
Obama Administration’s directives have closely tied educational funding to
states’ willingness to adopt methods which align with the new standards.
Common Core was largely developed and championed by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. The Department of Education under Obama has
been filled with a number of former Gates Foundation staffers. Gates and
Obama are doubtless acting in what they deem to be the country's best
interests, but even the best of ideas should be enacted with care. By going
full steam ahead with Common Core, schools are denied the freedom to
account for their unique circumstances, or to make corrections as needed.
Rather than imposing a top-down, one-size-fits-all solution, the federal
government should allow states and localities to be the drivers of innovation.
Another troubling aspect of the Common Core is that it may wind up eroding
the relative autonomy of charter schools. A number of charter schools have
opted into the system voluntarily, embracing the Core as a high-quality
national standard. However, if individual charters believe they can do better,
why not let them try? Parents would then determine whether the standards
align with the needs of their own children. The diverse approaches of
various choice schools – whether funded by charters, vouchers or tax credits
– have led to spectacular successes as well as some failures. But failure is
nothing more than a signal that change is needed. And the demonstrated
successes offer models for other schools to emulate. Creating a uniform
system of K-12 education needlessly disrupts this evolutionary process of
competitive federalism. When the freedom of states to enact differentiated
policies is constricted; and when their role as “the laboratories of
democracy” is therefore limited, the whole country suffers. Admittedly, a few
states might do better under a federally-driven system in the very short run.
In the long run, however, the inability to discover and follow new paths to
improved educational outcomes will lead only to nationwide mediocrity.
Common core has empirically been classified as federal

overreach
Bidwell 14 [Allie--- Allie Bidwell is a reporter and editor currently living in
Washington, D.C. Bidwell graduated from the University of California,
Berkeley, in 2012 with a bachelor’s degree in Sociology. At UC Berkeley,
Bidwell started her journalism career at the award-winning, independent
student paper, The Daily Californian, where she covered UC Berkeley’s
active (and at times controversial) student government, before serving two
semesters as a news editor. Currently, Bidwell is reporting on education and
science for U.S. News & World Report, “The History of Common Core State
Standards,” US News, February 27, 2017,
https://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/the_ohio_standard/02-27-
14_USNEWS_ThehistoryofCommonCore.pdf] KS
While there remains no clear-cut party-line divide on the standards, as both
Democrats and Republicans have expressed concern with them , backlash
and cries of government overreach bubbled to the surface when the
Obama administration slowly pumped up its support for Common
Core. While proponents of the standards staunchly maintain the federal government had
absolutely no involvement in the development of the standards, and that it
will play no role in the implementation, they also admit that the support from the
White House hasn't actually helped the cause. Many assumed the Democratic
National Platform in 2012 referenced the Common Core when it credited President
Barack Obama with encouraging states "to raise their standards so students
graduate ready for college or career and can succeed in a dynamic global
economy." Likewise, Obama also tip-toed around the plan in his 2013 State of the Union
address, during which he took credit for using Race to the Top funds to persuade
"almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards."
Those conditions, and events since then, served as fodder for the federal-
overreach debate.
Conditioned Funding/Incentives
Federal incentives constrain state policymaking and
upsets the federalism balance
But there is another side to this coin, which is that “[a] state’s freedom from
federal interference . . . is a freedom to make choices, not just a freedom
to choose wisely.”114 As such, although “Congress may use its spending
power to create incentives for states to act in accordance with federal
policies[,] . . . when pressure turns into compulsion, the legislation runs
contrary to our system of federalism.”115 This is particularly important
in the context of education. Where conditions on federal money are too
restrictive, they limit the array of choices available to state legislatures in
any given area of policy. In the context of education, where a court will
establish limits on the exercise of legislative discretion but call upon the
legislature to formulate a remedy in the first instance, a state court’s action
will be less effective since the legislature is already constrained by
conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds. Indeed, where the effect
of the federal policy is as harmful as some policies may be,116 the court’s
ability to vindicate the rights of students might be entirely ineffective.
This possibility becomes more plausible as federal intervention
grows.
Curriculum
Federal control over standards and curriculum usurp state
control.
Maranto, McShane & Rhinesmith, 2016, Education Reform in
the Obama Era: The Second Term and the 2016 Election, Robert Maranto is
the 21st Century Chair in Leadership at the Department of Education
Reform at the University of Arkansas, USA. Michael Q. McShane is Director
of Education Policy at the Show-Me Institute and a former high school
teacher. Evan Rhinesmith is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of
Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, USA. P.54-55
with education a state and local purview, state and district boards
Traditionally,
of education have been charged with developing and implementing these
goals. However, in recent years, federal officials , private philanthropies, think-tanks,
and professional organizations have pushed to develop a national set of academic
standards, one of many ways in which education policy is becoming more
national in scope, moving beyond the EIC (Henig 2013). Due to the legal restrictions
placed on the US Department of Education in its authorization the
department cannot, as our colleague Jay Greene points out: exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school
system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or
content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by
any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized
by law. (Section 103b, as quoted in Greene 2011) To circumvent this law, the Obama
administration tacitly gave its approval to a set of "Common Core Standards "
developed by a consortium of chief state school officers and tied Race to the Top dollars to participation
What is not up for debate is the
in the program. Whether this is a good idea is up for debate.
fact that standards-setting is a contentious process. There is a finite amount of time
during children's education in which they can learn and therefore a finite amount of information that can
be covered. This requires leaders to prioritize and rank content information and skills students need,
inevitably leaving some concepts behind. Each topic has an opportunity cost: every class period spent
Therefore,
teaching photosynthesis is one less class period that can be spent teaching genetics.
states and districts have to develop some means to draft standards and
make these difficult editorial decisions. Standards are almost inextricably
paired with assessments. If a community or state takes the time to develop
standards, it will almost certainly want to assess whether or not students actually learned the content
therein. This process is contentious, arduous, and fraught with conflict as there is only a finite number of
questions (and therefore a finite amount of testable material) that students can be expected to learn.
Every question on Malcolm X is one less question that can be asked about
Patrick Henry; therefore leaders must strike a balance, making decisions on
the relative importance of content matter and cognitive processes.
Stemming from our previous maxim that it only counts when you measure,
what shows up on state tests will become, de facto, the most important
things taught in schools.
Deseg
We Need a better card
Desegregation of schools needs local control – Federal

involvement violates federalism
Parker 04 Wendy Parker Professor of Law, Wake Forest University School
of Law. B.A., 1986, The University of Texas; J.D., 1990, The University of
Texas School of Law. Co-counsel, Brief of the Society of American Law
Teachers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents in Grutter v. Bollinger,
123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003) (No. 02-241). I wish to thank participants in the
workshops at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law,
University of San Diego School of Law, and Wake Forest University School of
Law, at which I presented earlier versions of this paper. Comments from
Jane Dolkart, David Levine, Frank Partnoy, and Mike Selmi, and from my
former colleagues at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, Jack Chin,
Donna Nagy, Suja Thomas, Verna Williams, and Ingrid Wuerth, were
particularly helpful. I also thank my research assistants, Billy Guinigundo
and Tim Cahill, who provided invaluable assistance. “Connecting the Dots:
Grutter, School Desegregation, and Federalism” William & Mary Law Review
Volume 45 | Issue 4 Article 6 p.1752-1754
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1334&context=wmlr, EP
Yet, one cannot disconnect the idea of local control from federalism . Local
control, at its core, prefers state and local authority over federal intervention; and this approach is, by
definition, federalism at work. In addition, the American history of education rests on a solid foundation
of "local control" of schools.32 Schools are typically governed not by the national government, but by
state and, particularly for primary and secondary schools, local governments.325 Granted, public schools
are not operated entirely independently of the national government, but local and state governance still
predominates in theory and practice. Three of the four values associated with state and local authority
support school desegregation's allowance of local control over the remedial process. First ,
the value
of public participation in democracy is furthered by state and local power
over desegregating schools. If the alternative is authority by non-elected, life-tenured judges,
then the opportunity for participation will only exist within the confines of party participation in litigation.
Affording authority to officials in the state and local executive and legislative
branches will further democratic ideals by increasing the number of voices
heard in the remedial process and by holding the decision makers
accountable through any attending electoral process. Second, promoting state
and local officials' authority will decrease the chances for tyranny because
the checks on the abuses of judicial power-appellate review and
impeachment-are significantly weaker than that afforded by the electoral
process. Third, local control furthers experimentation in school desegregation
more than exclusive judicial control. Given educators' superior knowledge of education,
promoting local control has the strong possibility of increasing experimentation. While judges could
certainly draw upon the educators' knowledge in any number of ways, imagining judges taking
responsibility for educational innovation in school desegregation is difficult. Educators, on the other
hand, likely would have the necessary confidence and incentive to undertake experimentation. Further,
because school desegregation will vary by locality-local conditions
will affect every aspect of school desegregation-then experimentation
is of high value and a national standard is of low value . In sum, not only is
school desegregation's promotion of local control faithful to the American
tradition of school governance, but it is consistent with three values supporting state and
local authority. Left open is the impact of the fourth value associated with state and local authority-
creating communities of shared interest-and the value supporting federal authority over schools--
establishing a national standard. The two are obviously related. When is it acceptable for Americans to
form their own unique communities, or when must they live by the same standard? Federalism itself
provides no answer to these two questions, for they relate not to who should be the decision maker but
what should be the available decisions. The questions depend on policy unrelated to federalism. For
example, Brown I established a national standard because the Court had determined that the Equal
Protection Clause must outlaw dejure segregation.327 Green and Swann evidenced ajudicial conclusion
that the local experimentation with remedying school desegregation had gone astray because of the
continued segregation.3 " Only then was a national rule again necessary. None of these cases asserted a
need to usurp state and local authority in every instance, but only when the Equal Protection Clause
required a uniform standard. Thus, the national rule in Brown I was the end to de jure segregation, and
the national value in Green and Swann was the end to continued segregation. These Equal Protection
Clause values, unrelated to federalism, were enough to overcome the American tradition of local control.
Despite these exceptions, however, federalism provides a solid foundation for the
promotion of local control in school desegregation. When a uniform standard is
necessary, the national judiciary will assert its authority. More typically, the values supporting
state and local authority are found in the school desegregation setting
ESSA
States can work to address changes in federal law to help
solve problems in education
Garcia 16’ – Nicholas Garcia is the deputy bureau chief at Chalkbeat
Colorado. He covers the state department of education, the State Board and
the legislature. (“Colorado officials are not happy with how the new federal
education law is playing out. Here’s why”
http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2016/07/07/colorado-officials-are-not-
happy-with-the-nations-new-education-law-heres-why/)
Overreach. That was the word used time and again by Colorado Department of Education officials
and State Board of Education members Thursday to describe proposed regulations for the nation’s new
education laws. The Every Student Succeeds Act, signed into law in December, was
initially lauded as the end of what many considered burdensome federal
mandates. But since the U.S. Department of Education released its proposed
rules for how the law would be applied, the tone across the county has
shifted. In the board room Thursday there were plenty of eye rolls, sighs and head slaps as
department officials picked apart the regulations on academic standards,
teaching quality and testing. “They’re going out and saying they’re
respecting states. I would argue they’re not,” said Patrick Chapman, CDE’s director of
federal programs, referring to federal education department officials. “ They’re saying the rules
are creating more flexibility. I would argue they’re not.” Department officials
told the board they believed about a quarter of the proposed regulations put
new limits on states. Another quarter were not authorized by law. And “most
concerning” is that 12 percent of the regulations contained statements that
conflicted with the law. The department’s aim Thursday was to brief board members on
decisions they will need to help make as the state prepares a plan to address the
changes in federal law, and allow the board an opportunity to weigh
in as the work gets underway. Board members, especially those who
champion more control at the district-level, echoed the sentiment over and
over. “The rules seem so distant from what the intent of the law was,” said
Joyce Rankin, a Republican from Carbondale. CDE plans to continue to review the rules and submit a
formal response to the federal government later this month. The U.S. Department of Education declined
to comment Thursday evening on state officials’ concerns.
Guns in Schools
Federal mandates for Gun’s in schools is a slippery slope
of gross federal overreach
Weingarten 16 -- Dean, He earned his Bachelor of Science in
Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin where he was on the pistol team
for four years. Then came a tour in the Army as a young officer, where he
had additional duties as a military game warden. A job as a Wisconsin
conservation warden convinced him to go back to graduate school where he
earned an M.S. in mining engineering. (11-15-2016, "TRUMP: Get Rid Of
The Unconstitutional Gun Free School Zone Act, "Concealed Nation, )
http://concealednation.org/2016/11/trump-get-rid-of-the-unconstitutional-
gun-free-school-zone-act/ //pleb
One of the promises made by Donald Trump during the campaign was to
remove gun-free school zones. The federal Gun Free School Zone Act
has been an abominable infringement on the Second Amendment with
no justification as anything other than an infringement on the right of
Americans to bear arms. It does not improve safety. It does not protect
“sensitive places.” It serves no legitimate purpose.¶ It has already been
struck down once by the Supreme Court. And President-elect trump has
vowed to repeal it.¶ The Gun Free School Zone Act creates an illusory area
where most people are forbidden from bearing arms. The zone extends
within 1,000 feet from the property line of any school. It’s unmarked and
mostly unenforced.¶ It was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1995
in the famous U.S. v Lopez decision, where the Court concluded that
there was no interstate commerce involved in a person bearing a
firearm within a thousand feet of a school. That was the correct
decision.¶ President Clinton, however, immediately pushed through a
replacement bill, the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995, with a few minor
changes. The tweak intended to make the law pass constitutional muster
was that it only applied to guns that had been “involved” in interstate
commerce.¶ That’s distinction without a difference. Virtually everything can
be said to be “involved” in interstate commerce. The molecules of
oxygen that you breath have crossed state lines. The ore that was used to
create the steel used to make a gun barrel crossed state and international
borders. The water used to cool the turbines that created the electricity to
power the motor that turned the machine to shape the gun barrel, crossed
state lines.¶ This is the insane “thinking” that has made the phrase
“interstate commerce” a nullity. The original law was struck down
because everything is not part of interstate commerce, and the legislature
cannot make it so simply by so stating.
Lunches
Fed control of school meal standard tanks federalism
Bakst and Sheffield 11/3/16
Daren Bakst, Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, Rachel Sheffield, Former Policy Analyst, DeVos Center for Religion
and Civil Society, The Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, “Getting the Facts Straight on School Meals and
Child Nutrition Reauthorization”, http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/getting-the-facts-straight-school-meals-and-
child-nutrition-reauthorization Claim: The federal government needs to dictate detailed school meal standards to ensure
that students eat healthy food. Reality: The most basic requirement of any school meal program should be to ensure that
children actually eat.The current federal school meal standards have failed at meeting
this basic requirement. There is still significant plate waste, as shown in the Government
Accountability Office’s research on the school lunch program.[16] Local officials also have little
flexibility to adapt meals to best meet the needs of their students .
Schools are rightfully complaining about the massive costs associated with implementing the new standards.[17] There
are even claims that some schools are diverting education money to meet federal meal requirements.[18] The
school meal standards “debate” is not really a question of nutrition as much a question of
federalism and control.[19] Proponents are favoring a one-size-fits-all federally centralized policy while
opponents are favoring states and local community control. The details of school meal standards
should be left to local communities who best know the specific needs of their students. This is
a pro-parent approach as well. By making the decisions local, parents can have more say as to what schools serve. (It is
easier to have influence on local officials than on unaccountable USDA bureaucrats.) Such an approach will encourage
Link—Fed regulations on school
innovation that could help communities learn from each other.
lunches uniquely disrupt federalism Federalism in Action 5/29/14

“Federalism Debate Moves to School Cafeterias”, Federalism In Action (FIA), a 501c(3), is an energetic and results-
oriented public policy organization – promoting American federalism, liberty, and fresh ideas aimed at limiting
government. We seek to restore the proper balance between the federal government and the states – focusing on ways
states can truly act as independent sovereigns and come up with local solutions.
http://www.federalisminaction.com/2014/05/federalism-debate-moves-school-cafeterias/#sthash.UTp0wsJZ.dpbs
School lunches have become the latest hot topic in the federalism debate, and
once again, federal funding is at the center of this controversy . “The
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010” requires public schools that accept
federal funding for free and reduced lunch programs to abide by
more restrictive food guidelines. These parameters require healthier school cafeteria options, including
lighter menu items and reduced additives. The law went into effect in 2012, and now many school boards are
appealing to Washington to let them out. Why? Schools are reporting that a significant
amount of cafeteria food is now going to waste, as kids are opting not to eat the healthier options on
their plate. These schools then face hefty costs to dispose of the large quantities of wasted
food. Some districts report they are using teaching budgets to make up for the
financial shortfalls that occur from the disposal process. As a result, this week, a U.S. House subcommittee
approved a spending bill that would provide temporary waivers for school lunch programs that could
prove that they were operating at a net loss for six months. Some school districts are taking matters into their
own hands. Recently,Arlington Heights District 214 in Illinois voted to opt out of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) free and reduced lunch program. They decided the $900,000
federal grant they received was not worth the financial hit they would take from having to comply with the federal
subsidy’s stipulations. Dist. 214 Superintendent David Schuler warned the district would likely lose money if
it complied with the federal requirements. They are still trying to figure out how they will make up the
lost funding to continue the free and reduced-lunch meal program. This is yet another example of a failed
one-size-fits-all approach to public policy. While healthy school lunches are a noble goal, mandating
federal guidelines has only done a disservice to students, parents, and schools alike. If more districts like
Arlington Heights opt out, then funding for the most vulnerable school children’s meal program will be at
risk.
School lunch policies, like many other decisions, should instead be made at the most
local level possible and empower local people to solve problems locally.
Market Based Reforms
The competitive view of federalism that the AFF is using to
justify their plan is increasing inequality as they allow
private sphere forces to influence public education.
Sundquist 16 Sundquist, Christian, Professor of Law at Albany Law
School, Positive Education Federalism (January 1, 2016). Mercer Law
Review, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2016; Albany Law School Working Papers Series No.
20 for 2015-2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2169455 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2169455
On the heels of the recent passage of ESSA, this Article examines the appropriate federal role in
developing and enforcing public educational policy and law. “ Our
federalism” demands not only
that there be an appropriate balance between state and federal power when
evaluating the constitutional feasibility of new laws, but also that there
remain a sufficient demarcation between the public and private spheres of
regulation. This Article argues that the existing market-oriented statutory approach
to public education, as embodied by ESSA, fails to advance the values of
education federalism by encouraging the penetration of private market
forces into the traditionally public sphere of universal education . Part I of this
Article explores traditional conceptions of federalism as a negative limit on the executive, legislative and
judicial power of the federal government. This section identifies the core values associated with such
conceptions of “negative federalism,” while criticizing negative models as unprincipled and
indeterminate. Part II examines the civic model of public education that pre-dated current education
policy, while charting the historical expansion of the federal role in public education. This section argues
that the values informing the Elementary and Secondary School Act, as influenced by the Brown v. Board
of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision6 , recognize the important governmental role
in maintaining educational equality. Part III analyzes the current federal role in public
education under the traditional negative model of federalism. This section argues that a competitive
view of federalism has come to influence public education policy in the
modern era, whereby the appropriate role of government has come to be seen
as one which promotes market competition. As a result, the original
desegregative and equalizing dimension of education federalism envisioned by
the ESEA and Brown has been forsaken. Finally, Part IV advances an alternative positive
conception of education federalism, which stresses the obligation of the
federal government to address failures in the system of public education in a
manner which accords with principles of social justice and democratic
equality. This section then develops substantive policy principles to guide future reauthorizations of
federal education law.
Natives
Federalism in Indian education increases the perception of
government-forced assimilation
Gross 14- [Michael, After graduating from Yale Law School In July 1968
and taking a job as a Poverty War law clerk at DNA Legal Services Program
on the Navajo Reservation, Michael P. Gross was assigned to work on a
school closing case for the Ramah Navajo Chapter. He entered private
practice in 1971 and filed the Ramah Class Action in 1990. He is still
working for his first client on, as he puts it, his first "case"—because he
hasn't won it yet, “New Battle in Turf War Over Native Education”
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/opinions/new-battle-in-turf-
war-over-native-education/] //AD
A new front is opening in the turf war over Indian self-determination: Who
controls Indian education—distant Federal bureaucrats or Indian
communities attuned to their own children’s needs? On the last day of July this year
at an airport hotel in Denver, 65 Indian educators, elected tribal officials, representatives of tribally-run
schools from across the nation, and some of their lawyers opened a two-day dialogue over what to do
the latest alphabet-soup Federal agency, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
about
and its increasing marginalization of tribally-controlled schools. Attendees came
from Washington State, Michigan, Mississippi, Louisiana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Arizona
and New Mexico. Throughout the first day, participants voiced dismay about the arrogance of the BIE
with its unauthorized dictatorial edicts. They divided up into separate groups to discuss various aspects
of the problem. I attended as counsel for the Ramah Navajo School Board in New Mexico. “It’s all
about who makes the decisions about what is best for Indian kids ,” says Roger
Bordeaux, the Rosebud Sioux superintendent of the Todd County School District, a tribally-controlled
public school system on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. Bordeaux, who organized the Denver
believe it is the tribal governments’ and communities’
event, continued, “We
job and right and not the Federal government’s.” His views reflect
growing concern in Indian country over the BIE’s steady inroads on local
education control. Several participants noted that Congress did not create BIE or give it the
powers it has assumed for itself. Above all, the conferees voiced their dismay that Indian tribes and
communities are losing control, away from the public eye, without fighting back. *********** Indian
education was not always a neglected backwater. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the abysmal state of
Indian education played a central role in shaping the new concept of Indian self-determination. In the mid
1960s, Senator Robert F. Kennedy was the prime mover in establishing and chairing a special Senate
committee on Indian education. After collecting seven volumes of testimony from hearings held from
In searing terms, “Indian Education: A
Alaska to Florida, the committee issued its report.
National Tragedy—A National Challenge” exposed the Federally-promoted
and assisted policy of converting and “civilizing” Indians by force, a policy
the committee called “coercive assimilation.” To me, coercive assimilation
was nothing short of racial and ethnic discrimination, the flip side of
the de jure segregation of African Americans. The Senate report found that
“The dominant policy of the Federal Government towards the
American Indian has been one of coercive assimilation . . . [which]
has resulted in . . . the destruction and disorganization of Indian
communities and individuals; the growth of a large, ineffective and
self-perpetuating bureaucracy which retards [furthers] the
elimination of Indian poverty; [and] a waste of Federal
appropriations.” The report detailed the miserable failure of both public schools and Federal
Indian schools in educating Indian children, concluding that “The coercive assimilation policy has had
disastrous effects on the education of Indian children.” The Senate report accelerated the drive for a new
approach to Indian education and Indians generally. The very next year President Nixon announced the
end of “termination” – the coercive policy adopted in the 1950s to force Indians to leave their tribal and
cultural ties behind and “assimilate” into mainstream American society. Termination resulted in overnight
misery for affected tribes. It abruptly ended all their Federal protections, abolished their reservations,
and negated their treaty rights without due process of law. In place of “termination,” Nixon proposed a
new policy of self-determination. The new policy hearkened back to the Wilsonian era after World War I.
In his historic Message to Congress on Indian Affairs, President Nixon embraced growing worldwide
recognition of the right to self-government of native peoples suffering under colonialism. Coming on the
heels of the Senate Indian education report, Nixon combined reform of Indian education with Indian self-
determination. It was no accident that the subsequent legislation was called the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act. Yet 40 years later, the Federal government seems once
again hell-bent on forcing all sorts of substantive requirements on Indian-controlled schools, including
standardized curricula. This counter attack stems from the turf war between unctuous Federal Indian
agencies fighting to keep their bureaucracies intact and Indian tribes seeking to control their own lives.
Seeking to justify its existence, BIE seems determined to install bureaucratic oversight far beyond just
making sure money is spent properly. The Denver attendees agreed that these Federal efforts are
depriving Indian communities of meaningful local control and imposing unnecessary overhead expenses
on local Indian school boards. These boards struggle to recruit qualified teachers and shape their
educational programs in light of local conditions. But the BIE effort ends up with more outside
bureaucracy and less local control. Once again parents are to be left out of significant involvement in
their children’s education. “We’re losing our right to control our own schools,” said Bordeaux. He quotes
President Obama who came to Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, South Dakota, last June and said: "And
that means returning control of Indian education to tribal nations with additional resources and support
so that you can direct your children’s education and reform schools here in Indian Country. And even as
they prepare for a global economy, we want children, like these wonderful young children here, learning
about their language and learning about their culture, just like the boys and girls do at Lakota Language
Nest here at Standing Rock. We want to make sure that continues and we build on that success."
Bordeaux is incensed that even as the President was
President Obama, July 2014.
speaking these noble words his minions in the BIE were attempting the very
opposite. *********** Bordeaux has worked all his adult life promoting Indian control of Indian
education. In the 1980s he founded and headed the Association of Tribal Schools (ACTS). ACTS
succeeded a grassroots self-help organization called the Coalition of Indian Controlled School Boards
(CICSB), which from 1972 to 1982 was the leading voice for the reform of Indian education. After Ramah
on its own initiative had obtained funds directly from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in Washington to
start its own school from scratch, other Indian communities wanted to do the same thing. There was no
template for doing so. So with help from the Native American Rights Fund, the fledgling Indian
community groups organized their own grassroots coalition. Its guiding principle was to enable Indian
communities to help each other achieve educational self-determination. During its brief existence, the
Coalition helped the Wind River Indian Education Association in Wyoming obtain BIA assistance to form a
locally-controlled school on the Wind River Reservation, an effort that led to an Indian-controlled
separate public school district several years later. It helped a group of Indian parents in Wisconsin obtain
similar funding and assisted them in forming an Indian-controlled public school district for the newly
restored Menominee Indian Reservation. In 1979, the Coalition helped start the Alamo Navajo School
Board in New Mexico. Along with these and similar projects, the Coalition played a decisive role in
Since then, however, the
shaping and pushing for passage of the Indian Self-Determination Act.
Federal bureaucracy has mounted a counter-attack on locally-controlled
Indian schools. To a large extent, it has succeeded in maintaining its
own existence at their expense.
Right to Education
Right to education is unconstitutional and it wrecks
federalism
Robinson and Ogletree, JDs, 17 (Kimberley, JD @ Harvard, Law
Prof @ Richmond, and Charles, JD @ Harvard, Poli Sci MA @ Stanford,
Harvard Law Prof, Tupac’s Lawyer, “Inequitable Schools Demand a Federal
Remedy”, Spring 2017, Accessed 6/30/17,
http://educationnext.org/inequitable-schools-demand-federal-remedy-forum-
san-antonio-rodriguez/) SS
It is not often that the U.S. Supreme Court admits that one of its previous decisions, especially one that
shaped the fabric of our nation, was fundamentally wrong. One such instance occurred in 1954, when the
court famously declared, in Brown v. Board of Education, that the doctrine of “separate but equal” public
schools for black children and white children was unconstitutional. In Brown, the court overturned, for
public schools, its approval of this doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and established that segregated
schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also proclaimed
that educational “opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be
made available to all on equal terms.”
Less than two decades later, however, the court turned its back on protecting a right to equal educational
the court held that
opportunity. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973),
the Constitution does not protect a right to education. This decision
foreclosed a federal judicial remedy for disparities in funding that had relegated Mexican American
children in the predominantly low-income Edgewood Independent School District of San Antonio, Texas,
to an education that was inferior to that of students in the city’s affluent, mostly white Alamo Heights
district. The two districts differed in their ability to raise property taxes because of significant disparities
in property values in the two communities. Edgewood adopted the highest tax rate in the area but yielded
the least funding for its schools, while Alamo Heights adopted a substantially lower tax rate that yielded
considerably more per-pupil funding. Plaintiffs alleged, in part, that these funding disparities denied
them their constitutional right to education. All children must be guaranteed that right, they argued,
because education equips citizens to fully enjoy their free speech and voting rights.
the Constitution does not

In a 5–4 decision, the court disagreed. Rodriguez held that
explicitly or implicitly guarantee a right to education. The court denied that
it had the authority or the ability to guarantee people “the most effective
speech or the most informed electoral choice.” It said further that affirming a
constitutional right to education would greatly disturb the balance of
education federalism that embraced primary state and local control for
education—an important means for encouraging innovation,
experimentation, and competition between states. The court also claimed that it
was not qualified to address difficult empirical questions such as whether money influenced educational
quality. And since the plaintiffs had not alleged that they were denied the “basic minimal skills” required
to enjoy the right to free speech and to vote, the court said it did not need to determine if the
Constitution guaranteed a right to an education that provides such skills.
School Choice
Federal-led school choice is preemption and worsens
education
McCluskey, 17 - director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational
Freedom (Neal McCluskey 3/14/17 “For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize
It”, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/love-choice-dont-
federalize-it)//NP
The case for federalism The first question facing any federal proposal should
be whether it is allowed by the Constitution. That may seem quaint or
quixotic, but it is fundamental: the Constitution gives Washington
specifically enumerated powers, and that is all. Governing education,
aside from enforcing civil rights legislation and regulating schooling
on federal lands, is not among them. There are sound practical reasons
for respecting these constitutional limits. First and foremost, federalism
defends against centralized control of America’s diverse communities and
people. In addition, when sub-national units, such as states and school
districts, try something new, the damage is isolated if a plan does not work;
if it succeeds, others are free to replicate it and adapt it to their needs. But
isn’t school choice fundamentally different from and better than federalism?
Doesn’t it inherently move power from higher, more centralized levels to the
lowest levels possible: children and families? It does, and that is a
tremendous strength. But as we’ve learned from roughly a quarter-century
of experience with state-level school choice programs and federal higher
education policy, any connection to the federal government can have
unintended consequences for choice, including incentivizing government
control of the schools to which public money flows. That control can
diminish and even eliminate the core value of school choice: the ability to
choose something truly different. A federal program would be too
dangerous, threatening to snuff out federalism and impose
uniformity on private schools nationwide.
Federal management of school choice undermines

federalism
Berry citing McCluskey 17[Dr Susan citing Neal, Neal McCluskey is the
director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom. Prior to arriving at Cato,
McCluskey served in the U.S. Army, taught high-school English, and was a
freelance reporter covering municipal government and education in
suburban New Jersey. More recently, he was a policy analyst at the Center
for Education Reform. McCluskey is the author of the book Feds in the
Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises
American Education, and his writings have appeared in such publications as
the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and Forbes. In addition to his
written work, McCluskey has appeared on C-span, CNN, the Fox News
Channel, and numerous radio programs. McCluskey holds an undergraduate
degree from Georgetown University, where he double-majored in
government and English, has a master’s degree in political science from
Rutgers University, and has a PhD in public policy from George Mason
University, "Heritage Panel Warns Trump About Making School Choice a
Federal Program," Breitbart, March 31st, http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2017/03/31/heritage-panel-warns-trump-making-school-choice-
federal-program/,] KS
A panel of education policy experts agree the Trump administration appears

to be moving toward some form of federal management of school choice,
but warns that attempts to influence school choice policy from
Washington, D.C. could undermine the president’s stated goals of
returning education decisions back to the states and local
governments. The panel convened at the Heritage Foundation in the wake of
Trump’s statement during his address to Congress that education is “the
civil rights issue of our time.” The school choice theme that Trump has
adopted since the tail end of his presidential campaign has been largely
directed at minority children who are stuck in failing public schools and
whose parents or guardians may not have the financial means to transfer
them to a private or religious school. Trump’s choice for U.S. Education
Secretary – Betsy DeVos – worked in her home state of Michigan primarily
on school choice and school voucher programs, which allow families to use
taxpayer funds for tuition at private and religious schools. On the campaign
trail, the president proposed block granting $20 billion to families for
school choice, and in his recently released budget, he proposed an additional
$1.4 billion be spent on school choice programs in 2018. Trump also urged
Congress to design legislation that funds school choice for low-income
families. One such bill, H.R. 610, introduced by Iowa Rep. Steve King (R),
has been vehemently opposed by homeschooling families across the country
because of concerns the legislation will result in regulation of
homeschooling nationwide. The panel, led by American Enterprise Institute
education fellow Gerard Robinson, discussed ideas on how the federal
government might attempt to actually implement school choice policy,
whether through financial mechanisms such as school vouchers, education
savings accounts, or tax credit scholarships, in which organizations obtain
tax credits for donating scholarship funds to individual students or groups of
students. “When I hear folks talking about getting Washington involved in
tuition tax credits for scholarship-granting organizations, and I hear the
proposals that are being broadly floated, it makes me extraordinarily
nervous,” said American Enterprise Institute education policy director
Frederick (Rick) Hess. “It takes me very much back to 2000, and the 24-
page document that the Bushes drafted that was the original No Child Left
Behind.”
Small Funding Aff
Even small scale federal funding collapses federalism.
The plan would cause an increase in demand for more
federal regulation.
McCluskey 3/14/17
“For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize It”, Neal McCluskey is director of
the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.,
A dangerous cycle of aid-driven price inflation But what if the proposed numbers of federal choice dollars,
potential beneficiaries, and participating schools were small ? Wouldn’t that
allay concerns about Washington dictating terms to private schools nationwide? Well, not
exactly. The numbers may start small, but the allure, and eventual necessity , of
getting those dollars would likely grow quickly. Once a single group starts getting aid, others naturally
demand the same thing. Looking further at higher education is instructive. In 1970-71, there were only a relative
handful of federal student aid programs, and total aid, including loans, amounted to just $16.5 billion in 2015 dollars.
The number of programs has since nearly doubled, and the total amount of federal aid in the 2015-16 academic year was
$140.1 billion. Readily available data on the share of students receiving federal aid only goes back to the 1992-1993
academic year, but the growth in aid dependence is also clear: In 1992-93, 45 percent of full-time, full-year
undergraduates used some form of federal aid. By 2011-12, that had jumped to 73 percent. What about federal higher
education tax incentives? Though nonexistent until the 1996-97 school year, more than $18 billion in tax benefits were
claimed in 2015-16. Aid money got baked into the system, and now colleges can no longer exist without taking students
with federal aid. Aid-eschewing institutions would be unable to pay for all the stuff, academic and otherwise, that aid-
accepting schools provide and would struggle mightily to attract students. And since aid is built into the prices, students
With federal school choice, K-12 schools and families would also
need it, too.
likely become hooked on federally connected cash, including money furnished through
donation tax credits, and the vicious cycle of aid leading to price inflation would take off. This danger is especially acute
in the context of a federal program since, unlike individual states, Washington can easily borrow or even print money it
does not have. These abilities matter even for credits, allowing the feds to more easily forego tax revenue. With
burgeoning federal aid, federal rules that would make autonomous private schools ever more homogenous and, well,
We
public would also likely proliferate. We have seen the regulation impetus in state-funded school choice programs.
have also seen it in higher education. That sector deals with adults and, hence, has been less
prone to regulation than K-12 education, but it has nonetheless become increasingly subject to federal controls,
including through accreditation and a Sword of Damocles—separation from student aid—hanging over institutions that,
if there had
regardless of the mix of students they serve, do not meet federal performance metrics. Imagine
been a federal voucher or tax credit program just a few years ago. Private
schools nationwide could have faced heavy pressure to adopt nationally
uniform curriculum standards. They could have been subjected to “Dear Colleague” letters prescribing,
even for religious schools, their bathroom and locker room access policies. They could have been coerced into teacher
evaluations based in part on standardized test scores. Choice, quite simply, could have been kneecapped, even if more
people were able to exercise it.
Sex Ed
We need one
STEM
Federal STEM programs trade off with innovation at the
state level
Lindsey M. Burke is a Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies
Department and Jena Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland
Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies,
a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies, at The Heritage Foundation 2011 January 5 “Educate to Innovate”:
How the Obama Plan for STEM Education Falls Short
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/educate-innovate-how-the-obama-
plan-stem-education-falls-short IB
When President Obama announced his Administration’s plan to enhance STEM education, he affirmed
that “we know that the nation that out-educates us today will out-compete us tomorrow.”[8] The
plan to enhance STEM education, much like similar efforts in the past to improve
President’s
through short-term bursts with federal dollars, falls short of the
education
dramatic changes needed in the educational system to truly fill the gap .¶ The
need to improve STEM education in the United States is no recent
revelation. Over the past 50 years, American leaders have repeatedly discussed the need to enhance
STEM education. Yet, despite increasing federal efforts and spending, U.S.
students continue to under-perform in STEM subjects. In 2007, for instance, the
America COMPETES Act created new federal funding for STEM education. The act included the creation
of a new federal initiative to train 70,000 new teachers in Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate courses, as well as initiatives intended to provide existing teachers with STEM training
and to encourage university students pursuing STEM degrees to concurrently obtain teaching
there remains a major shortage of qualified STEM
certifications. Despite these efforts,
teachers throughout the nation—and American students continue to perform
worse than their peers in STEM subjects.[9]¶ Encouraging the private sector
to get involved in the education of tomorrow’s workforce can align the
education of today with the skills needed for tomorrow. Using creative approaches to
tackle learning challenges is certainly a concept that should be embraced. The problem with the
President’s approach, however, is that the root of America’s STEM education
deficit is much more fundamental than the problems addressed by the
President’s initiatives. The American K–12 education system is meant to
function as a pipeline that prepares students for higher education and careers. But with an
average annual dropout rate of close to 10 percent, there is little doubt that this pipeline has
sprung a leak.[10] Even many of those who do graduate with a high school diploma lack the
knowledge and skill-base to succeed in the STEM field.¶ In the United States today, just 73 percent of
freshmen entering high school will graduate within four years, and those who do are often not adequately
prepared for higher education and careers in STEM fields.[11] Too many students are not making it
The
through the leaky pipeline of the American education system with the skills they need to succeed.
reasons for their underperformance stems from a number of problems:¶ A One-
Size-Fits-All Approach. Despite increasing federal control over the American education system
over the past 50 years, educational achievement across the country has continued to deteriorate.[12] A
large part of the problem is that the federal focus centers on a one-size-fits-all approach. Most recently,
this approach is part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to impose national education standards and
tests on states. This is a significant federal overreach into states’ educational decision-making authority,
and will likely result in the standardization of mediocrity, rather than a minimum benchmark for
Applying a blanket approach to education reform
competency in math and English.[13]
undermines innovation in STEM education, increasing conformity at the
expense of meeting the diverse needs of students and parents.
Federal efforts to enhance STEM trades off with similar

initiatives at the state level
Lindsey M. Burke is a Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies
Department and Jena Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland
Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies,
a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies, at The Heritage Foundation 2011 January 5 “Educate to Innovate”:
How the Obama Plan for STEM Education Falls Short
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/educate-innovate-how-the-obama-
plan-stem-education-falls-short IB
Abstract: President Obama’s Educate to Innovate initiative has provided billions in additional federal
funding for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs across the
The Administration’s recognition of the importance of STEM
country.
education— for global competitiveness as well as for national security—is good and important.
But the past 50 years suggest that federal initiatives are unlikely to solve the
fundamental problem of American underperformance in STEM education .
Heritage Foundation education and national security analysts explain that, though Educate to Innovate is
the federal
intended to raise the U.S. “from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math,”
program’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to remedy the underlying problems
of academic performance and does not plug the leaky pipeline in the
American education system.¶ In the 1950s and 1960s, Sputnik and the space race inspired a
generation of Americans to pursue education and careers in science and technology. Half a century later,
American students are now ranked 22nd and 31st among their peers throughout the world in science and
math, respectively. Students in the United States, once a leader in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM), are now outperformed by students from Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Estonia, and
Hungary, among others.[1]¶ In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education published “A
Nation at Risk,” a national study that highlighted the unacceptable state of the American education
system:¶ Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and
technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is
concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that
undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility.... What was unimaginable a generation ago has
begun to occur—others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. If an unfriendly
foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists
today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.[2] ¶ More than two decades later, in 2010, the
National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine published “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5,” which built on the findings of their 2005 “Gathering Storm”
report. Notably, the report warns that, “Today, for the first time in history, America’s younger generation
is less well-educated than its parents.”[3]¶ Attempting to counter the faltering academic standing of
American students and seeking to elevate them “from the middle to the top of the pack in science and
math,” the Obama Administration announced its Educate to Innovate initiative in November 2009.[4] The
program, while touted as an effort to enhance STEM education, falls short of achieving this goal because
The Obama
it fails to address the underlying problems that plague the current educational system. ¶
Administration should limit, not increase, federal influence over education, and
afford state and local policymakers flexibility with their federal education
dollars in order to better target resources to those areas most in need. For their part, state and
local policymakers should:¶ Promote alternative and flexible means to certify new teachers; ¶ Create
an environment favorable to online education to allow more students to have access to quality
STEM education;¶ Link teacher pay to performance to help recruit and retain qualified teachers;
and¶ Reform the traditional public school structure to promote school choice. ¶ Educate to Innovate
Tax Credits
Tax credits enforce crush federalism – they are tied to
national accreditation standards for universities
Neal McCluskey is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational
Freedom March 14, 2017 For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize It
IB
tax credits and education savings accounts appear to attract less
Scholarship
regulation. Andrew Coulson compared vouchers and tax credits empirically and found that credits are
less prone to regulation, probably because no one has tax dollars taken away and sent to someone else.
Education savings accounts are too new to know for sure, but the hope is that they will avoid onerous
But even these seemingly less-
rules because funds can be spent on multiple uses.¶
regulation-prone choice mechanisms can come with controls. For instance,
schools taking kids with scholarships funded through Florida’s tax credit
program must be approved by the state, meet teacher-qualification
requirements, and show gains on either state exams or nationally norm-
referenced tests. Students in Tennessee’s Individualized Education Account Program must take
either a nationally norm-referenced test chosen by the state department of education or the state exam. ¶
Even expanding tax-preferred 529 plans, which currently only apply to higher education
expenses, to include K-12 education expenses could threaten schools’
autonomy. Any college on which a student wants to spend 529 account
money must be accredited, and requiring that colleges be accredited to take
students with federal aid is a major reason that we do not see more
postsecondary education innovation. Indeed, accreditation is the primary way Washington
regulates colleges; a student can only use federal aid at an accredited school, and
the federal government regulates the accreditors.
Trans Bathroom
Trans bathrooms is a matter of states’ rights---federal
overreach decks federalism
Lowry 17 – Published by National Review Editors, Rich Lowry, Editor at
the National Review, Returning Power to States and School Boards, Feb.
23rd, 2017, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445181/trump-
transgender-guidelines-win-federalism
Yesterday the Trump administration preserved federalism, respected the
principle of local control over local schools, and corrected one of the Obama
administration’s many lawless and radical executive actions. With a simple,
two-page letter, the Departments of Education and Justice withdrew and
rescinded two Obama-administration letters that purported to unilaterally
redefine Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Obama
administration had expanded Title IX’s explicit ban on sex discrimination in
federally funded educational institutions to encompass “gender identity”
discrimination and then imposed intrusive “guidance” on every federally
funded school in the nation, on matters ranging from pronoun usage to
eligibility for sports teams and access to showers, bathrooms, and sleeping
quarters on overnight trips.
Put plainly, the Obama administration used a letter to rewrite a statute and
then applied that letter to every public school in the United States, from
kindergarten through college. This is not how one makes law in our
constitutional republic. New laws require new statutes, and presidents do
not have the power to rewrite old laws at will. At the very least, the
Administrative Procedure Act requires that new and substantive agency
rules go through a notice-and-comment procedure that gives the public a
voice in the regulatory rulemaking process. The Obama administration
skipped each of these steps.
Make no mistake, the actions of the Obama administration were both
substantive and intrusive. While media often characterize the letter as
merely providing “bathroom” guidance, it has affected broad areas of school
life and conduct. In requiring schools to create a “supportive” environment
for transgender students, it directed, for example, that girls could be forced
to shower or change clothes next to anatomically intact males, sleep in the
same room as males on overnight trips, and compete against males in
sporting events.
There was no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement before schools
were obligated to treat boys as girls or girls as boys. Instead, the legal
requirements locked in the instant the student or the student’s parents
notified the school that the student’s “gender identity” differed from his or
her biological sex.
The implications for free speech and school curricula were profound, raising
a host of questions. If a school tolerated other students “misgendering” a
trans student through “improper” use of names or pronouns, was it creating
a hostile learning environment? Would the school use the Obama
administration’s guidance to attempt to override students’ free-speech rights
to dissent from the decree? Did biology textbooks and other educational
materials have to change to reflect the new definition of “gender” as an
identity distinct from a person’s biological sex?
Critically, this federal guidance specifically instructed schools to ignore

parental input or parental concerns if parents dissented from the new
orthodoxy. The letter was clear: Schools were to provide transgender
children “equal access to educational programs and activities even in
circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members
raise objections or concerns.” This meant that parents who had legitimate
concerns about safety, fairness, or even biological reality were left without a
voice, even as the policy directly impacted their children’s educational
experience.
Repealing the Obama administration’s letter leaves the difficult question of
how to deal with gender-nonconforming students exactly where it belongs,
with the states and local communities that traditionally control public
education. Contrary to the claims of LGBT activists, preserving federalism
does not leave transgender students to the mercy of bullies or bigots.
As the Trump administration’s letter notes, “schools must ensure that all
students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe
environment.” Additionally, it reiterated its legal obligation to “hear all
claims of discrimination.”
The Trump administration’s proper decision to rescind the Obama
administration’s letter should send a clear signal to social-justice activists —
what one president gives, the next president can take away. When it comes
to serious matters like expanding federal nondiscrimination law, new laws
should come only through constitutional process. If you want to change
the law, persuade Congress to pass a statute. In our republic, letters are no
substitute for lawmaking.
If states or local school boards want to recreate the Obama administration’s
standards and apply them to their own schools, they are free to do so. If
other states or school boards want to leave the difficult decisions to
principals and teachers, who know the individuals and parents involved ,
they are free to do so as well. When it comes to the most delicate matters
of student privacy and identity, one size most assuredly does not fit all.
Transgender bathroom policies are viewed as a return to
federal overreach and shift the balance of federalism
Brown, 4/26
Emma, reporter at the Washington Post with a focus on politics. “Trump orders study of federal role in education”
Washington Post. 26 April, 2017. Web. 30 June, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-expected-
to-order-study-of-federal-role-in-education/2017/04/26/577dddbc-2a19-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?
utm_term=.ca505d668e93/-KL
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that requires Education Secretary
Betsy DeVos to study whether and how the federal government has overstepped
its legal authority in K-12 schools, a move he framed as part of a broader effort to shift power
from Washington to states and local communities. “Previous administrations have wrongfully forced
states and schools to comply with federal whims and dicate what our kids are taught,” Trump said at the
White House. “But we know that local communities do it best and know it best.” The order does not
invest DeVos with any new authority. She already has broad powers to revise or withdraw policies that
the order gives DeVos 300
her predecessors promulgated. Rob Goad, a department official, said
days to conduct a review to identify any regulations or guidance related to K-12 schools that is
inconsistent with federal law. The review will be led by a task force headed by Robert Eitel, a
senior counselor to DeVos who previously worked for a for-profit college company. The GOP has long
been home to lawmakers who say that the federal government should not be involved in public education.
complaints of federal overreach intensified during President Barack Obama’s
But
administration as the department wielded billions of dollars in stimulus funds — and promises of
relief from the No Child Left Behind law — to push states toward adopting new teacher evaluations and
Common Core academic standards. The bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 transferred much
Many on the right are
authority over public schools from the federal government to the states.
looking for signs that Trump will do more to unwind the federal role in
education. Trump’s order brings “welcome attention to a much-overlooked
problem of behavior that has festered through all administrations,” said Jeanne Allen, a veteran of the
Reagan administration who runs the D.C.-based Center for Education Reform, which advocates for
vouchers, charter schools and other forms of choice. Allen said she’s hopeful that DeVos will get rid of the
department’s guidance to schools on a variety of issues. The secretary could do that without an
withdrew
executive order and without involvement from Congress, as she did in February when she
controversial guidance to schools on accommodating transgender students.
Obama’s Education Department was notably aggressive on civil rights, not only in
directing schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms
matching their gender identity but also in pushing for school-discipline revamps and in
pressing colleges to overhaul their handling of sexual assault on campus. Those
efforts, coupled with the department’s sometimes wide-ranging
investigations into thousands of complaints of alleged discrimination against students
nationwide, also led to complaints of federal overreach . Supporters of those moves
on civil rights fear the Trump administration’s campaign to shrink the federal role in education will
translate into weaker protections for vulnerable students. Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the
Democratic National Committee, said the order changes nothing. “Trump isn’t signing it to actually
improve education for American students,” she said. “He is doing it to put a fake point on the board
within his first 100 days because he can’t pass an accomplishment of significance.”
Trans Bathrooms--Grimm
A Supreme Court ruling for Grimm kills Federalism.
Education is a key area – and the Aff hampers creative
local solutions to a complex issue.
Dewart ’16 -- Ms. Deborah J. Dewart is a lawyer specializing in Nonprofit
Corporations, Estate Planning and Business Transactions cases. Amicus Brief –
(GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT
FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE GRIMM, Respondent BRIEF OF LIBERTY, LIFE, AND
LAW FOUNDATION, WETHEPEOPLEINORDER.COM, AND THE NATIONAL LEGAL
FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER – September – Available at
SCOUTS blog – along with all amicus briefs on this matter – modified to avoid potentially
objectionable language - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-
amicus-LLL.pdf //pleb
The architects of the Constitution created a federal government "powerful enough to function effectively
yet limited enough to preserve the hard-earned liberty fought for in the War of Independence." Shelby v.
Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 853 (D.C. Cir. 2012). "[A] group of formerly independent states bound themselves
together under one national government," delegating some of their powers—but not all—to the newly
Power is divided, not
formed federal administration. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 574 (1964).
only horizontally among the three co-equal branches (Section I), but also vertically
between federal and state governments. This Court has long recognized the
critical need to preserve that structure. The Letters not only encroach on legislative and
judicial territory, but also invade a matter of intense state and local concern that is not among the federal
government's enumerated powers.
Education Is Primarily A State And Local Concern.

Education is among the many powers reserved to the states and the people.
Apart from a constitutional restriction such as equal protection of the law:
[S]tate governments do not need constitutional authorization to act. The States thus can and do perform
many of the vital functions of modern government—punishing street crime, running public schools, and
zoning property for development, to name but a few—even though the Constitution's text does not
authorize any government to do so.
Judicial restraint should characterize any

NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2578 (emphasis added).
federal attempt to intervene in public education :
Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems requiring
public education in our Nation is committed to the
care and restraint. ... By and large,
control of state and local authorities.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97,104 (1968). "We see no reason to intrude on that historic control in
this case." Bd. of Curators of University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 91 (1978) (citing Epperson
and declining to formalize the academic dismissal process by requiring a hearing). The same is true here.
There is no reason for the federal judiciary to interfere in the privacy policies of local schools and shut
citizens out of the process.
The Fourth Circuit Decision Threatens Individual Liberty To Participate In The Political Process.
This case implicates the most sensitive privacy concerns of young school children.
Accommodation of those concerns—both for transgender students and all
others—requires compassion and skillful crafting of workable policies for each
school district. It may also require construction or remodeling of facilities to
implement accommodations. The federal government has attempted to dictate a one-
size-fits-all "cookie cutter" solution for the entire nation . It is impossible, at
the federal level, to consider the multitude of factors that may differ from
one school district to another.
Federalism safeguards individual liberty, allowing states and local communities to "respond to the
initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely
upon the political processes that control a remote central power." Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211,
221 (2011). Public school boards illustrate the outworking of this fundamental
principle. Board members are typically selected, often by popular election, from
among local citizens. Parents, teachers, and even students have the opportunity to
participate in meetings and express their concerns. If the Fourth Circuit decision
stands, these voices (perspectives) will be silenced (ignored) all across America.
This Court recently reinforced the importance of maintaining "the status of the States as independent
sovereigns in our federal system . . . [o]therwise the two-government system established by the Framers
would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would
suffer." NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2602. In short, "federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary
It is hard to imagine a
power." Id. at 2578 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
more striking instance of arbitrary power than this case presents .
Title I
Federal Title I reform disrupts the federalist system and
hurts school choice
Forster 4/1, (Greg Forster, Ph.D., Yale University, Friedman Fellow with
EdChoice, 4-1-2017, "Keep Education–and Choice–in the StatesOCPA,"
Oklahoma Council Of Public Affairs, http://www.ocpathink.org/article/keep-
educationand-choicein-the-states)
If we want to continue living in a
But make no mistake about where things are heading.
democratic republic and not in a technocratic oligarchy, we should be
fighting tooth and nail to resist the process of federal takeover, not
strengthening it. Title I portability would accelerate our already-breakneck
slide toward a society with a permanent coastal ruling class . There is even an
exception that proves the rule. When Bill Clinton proposed federal reform of welfare programs, which
turned out to be a tremendous success, some conservatives balked at the idea of the federal government
imposing welfare reform. Charles Krauthammer pointed out, however, that the federal government had
already taken almost complete control of welfare programs, and had badly broken them. Under the
the federal
principle of ancient wisdom known as “you break it, you bought it,” he said,
government ought to fix what it had broken before returning these programs
to local control. That still makes sense to me. But it’s much better to avoid federal
control in the first place. Title I portability would establish federal control of education. What
irony! Conservatives took the lead in fighting against the Common Core initiative on federalism grounds,
because the federal government was using Common Core as an opportunity to establish control of
Damage to
education. Will they now hand over our schools to the feds for a promise of school choice?
the constitutional order is not the only price to pay, however. Title I
portability would be a short-term win for school choice, but the cause of
choice itself would be imperiled in the long term. It would be the states, not
the federal government, which would create systems for parents to access
choice through Title I portability. And not just the states, but the education
bureaucracies of the states. So the bureaucrats most directly threatened by
school choice would be the ones designing the programs . In other words, these
programs would be designed to fail. Think it can’t happen? In Florida a decade ago, a school
voucher program for students in academically failing public schools was totally sabotaged by the way the
state education bureaucracy implemented it. Difficult application procedures and other artificially
created obstacles made it extremely difficult for parents to access the choice to which they were entitled.
Just as successful school
And make no mistake, the movement would pay a huge price for that.
choice programs make it easier to create more programs, failed programs do
the reverse. Just look at how the failure of one very poorly designed voucher
program in Louisiana is being used by teacher unions nationwide to
discredit all school choice.
Vaccines
Federal intervention in healthcare decreases state power
Blackman 15 (Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South
Texas College of Law in Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United
States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. Josh is the author
of the critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to
Obamacare (2013) and Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive
Power (Cambridge University Press, 2016). Josh was selected by Forbes Magazine
for the “30 Under 30” in Law and Policy. Josh has twice testified before the House
Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of executive action on immigration and
health care. He is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Josh is the founder and
President of the Harlan Institute, the founder of and blogs at JoshBlackman.com.
Josh leads the cutting edge of legal analytics as Director of Judicial Research at
LexPredict. Josh is the author of over three dozen law review articles, and his
commentary has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington
Post, USA Today, L.A. Times, and other national publications. February 3 rd, 2015.
“Does Congress Have the Power to Vaccination Mandate after NFIB vs. Selibus?”
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/02/03/does-congress-have-the-power-to-enact-a-
federal-vaccination-mandate-after-nfib-v-sebelius/.)
Another angle to consider is whether the Necessary and Proper clause is broad enough to cover
something as invasive as forcing individuals to be vaccinated. While this may be necessary, it is likely not
forcing
proper. If the Court found that forcing someone to *buy* insurance is improper, then
someone to receive an injection is almost certainly beyond the scope
of the federal government’s authority–even if this is within the police power of the
state under Jacobson. This is even worse than the so-called broccoli horrible. One more angle
concerns the federal displacement of a traditional ground of state law. For
centuries, the state police power has entailed regulation over inoculation
and quarantines. According to that power, states have crafted various
exemptions and approaches that, for better or worse, reflect the considered
judgment of their elected branches. A nationwide federal policy would
immediately preempt all of those laws. Under NFIB, this counsels against the
constitutionality of this invasion of state power. Or, imagine another hypothetical.
Congress passes a statute that provides that schools will only receive money
if 100% of their students are vaccinated–subject to very narrow religious exemptions
(think of the ACA’s contraception mandate). The requirement to impose the
vaccination mandate would be far too great to fall within the
enumerated spending power. It would also displace the traditional
state power over health and safety laws.
Vouchers
States should have choice on education policy—federal
control hurts school choice movement
Forster 5/15, (Greg Forster, Ph.D., Yale University, Friedman Fellow with
EdChoice, 5-15-2017, "Will the IRS Give Us Educational Freedom?,"
Oklahoma Council Of Public Affairs, http://www.ocpathink.org/article/will-
the-irs-give-us-educational-freedom)
There used to be an ad campaign declaring that driving at the speed limit “is not just a good idea, it’s the
friends in the school choice movement need to
law.” Turning that around, I think my
realize that federalism is not just the law. It’s a good idea ! Yes, we can probably
circumvent the legal barriers to federal control of education by going through the tax code. But is it a
The idea
good idea to have D.C. control education policy—even if the policy it sets is a good one?
behind federalism is that governance should be kept as close as possible to
local communities. That is partly because big, distant legislatures and
bureaucracies are not likely to serve people well if they’re not directly
connected to them. And that’s still going to be a problem even if you do find
a clever way to circumvent the Constitution’s legal barriers to national
education policy. Will the IRS give us freedom? Let’s be clear: Any federal tax-credit scholarship
program will be administered by the same IRS that illegally tried to shut down conservative activists not
It will be the IRS deciding which SGOs are worthy of funding and
long ago.
which aren’t. It will be the IRS that audits compliance and sets the terms of participation I never
thought I’d live to see freedom-loving activists demanding to have the future of school choice put into the
hands of the IRS. I feel like Rip Van Winkle. What did I miss here? Another reason to keep
governance local is that imposing a policy upon a community by force if that
community doesn’t regard the policy as just is , in general, a tyrannical thing to
do. There are exceptions (you may recall we had a little trouble from 1861 to 1865). But usually, if you
can’t persuade New York City to adopt the policies that the people in
Oklahoma City want, or vice versa, then they should each be allowed to go their
own way. Neither one should be enslaved to the will of the other . I sympathize
with educators and activists in states that are unlikely to adopt school choice. A federal tax-credit
scholarship program would deliver school choice to them. That’s not a small
consideration. But it would also teach everyone around them to view them as enemies and redouble their
School-choice advocates in these states would go from being
efforts to shut them down.
viewed as misguided to being viewed as devious, backstabbing enemies of
the public. In the long term, that wouldn’t be good for school choice . Lately I’ve
heard a lot of talk from my conservative friends about how wrong it is when distant, powerful elites who
are culturally alienated from the population at large shove laws down our throats that we regard as
unjust. The question is, do we dislike that because we would rather it was our distant, powerful elites
imposing our preferred laws upon populations from whom we are culturally alienated, and who view
those laws as unjust? Or because elites shoving things down people’s throats is inherently wrong,
Keeping school choice in the states is the wise course. If we
whoever does it?
fight in a state and lose, as we have before and will again, we can always
fight on in other states. In fact, when we’re losing in one state we’re usually
winning in several others! However, if we fight a big national battle and lose,
which is always a serious possibility, the movement could be set back for a
generation. But will it be much better if we fight a big national battle and win? We’ll get a
program widely viewed as unjust and illegitimately imposed on the states,
one that will be sabotaged both by its own lousy program design and by the
deliberate efforts of the IRS bureaucracy to undermine it. The failure of a poorly
designed voucher program in Louisiana is now causing the movement some headaches—bad headlines
and talking points from opponents. That pain is mitigated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of
state programs do work. How much pain would the failure of a national school choice program cause?
The big national lesson would be: “See? School choice doesn’t work .”
If D.C. wants to clean up
the mess in education, it should clean up its own mess —the mess in D.C. The
schools in our nation’s capital remain among the worst in the nation despite
decades of increased spending and crusading reformers. The only serious glimmer
of hope that has actually done some good has been the growth of charter schools and private school
choice. Expanding the federal voucher program in D.C. to allow all students and all schools to participate
would be an ideal way for D.C. to set a standard for the nation .
Imposing school choice on the
states, even by the back door of the tax code, is not the way to go.
AT: Court no precedent
IF Rdoriguez:
No – the courts do set a precedent - extend our Lawson

Evidence –it cites actual supreme court justices that say
Rodriguez is the core of modern federalism – it has set a
precedent
IF not Rodriguez
Rodriguez proves it sets a precedent

Lawson 13 (Aaron Lawson, JD from University of Michigan, 3/1/13,
“EDUCATIONAL FEDERALISM: A NEW CASE FOR REDUCED FEDERAL
INVOLVEMENT IN K–12 EDUCATION,” Brigham Young University
Education and Law Journal: Volume 2013, Issue 2, Accessed 7/13/17, MH)
In the Rodriguez decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs
did not have a right under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which
required the state of Texas to remedy disparities in funding for schools in
high-wealth and low-wealth school districts. One of the principal reasons
that the Court rejected the plaintiffs' claims was the need to
maintain the current balance of power between the federal and state
governments over education. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Rodriguez
that even though all equal protection claims implicate federalism, " it would
be difficult to imagine a case having a greater potential impact on
our federal system than the one now before us," because upholding the
plaintiffs' claims would ultimately lead the Court to invalidate the school
systems in all fifty states. Although some contend that these decisions and results are driven
more by a lack of political will rather than education federalism, the consistency with which
federalism has arisen as a real or imagined obstacle to reforms aimed at
ensuring equal educational opportunity suggests that federalism is a
significant contributing factor, even if other factors also adversely influenced
these reforms. I contend that the United States should strategically restructure and strengthen the
federal role in education to establish the necessary foundation for a national effort to ensure equal access
to an excellent education. This restructuring and strengthening of the federal role in education would
require shifting some power away from the state and local governments and toward the federal
The United States would then need to adopt a new understanding
government.
of education federalism that embraces the federal government as the
guarantor of equal opportunity, because it is the only government with the
capacity and sufficient incentive to lead a national effort to achieve this
widely supported, yet persistently elusive, goal. Although this would not require
federalizing the nation's education system as at least one scholar has recommended, it would require
acceptance of a larger federal role in education to hold the states accountable for ensuring that all
students receive equal access to an excellent education.
AT: NL – Constitution
First, this argument doesn’t takeout the link – we just have
to win that federalism is balanced now and that the plan
disrupts this enough to halt the fight against warming –
regardless of constitutionality, our 1NC Lawson Evidence
indicates the plan causes federalism to fall apart
Second, It’s a massive violation of the 10th amendment

Hornbeck 17 – Dustin Hornbeck, Ph.D. Student in Educational
Leadership and Policy, Miami University, Federal Role in Education Has a
Long History, May 10th, 2017,
https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=1285
Trump has directed the United States Department of Education
President Donald
to evaluate whether the federal government has "overstepped its legal
authority" in the field of education. This is not a new issue in American
politics. Ever since the Department of Education became a Cabinet-level agency in 1979,
opposition to federalized education has been a popular rallying cry among
conservatives. Ronald Reagan advocated to dismantle the department while campaigning for his
presidency, and many others since then have called for more power to be put back into the states' hands
when it comes to educational policy. In February of this year, legislation was introduced to eliminate the
Department of Education entirely. So, what is the role of the state versus the federal government in the
world of K-12 education? As a researcher of education policy and politics, I have seen that people are
divided on the role that the federal government should play in K-12 education -- a role that has changed
10th Amendment to the
over the course of history. Growth of Public Education in States The
United States Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people." This leaves the power to create
schools and a system for education in the hands of individual states,
rather than the central national government. Today, all 50 states provide public
schooling to their young people -- with 50 approaches to education within the borders of one nation.
Public schooling on a state level began in 1790 , when Pennsylvania became the first state
to require free education. This service was extended only to poor families, assuming that wealthy people
could afford to pay for their own education. New York followed suit in 1805. In 1820, Massachusetts was
the first state to have a tuition-free high school for all, and also the first to require compulsory education.
By the late 1800s, public education had spread to most states, in a movement often referred to as the
common school movement. After World War I, urban populations swelled, and vocational education and
secondary education became part of the American landscape. By 1930, every state had some sort of
compulsory education law. This led to increased control of schools by cities and states.
AT: NL – State Follow on
No Follow-on – states always fight the Fed – independtly
decks solvency and turns case
Gerken, 17 – Professor of Law @ Yale (Heather, “We’re about to see
states’ rights used defensively against Trump”, Vox, 20 January 2017,
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/12/13915990/federalism-trump-
progressive-uncooperative, Accessed: 7/6/17)//SL
Other states have repeatedly stymied federal education reform just by

dragging their feet. States resisted the No Child Left Behind Act by
manipulating testing standards and by slow-walking reforms. State
recalcitrance was so great that eventually the Bush Administration threw in
the towel and granted states so many waivers that the federal program
was basically gutted.
Federal dependence on states is so pronounced in criminal law that the
Vanderbilt law professor Robert Mikos has suggested that states can
effectively “nullify” federal marijuana law simply by withdrawing
enforcement resources, as did Colorado and Washington. To be sure, Jeff
Sessions, Trump’s choice for attorney general, can try to change the
equation by selectively targeting a few businesses, but it will be an uphill
climb.
AT: Baseline Innovation LT
Baseline definitely crushes states rights because it forces
them to meet a standard
Jennifer Marshall et al 13, Lindsey Burke, Rachel Sheffield, Brittany
Corona and Sandra Stotsky 13 (Jennifer Marshall is a researcher for the
Heritage foundation and the Vice President for the Institute for Family,
Community, and Opportunity, and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik
Fellow. The co-authors are Lindsey Burke, the director and a researcher for
the Center of Education policy at the Heritage Foundation, Rachel Sheffield,
policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, Brittany Corona, author at the
Heritage Foundation, and Sandra Stotsky, professor of Education Reform at
the University of Arkansas. October 7, 2013, 10-7-2013, "Common Core
National Standards and Tests: Empty Promises and Increased Federal
Overreach Into Education," Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/education/report/common-core-national-standards-
and-tests-empty-promises-and-increased-federal, Accessed: 10-21-2017 /Kent
Denver-YBJL)
The battle over national standards and tests is ultimately a battle over who
controls the content taught in every local public school in America. Something
as important as the education of America’s children should not be subjected to
centralization or the whims of Washington bureaucrats. What is taught in America’s
classrooms should be informed by parents, by principals, by teachers, and by the business community,
which can provide input about the skills students need to be competitive when they leave high school.
Choice in education through vouchers, education savings accounts, online learning, tuition tax credit
options, homeschooling—all of these options are changing how education is delivered to students,
matching options to student learning needs. It’s the type of customization that has been absent from our
education system. Choice and customization are critical components necessary to improve education in
America. Imposing uniformity on the system through national standards and tests and further
centralizing decision-making will only perpetuate the status quo. The good news is, citizens and leaders
in a number of states are fighting to regain control over standards and curriculum, defending against a
nationalization of education. Ultimately, we should work to ensure that decisions are made by those
closest to the student: teachers, principals, and parents. Join the Fight Against Common Core Lindsey M.
Burke Two competing forces are pushing on America’s K–12 education system today. One is an effort to
infuse education choice into a long-stagnant system, empowering parents with the ability to send their
children to a school that meets their unique learning needs. The other is an effort to further centralize
education through Common Core national standards and tests. Across the country, education choice
options have been proliferating rapidly, including vouchers, tuition tax credits, special needs
scholarships, and education savings accounts. Educational choice is a revolution because it funds
children instead of physical school buildings and allows dollars to follow children to any school—or
education option—that meets their unique learning needs. Choice Empowers Parents to direct their
child’s share of education funding, giving them options beyond an assigned government school. Choice
Pressures Public Schools with a much-needed competitive atmosphere, which works toward improving
educational outcomes for students who take advantage of choice options as well as students who choose
to attend their local public schools. Choice Helps Kids. Seventeen states and Washington, D.C., now have
private school choice programs—and more states are considering implementing choice options.
Education choice represents the type of innovation and freedom that will provide long-overdue reform to
the K–12 education system, and holds the potential to truly raise educational outcomes for every child
across the country. But at the same time this encouraging shift toward education choice is underway,
there is a push to take education in the exact opposite direction through Common Core national
standards and tests. Common Core Is An Effort to Centralize Education by dictating the standards and
assessments that will determine the content taught in every public school across the country. Common
Core Has No Evidence that it will improve academic outcomes or boost international competitiveness.
But the Obama Administration has pushed states to adopt national standards and assessments in
exchange for offers of billions of dollars in federal funding and waivers from the onerous provisions of No
Child Left Behind. Common Core Assumes that top-down, uniform standards and assessments—driven by
federal bureaucrats and national organizations—are preferable to the state and local reform efforts
guided by input from parents, teachers, and taxpayers. States have been competing to improve their
education systems by implementing education choice options and other reforms such as alternative
teacher certification, transparent A–F grading systems, and a focus on reading achievement. American
education is at a crossroads: One path leads toward further centralization and greater federal
intervention. The other path leads toward robust education choice, including school choice and choice in
curricula. Common Core takes the path toward centralization, and state leaders should seize the moment
National standards and tests are a challenge to
to resist this latest federal overreach.
educational freedom in America, and state and local leaders who believe in
limited government should resist them. —Originally published on The Foundry, May 29,
2013. Gov. Pence Pauses Indiana Common Core Standards Lindsey M. Burke Indiana has just given every
state that agreed to adopt Common Core national education standards and tests a lesson in prudent
governance. On Saturday [May 11, 2013], Governor Mike Pence (R) signed the Common Core “Pause” bill
into law, halting implementation of Common Core until state agencies, teachers, and taxpayers better
understand the implications of Common Core adoption. Indiana law now requires that the Common Core
standards be evaluated and compared to existing state standards, and that a cost assessment be
conducted by the state’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before implementation moves forward.
It’s something every state that adopted Common Core should have done before agreeing to do so.
Specifically, the law states that after May 15, 2013, the state board may take no further actions to
implement as standards for the state or direct the department to implement any common core standards
developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative until the state board conducts a
comprehensive evaluation of the common core standards. While the common standards Indiana adopted
remain in effect, the state has taken the necessary steps to evaluate the merits of Common Core
standards and assessments, and their costs. What exactly does the Common Core Pause law require? The
Indiana Department of Education must provide a written evaluation of the Common Core standards
before July 1, 2013, which must be submitted to the governor, legislative council, state board of
education, and the legislative study committee established by the Pause law. The legislative study
committee will evaluate Common Core, and produce a report by November 1, 2013, to: Compare
Indiana’s existing state standards to Common Core standards; “[C]onsider best practices in developing
and adopting the standards, seeking information from a broad range of sources,” which should include
teachers, content matter experts and “any other standards the study committee considers to be superior
standards”; and Evaluate the cost to the state and school districts of moving toward Common Core
assessments. In addition to the state Department of Education evaluation and the legislative study
committee report, the Common Core Pause law requires that by September 1, 2013, the Office of
Management and Budget provide a fiscal impact statement on the cost of Common Core to taxpayers.
Specifically, the Pause law states that the Indiana OMB, “in consultation with the state board, shall
provide an opinion concerning the fiscal impact to the state and school corporations if the state board: (1)
fully implements the common core standards; and (2) discontinues the implementation of the common
core standards.” Finally, the law requires the state board of education to hold at least three public
meetings and take public testimony on Common Core standards and tests. While the law does not
prohibit the use of Common Core standards implemented by the state board, the board may not require
the use of Common Core assessments until the board receives the evaluations conducted by the state
Department of Education, the legislative study committee, and the state OMB. Pence stated: I have long
believed that education is a state and local function and we must always work to ensure that our students
are being taught to the highest academic standards and that our curriculum is developed by Hoosiers, for
Hoosiers.… The legislation I sign today hits the pause button on Common Core so Hoosiers can
thoroughly evaluate which standards will best serve the interests of our kids. Pence is exactly right.
States and local school districts should determine the standards and assessments that are used in their
classrooms, not national organizations or Washington bureaucrats. Indiana has provided a good model for
other states that want to determine whether or not Common Core is a wise undertaking. Hitting the
“Pause” button is a good first step, but no matter the outcome of the evaluations by various agencies in
Indiana, the idea of ceding control over the content taught in any state should give governors and
policymakers pause. It is, as state constitutions and statutes demonstrate, the responsibility of states and
local school districts to define and implement standards, assessments, and curricula. Common Core
national standards represent an unprecedented surrender of state
educational control to Washington. Conservative leaders can reclaim control
over the content taught in their local schools by resisting the imposition of
national standards and tests and preventing their implementation
the states won’t participate – they fight federal reforms –
no link turn b/c the baseline will just cause fighting –
independently, the link turns the case

climb.
Be skeptical of policies which “give states voice” – it

reasserts federal power
George F. Will "George F. Will: 'Coercive federalism' a wolf in sheep's
clothing," DeseretNews, 10-2-2011,
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700183949/Coercive-federalism-a-wolf-
in-sheeps-clothing.html?pg=all
WASHINGTON — Many Americans, having grown accustomed to Caesarism, probably see magnanimity
in that front-page headline. Others, however, read it as redundant evidence of how distorted American
A president "gives" states a "voice" in education policy
governance has become.
concerning grades K through 12? How did this quintessential state and local
responsibility become tethered to presidential discretion? Here is how
federal power expands, even in the guise of decentralization:¶ Ohio Sen.
Robert Taft (1889-1953) was "Mr. Republican," revered by conservatives chafing under the domination of
the GOP by Eastern money that preferred moderates such as New York Gov. Tom Dewey, the GOP's 1944
and 1948 presidential nominee. In "The Roots of Modern Conservatism: Dewey, Taft, and the Battle for
the Soul of the Republican Party," Michael Bowen, historian at Pennsylvania's Westminster College,
recounts how Taft leavened his small-government orthodoxy with deviations, including federal aid to
primary and secondary education.¶ In the 79th Congress (1945-47), Taft sponsored legislation to provide
such education more than $8 billion over 25 years. The sum was huge (the 1947 federal budget was
$34.5 billion), and the 25-year horizon said federal intervention would not be temporary. Taft drafted his
bill with help from the National Education Association (NEA), the teachers union which today is an
appendage of the Democratic Party, except when the relationship is the other way around.¶ Bowen says
Taft's bill "included provisions to guarantee that states would not cede
control of their educational systems to federal authorities." Guarantee?
Today we are wiser.¶ The bill passed the Senate but died in the House. Such federal aid to
education came in 1965, the year of liberals living exuberantly, which produced Medicare and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The latter completed the long repudiation of the idea
that some sectors of life are fenced off from federal supervision. In 1976, the NEA made its first
endorsement of a presidential candidate; Jimmy Carter reciprocated by creating the Education
Department.¶ George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was the eighth reauthorization of the
ESEA. It is due for a ninth, but the Obama administration considers the Republican-controlled House of
Representatives icky and the separation of powers tiresome, so it is dispensing with legislation in favor of
coercion — what has been called "coercive
federalism." Education Secretary Arne
Duncan is offering states waivers from NCLB's most annoying provisions if
the states will accept administration conditions for education policy. The
slow-motion but steady submission of primary and secondary education to
Washington proceeds in the name of emancipation. ¶ Emancipation, that is, from the
lofty idealism of preposterous expectations — NCLB's loopy decree that by 2014 there will be 100
percent proficiency in reading and math. This incentive to report chimerical progress has produced
exactly that: Many states have defined proficiency down so their tests will show more progress than does
the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the federal test.¶ When Duncan warned (exaggeration
in the service of supposedly constructive panic) that 82 percent of the nation's 100,000 public schools
could be labeled failures next year, states clamored for relief, which is offered in the form of waivers:
Washington's dictation of education policy through legislation will be waived if states embrace
Washington's dictation of education policy by executive branch fiat.¶ Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman
of the Education and the Workforce Committee, questions the "legal authority to grant conditional
waivers in exchange for reforms not authorized by Congress." Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is less delicate.¶
In a letter to Duncan, Rubio tartly says the rule of law is at risk: "NCLB allows the secretary to grant
waivers for existing provisions under the law, but nowhere does the law authorize waivers in exchange
for the adoption of administration-preferred policies."¶ Furthermore, Rubio writes, the waivers "would
entail states having to adopt a federally approved 'college and career ready' curriculum: either the
national Common Core curriculum standards, or another federally approved equivalent." Rubio says:
"Such activities are unacceptable; they violate three existing laws" that "prohibit the federal government
from creating or prescribing a national curriculum."¶ For the sake of argument, let us, as lawyers say,
stipulate that the measures Duncan's waivers would make mandatory are the niftiest ideas for education
The
since Socrates sat down on a log with a student. That is beside the point. Two points, actually:¶
expansion of federal power inevitably expands executive discretion that
marginalizes Congress. And since Taft, we have lived and learned.
AT: Clarity LT
(this is usually a robinson piece of evidence)
this evidence is two years old – Obama and Bush may have
been confusing, but our 1NC UQ evidence indicates that
trump is not complicated – he is leaving education
Trump and ESSA were also clear examples of the fed
leaving education – this is clear and postdates their
argument
Jacob 17(Brian A., Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and the
Walter H. Annenberg Professor of Education Policy, Professor of Economics,
and Professor of Education at the University of Michigan, Co-Director of the
Education Policy Initiative (EPI) and former director of the Center for Local,
State and Urban Policy (CLOSUP), Research Associate at the National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 2.2.17, Brookings, “How the U.S.
and ESSA,” https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-the-u-s-department-of-
education-can-foster-education-reform-in-the-era-of-trump-and-essa/,
Accessed: 6.22.17)VW
The current administration has vowed to leave education matters up

to the states, continuing a movement started with the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), which dramatically limited the federal
government’s role in school accountability. While greater local control certainly
has some benefits, it risks exacerbating the massive disparities in educational performance across states
that already exists. In 2015, there was almost a 30 percentile point difference in 4th grade math
proficiency rates between the top and bottom states, only some of which can be explained by state-level
social and economic factors. The massive disparity in progress is perhaps even more disturbing. Between
2003 and 2015, student proficiency rates grew by over 40 percent in some states, while remaining flat or
even declining in other states. The Department of Education (DoED) should take steps to highlight these
disparities by identifying the lowest performing states and providing information on the status and
progress of all states on a variety of educational metrics. The DoED might also provide modest funding
and technical assistance to help demographically similar states work together to improve their public
Trump often called for giving more
education systems. On the campaign trail, President
discretion over education policy to states and localities, critiquing
Common Core and what he viewed as other instances of federal overreach.
In her recent confirmation hearing, President Trump’s nominee for
Education Secretary—Betsy DeVos—repeatedly argued for leaving education
matters up to the states. And this desire for local control is not limited to
the current administration. In 2015, Congress passed the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) with strong bipartisan support. This legislation
replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) system of school accountability
with a more narrowly tailored and flexible approach to school reform.
Instead of requiring all schools to meet annual performance targets, ESSA
requires states to focus on a small set of low-performing schools and gives
them considerable latitude to design the interventions they deem
appropriate. In discussing ESSA, chair of the Senate Education Committee Lamar
Alexander claimed, “The department was in effect acting as a national school board for the 42
states with waivers—100,000 schools. The states were doing fine until the federal
government stuck its nose into it…So it was important to get the balls back
in the hands of the people who really should have it .”[i] But the evidence suggests
that not all states are doing fine. Indeed, there are massive disparities across states in terms of current
student performance, and these differences are not merely a factor of the social and economic conditions
in the state. All states have been actively engaged in efforts to turnaround failing schools, but the
Public education will
effectiveness of such efforts has varied dramatically across jurisdictions.
(and should) always be driven predominantly by local actors —
teachers, administrators, school board members, and state
AT: Resilient
No – extend 1NC link evidence – the plan specifically
destroys federalism because the fed forces its will upon
the states, destroy something that has been the
cornerstone of federalism, education – that’s our 1NC
spillover evidence – prefer issue specific evidence, it
applies to the aff and Education in particular
Education policy is a matter of states’ rights---fed lead

decks the balance of federalism – destroys relisiency
Courts are important players in education reform not by articulating the
content of educational policy but by setting the rules governing how
education reform can proceed. Educational reform involves an important
give and take as interested parties advance their own solutions, but there
are constitutional limits on this give and take that should be defined by
state courts. The experience of educational adequacy lawsuits indicates
that there is an important political dynamic at play here, which involves
courts and ultimately inures to the benefit of students, as all education
reform should.
To the extent that the federal government is involved, through programs like
NCLB and RTTT, that involvement has the potential to diminish the
effectiveness of state legislative response to state courts by binding the
legislature to the requirements of federal funding programs. Thus, through
NCLB and RTTT, the federal government threatens this valuable
political dynamic in which courts play an important role in vindicating the
substantive educational entitlements enjoyed by students. Although state
legislatures may be able to respond to both the federal government and to
state courts simultaneously, the very real possibility that state legislatures
may, in some instances, be placed in an untenable position between
federal requirements and state court dictates should counsel against
extensive federal involvement in education.
An adequacy framework for educational policy requires more than that a
state legislature commit to a certain level of education funding. It requires
also that a legislature be sensitive to the ways in which educational policies,
especially those that go beyond the funding context, affect student
performance and achievement. NCLB and RTTT focus legislatures in ways
that may not actually be helpful. These policies may have any number of
constitutionally relevant consequences, particularly for poor and minority
students.
There is a role for courts to play in educational policy, and that role is to
make sure that legislatures remain sensitive to the ways educational policies
affect students and especially that they remain sensitive to the unique
challenges posed to racially and socioeconomically isolated students within
our educational systems and society. State constitutional text demands that
closing the achievement gap cannot merely be a legislative priority. State
courts cannot effectively play that role in a system riddled with federal
commands. There are reasons for federal involvement in local educational
policy, but protection of student interests counsels in favor of more
restrained involvement, rather than the ever-expanding role the federal
government has given itself in the last decade.
Link Magnifier
It’s a massive violation of the 10th amendment
Hornbeck 17 – Dustin Hornbeck, Ph.D. Student in Educational
Leadership and Policy, Miami University, Federal Role in Education Has a
Long History, May 10th, 2017,
https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=1285
President Donald Trump has directed the United States Department of
Education to evaluate whether the federal government has "overstepped its
legal authority" in the field of education. This is not a new issue in
American politics.
Ever since the Department of Education became a Cabinet-level agency in
1979, opposition to federalized education has been a popular rallying cry
among conservatives. Ronald Reagan advocated to dismantle the
department while campaigning for his presidency, and many others since
then have called for more power to be put back into the states' hands when
it comes to educational policy. In February of this year, legislation was
introduced to eliminate the Department of Education entirely.
So, what is the role of the state versus the federal government in the world
of K-12 education?
As a researcher of education policy and politics, I have seen that people are
divided on the role that the federal government should play in K-12
education -- a role that has changed over the course of history.
Growth of Public Education in States
The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."
This leaves the power to create schools and a system for education in the
hands of individual states, rather than the central national
government. Today, all 50 states provide public schooling to their young
people -- with 50 approaches to education within the borders of one nation.
Public schooling on a state level began in 1790, when Pennsylvania became
the first state to require free education. This service was extended only to
poor families, assuming that wealthy people could afford to pay for their own
education. New York followed suit in 1805. In 1820, Massachusetts was the
first state to have a tuition-free high school for all, and also the first to
require compulsory education.
By the late 1800s, public education had spread to most states, in a
movement often referred to as the common school movement. After World
War I, urban populations swelled, and vocational education and secondary
education became part of the American landscape. By 1930, every state had
some sort of compulsory education law. This led to increased control of
schools by cities and states.
Link Turns Case
Link turns case – the states won’t enforce the aff---
mandates cause manipulation and foot-dragging

climb.
Encroachments also ruin federal policy

Weaver, 17 – Georgetown University & the Brookings Institution (Kent,
“Martha Derthick on Federalism and Policy Implementation”, Publius, 20
February 2017,
https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/47/2/188/3038373/Martha-
Derthick-on-Federalism-and-Policy?searchresult=1, Accessed: 7/6/17)//SL
Separation from local politics and administration [which] gives federal policy
makers license to formulate ideal, innovative objectives, because the
political and administrative burdens of the innovations they conceive will be
borne locally. They are free, much freer than local officials, to stand
publicly for progress and high principle. Not having ordinarily to decide
concrete cases, they do not have to make the compromises that such cases
require. The farther removed they are from the cases, the more principled
they are able to be. (1972, 94)
Having set unrealistic objectives, the federal government often finds itself
with inadequate leverage to achieve those objectives. In the case of New
Towns in Town, for example, “Federal administrators could not control what
happened in local politics because they had too little knowledge of it, too
little right to intervene, limited resources with which to intervene, and
limited ability to manipulate the resources they had” (Derthick 1972, 90).
Internal Links
Zero-Sum
Federal intervention in education decreases state power
Marshall 13 (Jennifer Marshall is a researcher for the Heritage foundation and
the Vice President for the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, and the
Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow. The co-authors are Lindsey Burke, the
director and a researcher for the Center of Education policy at the Heritage
Foundation, Rachel Sheffield, policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, Brittany
Corona, author at the Heritage Foundation, and Sandra Stotsky, professor of
Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. October 7, 2013. “Common Core
National Standards and Test: Empty Promises and Increased Federal Overreach into
Education.” http://www.heritage.org/education/report/common-core-national-
standards-and-tests-empty-promises-and-increased-federal)
Government intervention is a zero-sum game; every act of centralization

comes at the expense of liberty and the civil society institutions upon which
this country was founded. Education is no exception .
past half century has come at the expense of state and local school
autonomy, and has done little to improve academic outcomes. Every
new fad and program has brought not academic excellence but bureaucratic
red tape for teachers and school leaders, while wresting away decision-
making authority from parents. Despite significant growth in federal
intervention, American students are hardly better off now than they
were in the 1970s. Graduation rates for disadvantaged students, reading
performance, and international competitiveness have remained relatively
flat, despite a near tripling of real per-pupil federal expenditures and more
than 100 federal education programs. Achievement gaps between children
from low-income families and their more affluent peers, and between white
and minority children, remain stubbornly persistent. While many of these
problems stem from a lack of educational choice and a monopolistic public
education system, the growth in federal intervention, programs, and
spending has only exacerbated them.
Spillover
Spillover Threshold Low
There are too many risks with new federalism for us to
risk a federal policy change in education. The result would
be collapse of federalism.
Kurzweil 15, Martin A. "Disciplined devolution and the new education
federalism." Cal. L. Rev. 103 (2015): 565.
The political risk to disciplined devolution takes three forms. First, a change
in administration could lead to a change in the agency's approach to policy
or interstate relations. Second, a continuing administration may change its
approach as the political calculus changes. Finally , changes in the political climate in
states may disrupt the model. The potential for each of these political changes exists in the education
context, as national Republican politicians have positioned themselves against the Obama
Administration's policies, 360 teachers' unions and other Democrat-leaning advocates continue to
pressure the Administration to roll back elements of the initiatives,361 and aspects of the reforms remain
A second risk for disciplined devolution is federal
controversial in the states.362
legislation that prematurely locks in substantive policies without
preserving the governance structure. Success of some policies in some contexts may
convince Congress to require those policies in all contexts. Legislative incorporation of the lessons
learned through policy experimentation is helpful to disciplined devolution, but only if flexibility to
deviate is retained. Such flexibility is necessary to motivate critical policy analysis on the part of state
and local actors and to permit continued experimentation and adaptation. Legislators are liable to
mistake success of a particular policy for success of the policy-making process and act on that mistake to
There is some evidence of this risk in existing bills
cripple the policy-making process.
to reauthorize ESEA. 36 Although premature legislative incorporation of
substantive policy runs a risk of shifting the balance to uniform
centralization, excessively delaying an update to default legislation may also
undermine the framework. It is critical for disciplined devolution that the default statutory
scheme remains credible. If it is not, states will have no reason to take it seriously, and the federal
agency's leverage will be diminished. The risk of legislative obsolescence is illustrated by NCLB's
requirement that all students achieve grade-level proficiency on statewide tests by the end of the 2014
school year. The 2014 deadline, and its related funding penalties, was a major motivator for states to
participate in ESEA Flexibility. Now that the deadline has passed, states with waivers may assume that
the provision is moot, or that the Education Department's threats to withdraw funding are not credible,
and cease to take their commitments under ESEA Flexibility seriously. The NCLB default has also been
weakened by the Education Department's willingness to negotiate alternative arrangements with the
A final, pervasive risk is
handful of states that did not apply for or were denied a waiver.365
that the relevant federal and state actors fail to recognize the nature of the
new governance structure and therefore unwittingly take steps that weaken
it. In other words, disciplined devolution might disappear without anyone
realizing it existed in the first place. There is a high risk of such a category
error in the education case study. As discussed above, most education commentators have not
focused on the structural changes of Race to the Top and ESEA Flexibility at all, and those who have
If the
generally mistake them for federal incursion or unaccountable decentralization.366
Administration or Congress takes action on the basis of either of these
characterizations, rather than the disciplined devolution understanding , it
would jeopardize the regime. Lessening the rigor of evaluation and
monitoring to mitigate a perceived federal incursion would lead some states
to shirk their substantive commitments and reduce the incentive for
collaborative policy experimentation. Conversely, making the federal role
more prescriptive to combat a perceived lack of accountability or
standardization would limit states' flexibility to tailor policies and
experiment. It might also lead them to demonstrate formal compliance while
ignoring or undermining the underlying federal goals (as under NCLB and ESEA).
Disciplined devolution's instability in the face of these exogenous threats is
concerning, but it does not diminish the model's advantages over the other alternatives to
bureaucratic governance. Big waiver authority vested solely in a federal official,
without state or local involvement and without an expectation of
collaborative input, will lack the legitimacy and transparency of disciplined
devolution. Cooperative federalism with limited federal oversight and no process
for institutional learning would be the sort of unaccountable decentralization that ,
for disciplined devolution, is merely a risk. An experimentalist regime without either the
institutions of state and local government or the leverage of a federal exceptions process could be even
the exogenous changes that
more ephemeral than disciplined devolution. Moreover,
threaten disciplined devolution also pose a risk to the other models, which
similarly depend on self-aware, motivated actors and a particular legislative
and regulatory context to function. Indeed, the structure of disciplined devolution makes it
possible to inoculate against these risks in a way that the other models cannot.
1NC Environmental Policy
Federal education policy destroys federalism in unrelated
areas including environmental policy.
Kazman et al. 16 — Sam Kazman, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
general counsel, with Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies
at the Cato Institute, editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review,
former special assistant/adviser to the Multi-National Force in Iraq on rule-
of-law, and Joshua P. Thompson, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal
Foundation, 2016 (Amicus Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, and CATO Institute in support of the petitioner in the
Supreme Court case Christopher J. Christie, Governor of New Jersey, et al.,
v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., November, Available Online
at https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-
content/uploads/christie_v_ncaa_cert-stage.pdf, Accessed 06-30-2017)
For instance, the federal government could compel states to continue

Previously, the need to convince states to cooperate has given them
significant leverage to influence federal policy. See Young, supra at 1074-75
(explaining that state resistence to federal education policy forced a federal
agency to change its requirements). If, once adopted, the federal
government could compel states to continue to implement particular
policies, the political consequences could be far reaching. The federal
government could dictate curricula or testing requirements in those states
that previously embraced the federal policy. But see Milliken v. Bradley, 418
U.S. 717, 741-42 (1974) (recognizing education as an area of traditional
state and local control). It could also require states to continue enforcing
their current bathroom policies, whatever those may be. Cf. G.G. ex rel.
Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), cert.
granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016). Limiting the anti-commandeering
doctrine could also have severe repercussions in environmental policy.
Federal-state cooperation on environmental regulation is particularly useful
because states have greater local knowledge and more available
enforcement officers. See Richard B. Stewart, Pyramids of Sacrifice?
Problems of Federalism in Mandating State Implementation of National
Environmental Policy, 86 Yale L.J. 1196, 1243-50 (1977). But if the federal
government could indefinitely impose its will on states after they initially
agree, that would threaten these cooperative federalism arrangements,
with far reaching affects. Cf. Robert V. Percival, Environmental
Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 Md. L. Rev.
1141, 1174 (1995).
2NC Environment Policy
Education federalism crucial to environmental federalism
WOOD et al. ’16 (Jonathan; Counsel of Record – Pacific Legal Foundation, Amicus
Brief for Christie v. NCAA, November, https://cei.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%2015-
356%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf)ww
The Third Circuit’s narrow interpretation of the anti-commandeering doctrine could impact far more than sports gambling. It creates a significant loophole in the doctrine that would allow the federal
, the
government to overextend its constitutional authority. This could fundamentally alter the relationship between the federal government and the states. For instance
federal government could compel states to continue implementing education policies

well after they have proven unpopular. Previously, the need to convince states to cooperate has given them significant leverage to influence federal policy. See Young, supra at 1074-
75 (explaining that state resistence to federal education policy forced a federal agency to change its requirements). If, once adopted, the federal government could compel states to continue to
implement particular policies, the political consequences could be far reaching. The federal government could
dictate curricula or testing requirements in those states that previously embraced the federal policy. But see Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 741-42 (1974) (recognizing education as an area of
It could also require states to continue enforcing their current bathroom policies, whatever those may be. Cf. G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty.
traditional state and local control).
Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016). Limiting the anti-commandeering doctrine could also have severe repercussions
in environmental policy. Federal-state cooperation on environmental

regulation is particularly useful because states have greater local knowledge
and more available enforcement officers. See Richard B. Stewart, Pyramids of Sacrifice? Problems of Federalism in Mandating State
Implementation of National Environmental Policy, 86 Yale L.J. 1196, 1243-50 (1977). But if the federal government could
indefinitely impose its will on states after they initially agree, that would threaten these
cooperative federalism arrangements, with far reaching affects. Cf. Robert V. Percival,
Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1141, 1174 (1995). The decision below invites these problems. For instance, if the federal
government used its spending power to entice a state to adopt federal policy as its own, it could then forbid the state from ever
changing its policy. When the state cried foul, the federal government could respond that, despite all appearances, the state isn’t being commandeered because it was not
compelled to adopt the policy originally. See N.C.A.A., 832 F.3d at 401-02. Obviously, a state would be extremely wary to cooperate in implementing federal environmental policy if it knows that, once it
That would make cooperative federalism

does, it may be permanently giving up its sovereignty. Cf. Stewart, supra at 1243-50.
arrangements far more treacherous, not only undermining federalism but

also the policy goals that these arrangements advance.
Generic
Increasing federal involvement in education worsens

disputes over federalism
Mcguinn 15 (Patrick McGuinn is associate professor of political science
and education and chair of the Department of Political Science and
International Relations at Drew University,12/16/17 “Schooling the State:
ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of Education” The Russell
Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–94 (2015),
http://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/full/10.7758/RSF.2015.1.3.04)AVR
The challenge in the post-NCLB era is that the feds have demanded that states develop new systems for
tracking and disseminating student achievement data and intervening in struggling schools. States
resent this new level of federal involvement and have struggled to meet all of
the federal mandates. Consequently, as federal goals and methods have diverged from those
of the states, the intergovernmental relationship has undergone a significant
transformation. A central contribution of this article is thus to offer a detailed analysis of the new
educational federalism in the post-NCLB era. It assesses how the policy mandates of the law
have affected the institutional capacities and incentives for reform in state
and federal departments of education to illuminate the administrative
mechanisms through which this new federalism operates. Writing in the 1960s,
Stephen Bailey and Edith Mosher articulate the many challenges to using federal power to drive school
reform, challenges that continue to ring true today. “Both
in the innovative and
administrative aspects of public policy, a grant-in-aid agency must operate in
a complex political environment. It must function in an intricate web of tensions spun by
historical circumstance and by both coordinate and cross-purposes: congressional, presidential, judicial,
group interest, intra-agency, inter-agency, inter-governmental, personal, societal, and even international.
When as is the case with aid to education, the magnitude of Federal
involvement is increased with dramatic suddenness, these tensions
are particularly illuminated and exacerbated
Education is overwhelmingly a state’s right.

Prager 15 — Sarah Prager, Assistant Corporation Counsel at the New
York City Law Department, was an Articles Editor of the 2013-2014 New
York Law School Law Review, received her J.D. from New York Law School,
2015 (“An "IDEA" to Consider: Adopting a Uniform Test to Evaluate
Compliance with the IDEA's Least Restrictive Environment Mandate,” New
York Law School Law Review (59 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 653), Available Online to
Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis, Accessed 07-01-2017, Lil_Arj)
Education has always been an area of state regulation. And educational

policy is one of the few spheres of authority that have been traditionally
recognized as exclusively committed to the states. n209 In recent years,
the federal government has employed its spending power to incentivize
states to adopt or modify educational policy goals as applied to discrete
segments of the student population. n210 However, even under conditional
spending programs such as the IDEA, courts must remain careful not to
impute to Congress an intent of upsetting the federalism status quo and,
specifically, the states' traditional authority over their own educational
policy. n211 While the Supreme Court has yet to address the IDEA's
mainstreaming requirement, the Rowley Court did warn the lower courts not
"to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the
school authorities which they review." n212 Thus, while federal courts have
a duty to ensure that recipient states comply with the IDEA's substantive
standards, they may not "impose substantive standards of review which
cannot be derived from the Act itself." n213
Federalization spills over – empirics

Roberts, Professor @ Virginia Tech, 15
(Patrick, “The Centralization Paradox”, https://www.the-american-
interest.com/2015/06/10/the-centralization-paradox/)
The Anti-Federalists worried that the Constitution would oppress people from two directions. They suspected that
the legislature would be unable to stand up to the unchecked power of the Supreme Court, and they feared that the populist
presidency would grow in power until it overwhelmed popular rule and

sober self-government. Such concerns have risen to high collective consciousness many times in American history. The
trope of the “imperial presidency” rings out from Lincoln to FDR to Richard Nixon. Several contemporary observers of the American political
scene have predicted that, if the United States government were ever to fall, a despotic presidency would be to blame. Derthick did not
frame her criticism of American politics in such apocalyptic terms, but she did worry that the rise of a populist presidency could obscure how
policy is actually made and put too great a distance between citizens and the policy process. A populist American President appears on
television and video daily as a sponsor of grandiose policy proposals: free community college education; a mission to Mars. The populist-style
President himself is a product of the cauldron of election contests that demand ambitious proposals but offer hazy details on implementation
or any reasonable metric as to how such proposals might be evaluated. This sort of President nowadays invariably gets absorbed into an
electronic celebrity culture saturated by advertising language.Nowhere is this form of political theater
more evident than in recent education policy, where proposals for reform—
first charter schools, then school choice and vouchers, then smaller class sizes— appear as “flavors of the month”
without enough time having passed to evaluate their effects. Meanwhile, laws emerge behind the scenes from issue networks rather than the
The presidentialization of everything has spread beyond health,

minds of lawmakers.
welfare, and education to other domains, including disaster management.10 At
the founding, disaster management was a responsibility for states and

localities, if for the government at all. Today, the President is the responder-in-chief to
any major disaster, from floods to hurricanes to oil spills.11 Disasters make for good news stories, and responding to them is
one way in which the President and the Federal government can palpably affect citizens’ lives and deliver benefits. The President cannot
issue “waivers” in disaster management, but he does have sufficient discretion to issue “declarations” that trigger Federal resources to flow
and pre-planned protocols to spring into action.12 The number of disaster declarations has increased over time. While “no dough for snow”
was once a rallying cry at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it is now routine for the President to declare snow disasters. In
emergency management, as in the tobacco settlement, politicians sometimes derive benefits from a social ill. Disaster losses offer politicians
an opportunity to come to the rescue. It is too perverse to say that politicians hope for disaster losses, but they do have more incentives to
respond ably than to take steps to prevent disaster losses in the first place by, for example, limiting development in flood plains and other
risky locations. Questions about how to manage sustainable development, however, depend on context and buy-in rather than on rational
planning.13 These decisions are best left to communities, which can draw on expert guidance to come to their own decisions about
Making the presidency the locus of policymaking in areas

implementation.
previously reserved for the states, such as education or welfare, risks closing
off avenues for participation and for creative implementation in different regions. Critics of the contemporary Anti-Federalist
approach might point out that state legislatures, elected judges, and city councils are even more likely to be captured by special interests
centralization is at best a
than Presidents.14 In reply, a defender of local and state prerogatives would point out that
temporary fix to special-interest control, and often no fix at all. Derthick’s study of the
Federal and federalized tobacco settlement shows how mercenary state officials engaged in a “race to the trough” of tobacco settlements.
Federal education policy overreach broadens

commandeering powers – affects unrelated policy areas
Shapiro, Cato Institute, 16
(Ilya, “AMICUS BRIEF OF PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, COMPETITIVE
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AND CATO INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF
PETITIONERS”, https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-
content/uploads/christie_v_ncaa_cert-stage.pdf)
the federal government could compel states to continue
For instance,

Previously, the need to convince states to cooperate has given them significant leverage to influence federal policy. See Young, supra at
If, once
1074-75 (explaining that state resistence to federal education policy forced a federal agency to change its requirements).
adopted, the federal government could compel states to continue to

implement particular policies, the political consequences could be far
reaching. The federal government could dictate curricula or testing
requirements in those states that previously embraced the federal policy. But see Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717,
741-42 (1974) (recognizing education as an area of traditional state and local control). It could also require states to continue enforcing their
current bathroom policies, whatever those may be. Cf. G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), cert.
granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016). Limiting the anti-commandeering doctrine could also
have severe repercussions in environmental policy. Federal-state
cooperation on environmental regulation is particularly useful because
states have greater local knowledge and more available enforcement
officers. See Richard B. Stewart, Pyramids of Sacrifice? Problems of Federalism in Mandating State Implementation of National
Environmental Policy, 86 Yale L.J. 1196, 1243-50 (1977). But if the federal government could
indefinitely impose its will on states after they initially agree, that would
threaten these cooperative federalism arrangements, with far reaching
affects. Cf. Robert V. Percival, Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1141, 1174
(1995).
Anti-commandeering doctrine spills over and protects

state policy innovation.
Lin and Johnson 17 — Elbert Lin, the Solicitor General of West
Virginia, former Partner at Wiley Rein LLP, former Law Clerk to Associate
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, holds a J.D. from Yale Law School,
and Thomas M. Johnson Jr., the Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia,
holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School, 2017 (“Symposium: High stakes for
federalism in heavyweight clash over the anti-commandeering doctrine,”
SCOTUSblog, August 17th, Available Online at
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-high-stakes-federalism-
heavyweight-clash-anti-commandeering-doctrine/, Accessed 09-11-2017)
The anti-commandeering doctrine protects the distinct lines of
accountability between each government and its citizens. By prohibiting
Congress from conscripting states into federal service, the anti-
commandeering doctrine ensures that each government remains directly
responsible and responsive to its people. If the citizens of a state don’t agree
with a certain state policy, they should be able to try to elect state officials
who share their view. And if they are objecting to something that is really a
federal policy, federal officials should suffer the consequences. But when
Congress forces states to implement federal policy, the lines of
accountability become far less clear, and state officials may bear the brunt of
public disapproval for what is in reality a federal policy.
PASPA interferes with this accountability in at least two ways. First, because
PASPA effectuates a ban on sports betting by freezing in place existing state-
law prohibitions, it creates confusion over which government is truly
responsible for the ban. The actual bans are technically a matter of state,
not federal, law. Indeed, there is no federal law that prohibits sports
wagering. So from one perspective, it is the state that prohibits sports
wagering. But would the state government change the laws if it were
permitted to do so? If so, PASPA obscures the fact that the federal
government is in reality responsible for the ban. The anti-commandeering
doctrine is meant to prevent precisely this kind of confusion.
Second, regardless of whether state or federal officials should be held
responsible for the ban, PASPA’s prohibition on the repeal of state law
deprives a state’s citizens of a core power they should have over their state
government. Central to the ideals set forth in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution – in particular the 10th Amendment – is
the principle that the people ultimately retain sovereign power in the
American republic. That power has always been understood to include both
the authority to delegate to the state legislature the right to regulate certain
private conduct by enacting new laws and the right of the people to reclaim
their liberty to engage in that conduct by repealing existing laws. PASPA
intrudes upon this core power by freezing in place laws that New Jersey and
other states currently have on their books – thus depriving the people and
their legislatures of their sovereign right to repeal laws that have become
onerous, unpopular or detrimental to liberty.
The sports leagues and the federal government have argued – and likely will
argue – that PASPA is little more than a run-of-the-mill express pre-emption
clause. Not so. Pre-emption is premised on the existence of an affirmative
federal regime. The supremacy clause makes that federal regime supreme
over state law, and empowers Congress to enact express prohibitions on
contrary state law. But there is no affirmative federal regime here. PASPA is
not an express pre-emption clause enacted in support of a larger federal ban
on sports wagering. It is a freestanding law that hijacks existing state laws
to carry out a federal policy. That is not pre-emption; it is unlawful
commandeering.
This case is about far more than sports wagering. The principle that the
Supreme Court articulates in this case could have wide-ranging
implications for the relationship between the federal and state
governments. If the court decides that Congress has the power to co-opt
state legislatures and prevent them from repealing their own laws,
Congress could prevent state experimentation in a host of other
important policy areas. For example, without enacting any federal
regulatory scheme to take the place of state law, Congress could simply
prevent the states from repealing or amending their existing prohibitions on
the sale or use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, fireworks, credit cards,
lending arrangements or other products or services typically regulated
under state law. The Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty does not
allow that result. By granting certiorari in this case, the Supreme Court may
well have recognized that, under PASPA, Congress has pushed its authority
too far.
State resistance on education is key to broader

uncooperative federalism
Freedman 13 Adam Freedman covers legal affairs for Ricochet. His
latest book is The Naked Constitution: What the Founders Said and Why It
Still Matters. He is working on a book about states’ rights. “Federalism, Red
and Blue” City Journal, http://www.city-
journal.org/2013/23_3_federalism.html
Breaking Washington’s coercive hold on states is the holy grail of federalism.

The most straightforward approach would be shrinking the federal budget,
cutting federal taxes proportionately, and letting state and local
governments decide what to do and how to pay for it. Today, such a proposal
would be regarded as a Tea Party fantasy, but not long ago, it was
championed by liberal icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Toward the end of his
career, the late New York senator, having seen New York consistently run a
negative balance of payments with the federal government, suggested
letting states keep more of their own money. “Less activism in Washington in
return for more revenue at home, for whatever active measures recommend
themselves to the state or municipality in question,” Moynihan proposed in a
1999 report for the Kennedy School of Government. Unfortunately, federal
programs have strongly entrenched constituencies that would object loudly
to having their federal funding yanked, even if it was replaced by state
dollars. The federal government need not balance its budget and can, in any
event, print money. Why take a chance on being funded by your home state,
which has far less fiscal flexibility? Besides, proposals to abolish federal
programs are vulnerable to cheap but effective demagoguery: if you don’t
like the federal Department of Education, you’re anti-education. The next
best alternative, from a federalist’s perspective, is to give states a way to opt
out of federal programs, or at least to opt out of federal micromanagement.
For instance, New Jersey congressman Scott Garrett, a Republican,
introduced legislation this past March that would allow states to decline
federal transportation funding without being penalized. Under the current
system, a federal fuel tax is collected at the gas pump and then sent to
Washington, where Congress and the Department of Transportation decide
how much each state gets back in transportation grants and under what
conditions. Nowadays, the conditions include such absurdities as the
Department of Transportation’s Livability program, which tells towns where
to build bike paths and recreational trails. Garrett’s bill would let a state
keep the roughly 18 cents per dollar collected in federal fuel taxes and use
that money according to the wishes of the state’s voters. Education is
another area targeted by the new federalists. Utah congressman Rob Bishop
—a Republican, a former high school teacher, and the founder of the Tenth
Amendment Task Force—argues that “we’ve tried everything except
giving schools the freedom to be different.” In the last Congress, Bishop
introduced the A-PLUS Act, which would let states receive federal education
grants without having to submit to federal micromanagement; the states
would merely enter into broad “performance agreements” with the
Department of Education. An alternative measure introduced by Garrett
would give each state the power to opt out of federal education programs
entirely and receive a tax credit equivalent to its share of federal education
funding. The credit would flow through to the state’s taxpayers, leaving
states and school districts free to impose additional taxes to fund their own
education priorities. Other creative solutions are percolating up from the
House backbenches. Under legislation sponsored by Texas Republican John
Culbertson, when a state rejects a federal grant, the unused money would
have to be used to reduce the federal deficit, rather than to subsidize other
states. And some House Republicans have called for eliminating Medicaid’s
current funding system—in which the feds match whatever each state
spends, so long as the state adheres to federal requirements—and replacing
it with block grants with few strings attached. Block grants don’t have to be
partisan poison; in fact, Democrats pioneered them in the 1960s for health
and crime-prevention programs. The states themselves retain
considerable power to resist Washington—above all, by challenging
federal laws that exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. For 60 years
after the New Deal, Congress justified legislation with no clear basis in the
Constitution by citing its constitutional power to regulate interstate
commerce, and the Supreme Court agreed. But that changed under the
Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. Today, federal legislation under the
Commerce Clause must actually target “economic activity” with a plausible
relationship to interstate commerce. And it doesn’t count if the legislation
simply forces citizens to engage in commerce, as the Court held in its 2012
Obamacare decision. (Alas, Congress’s taxing power was invoked to save the
individual mandate.) With increasing vigor, states are testing the
boundaries of Congress’s jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause.
Take the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, the brainchild of activist Gary
Marbut. The law declares that guns that are manufactured in Montana and
remain within the state aren’t subject to federal regulations, including
registration requirements. The act, which is being tested in a pending
federal lawsuit, has inspired copycat laws in seven other states and pending
bills in 24 others. Legislators have applied the firearms strategy to other
products—for example, “lightbulb freedom” statutes that would allow the
intrastate manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs, despite federal
mandates to switch to compact fluorescents. States are also exercising their
right to withhold their assistance in implementing federal policies. For
example, 13 have adopted laws prohibiting state and local officials from
carrying out the Affordable Care Act. These laws rely on a 1997 Supreme
Court decision, Printz v. United States, that established that Congress
cannot “commandeer” a state’s administrative machinery in the service of
federal law (in that case, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act). But
the tradition of state resistance goes back much further—all the way to the
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which proclaimed the right of
states to “interpose” their authority to block the hated Alien and Sedition
Acts. Those resolutions were invoked in the nineteenth century when some
northern states refused to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act. Finally,
states are beginning to explore interstate compacts as a way of
casting off unwanted federal mandates. The Constitution envisions
interstate compacts—regulatory agreements among states—and there are
more than 200 currently in force, including the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. In 2010, future senator Ted Cruz, writing for the Texas
Public Policy Foundation, encouraged states to enter into a compact
exempting themselves from Obamacare. In 2011 and 2012, seven states
approved a draft compact in which the member states would assume
responsibility for regulating health care. In order to trump federal law, an
interstate compact must be approved by Congress, seemingly a tall order in
the era of divided government. But at some point, even congressional
Democrats may recognize that their constituents are calling for more local
control over their lives and pocketbooks. A reinvigorated federalism would
transfer today’s most polarizing issues to the state capitols, where a more
pragmatic brand of governing still obtains. Not only is that what the
Constitution provides for; it might just be good for the Republic.
AT: No Environmental Spillover
First, our 1NC Kazan evidence specifically indicates that
education federalism spills over to environmental policy –
this is issue-specific evidence, so you should prefer it –
Kazan specifically says that the federal government laying
the law down on states will make environmental policy less
effective because states know the local situation
Second, Increasing federal involvement in education

worsens disputes over federalism – means there is less
cooperation in general
Mcguinn 15 (Patrick McGuinn is associate professor of political science
and education and chair of the Department of Political Science and
International Relations at Drew University,12/16/17 “Schooling the State:
ESEA and the Evolution of the U.S. Department of Education” The Russell
Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 77–94 (2015),
http://www.rsfjournal.org/doi/full/10.7758/RSF.2015.1.3.04)AVR
The challenge in the post-NCLB era is that the feds have demanded that states develop new systems for
tracking and disseminating student achievement data and intervening in struggling schools. States
resent this new level of federal involvement and have struggled to meet all of
the federal mandates. Consequently, as federal goals and methods have diverged from those
of the states, the intergovernmental relationship has undergone a significant
transformation. A central contribution of this article is thus to offer a detailed analysis of the new
educational federalism in the post-NCLB era. It assesses how the policy mandates of the law
have affected the institutional capacities and incentives for reform in state
and federal departments of education to illuminate the administrative
mechanisms through which this new federalism operates. Writing in the 1960s,
Stephen Bailey and Edith Mosher articulate the many challenges to using federal power to drive school
reform, challenges that continue to ring true today. “Both
in the innovative and
administrative aspects of public policy, a grant-in-aid agency must operate in
a complex political environment. It must function in an intricate web of tensions spun by
historical circumstance and by both coordinate and cross-purposes: congressional, presidential, judicial,
group interest, intra-agency, inter-agency, inter-governmental, personal, societal, and even international.
When as is the case with aid to education, the magnitude of Federal
involvement is increased with dramatic suddenness, these tensions
are particularly illuminated and exacerbated
No Spillover vs Trump
First, extend our Chemerinsky evidence – it says that
progressive federalism is key to resisting trump’s agenda
because states need to constantly be challenging the Fed’s
ability to force them to do implement federal orders
Second, Federalization spills over – empirics – this

evidence specifically indicts the “populist presidency”
taking aggressive action
Roberts, Professor @ Virginia Tech, 15
(Patrick, “The Centralization Paradox”, https://www.the-american-
interest.com/2015/06/10/the-centralization-paradox/)
The Anti-Federalists worried that the Constitution would oppress people from two directions. They suspected that
the legislature would be unable to stand up to the unchecked power of the Supreme Court, and they feared that the populist
presidency would grow in power until it overwhelmed popular rule and

sober self-government. Such concerns have risen to high collective consciousness many times in American history. The
trope of the “imperial presidency” rings out from Lincoln to FDR to Richard Nixon. Several contemporary observers of the American political
scene have predicted that, if the United States government were ever to fall, a despotic presidency would be to blame. Derthick did not
frame her criticism of American politics in such apocalyptic terms, but she did worry that the rise of a populist presidency could obscure how
policy is actually made and put too great a distance between citizens and the policy process. A populist American President appears on
television and video daily as a sponsor of grandiose policy proposals: free community college education; a mission to Mars. The populist-style
President himself is a product of the cauldron of election contests that demand ambitious proposals but offer hazy details on implementation
or any reasonable metric as to how such proposals might be evaluated. This sort of President nowadays invariably gets absorbed into an
electronic celebrity culture saturated by advertising language.Nowhere is this form of political theater
more evident than in recent education policy, where proposals for reform—
first charter schools, then school choice and vouchers, then smaller class sizes— appear as “flavors of the month”
without enough time having passed to evaluate their effects. Meanwhile, laws emerge behind the scenes from issue networks rather than the
The presidentialization of everything has spread beyond health,

minds of lawmakers.
education to other domains, including disaster management.10 At

welfare, and
the founding, disaster management was a responsibility for states and

localities, if for the government at all. Today, the President is the responder-in-chief to
any major disaster, from floods to hurricanes to oil spills.11 Disasters make for good news stories, and responding to them is
one way in which the President and the Federal government can palpably affect citizens’ lives and deliver benefits. The President cannot
issue “waivers” in disaster management, but he does have sufficient discretion to issue “declarations” that trigger Federal resources to flow
and pre-planned protocols to spring into action.12 The number of disaster declarations has increased over time. While “no dough for snow”
was once a rallying cry at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, it is now routine for the President to declare snow disasters. In
emergency management, as in the tobacco settlement, politicians sometimes derive benefits from a social ill. Disaster losses offer politicians
an opportunity to come to the rescue. It is too perverse to say that politicians hope for disaster losses, but they do have more incentives to
respond ably than to take steps to prevent disaster losses in the first place by, for example, limiting development in flood plains and other
risky locations. Questions about how to manage sustainable development, however, depend on context and buy-in rather than on rational
planning.13 These decisions are best left to communities, which can draw on expert guidance to come to their own decisions about
Making the presidency the locus of policymaking in areas

implementation.
previously reserved for the states, such as education or welfare, risks closing
off avenues for participation and for creative implementation in different regions. Critics of the contemporary Anti-Federalist
approach might point out that state legislatures, elected judges, and city councils are even more likely to be captured by special interests
centralization is at best a
than Presidents.14 In reply, a defender of local and state prerogatives would point out that
temporary fix to special-interest control, and often no fix at all. Derthick’s study of the
Federal and federalized tobacco settlement shows how mercenary state officials engaged in a “race to the trough” of tobacco settlements.
Modeling
Generic
It’s modelled internationally
Rolunda et al., 13 - *Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished
Professor of Jurisprudence @ Chapman University **professor of law @
University of Virginia ***Vice President of National Council of the Patriotic
People's Front from 1989 to 1990(*Ronald, **Mila Versteeg, Dr. ***István
Stumpf, “the U.S. Constitution Had on the Recently Adopted Constitutions of
Other Nations?”, The Heritage Foundation, 29 May 2013,
http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/model-resource-or-outlier-
what-effect-has-the-us-constitution-had-the, Accessed: 7/1/17)//SL
The basic notions of rule of law, separation of powers, natural law,

judicial review, and human rights came to life thanks to the example of
the United States in the last 225 years, which in turn has influenced the
entirety of Western civilization, including Hungary. The theoretical
foundations of American constitutionalism, the works of American legal
scholars, and the practice of the U.S. Supreme Court are valuable resources
and strong points of reference for lawyers in Hungary and all over the world.
I am confident that it is for the benefit of the American academia to study
from time to time how the concepts and institutions of American
constitutionalism flourish or face difficulties in other countries. It is an honor
for me to be here and take part in this conversation. As Hungary sets out to
solidify its commitment to truths that are self-evident, to the protection of
unalienable rights, to a limited but effective government, and to a renewed
constitutionalism, I am convinced that we may in the future inspire one
another.
Let me close with this thought: There is much talk about a post-American
era and American decline. As a young scholar visiting America since the
1980s, I got to know this country through road trips across the heartland as
well as Ivy League university lecture halls, and I can tell you that the ideals
of the Founding Fathers, the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and the
Declaration of Independence were not and are not in decline. On the
contrary, democracies around the world, old and new, need them now
more than ever.
American federalism spills over

Broschek, 16 – Associate Professor @ Laurier, Research Chair in
Comparative Federalism and Multilevel Governance (Jörg, “Federalism in
Europe, America and Africa: A Comparative Analysis”, Federalism and
Decentralization, 2016, Accessed 7/1/17)//SL
Federalization in the United States has had multifaceted repercussions
on other state-building processes. Nowhere, however, was American
federalism simply emulated. The diffusion of ideas was processed against
the historical background of individual settler societies and shaped
deliberations in constitutional assemblies in various ways. In South America
and Mexico, ideas gleaned from the United States experience were blended
with ideational currents derived from the Spanish colonial legacy, while in
Canada the federal idea had to be reconciled with the British legacy of
Westminster-style democracy. Federalism advocates had to defend the
federal idea against other viable institutional solutions, most notably
confederal arrangements or a unitary state. Debates revolving around the
question of sovereignty represent one important manifestation of this
problem. The question of whether or not sovereignty is something that could
be divided and, if so, with what implications for the nature of authority
relationships between the federal level and constituent units, often remained
contested.
Internal Link – Federal power is constrained now, this

protection of state autonomy is critical to modelling
American federalism abroad.
Somin 5/9/2017 Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason
University, 5-9-2017, "Courts In Federal Countries: The Us Case,"
Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2017/05/09/courts-in-federal-countries-the-us-case/?
utm_term=.7cbc2279a9d7
The relative scope of federal and state power under the U.S. Constitution
has been a major bone of contention for over 200 years. Courts have sometimes
enforced substantial limits on federal authority by striking down federal laws deemed to be outside the scope of
Congress’ enumerated powers under Article I of the Constitution. Very often, the judiciary has also constrained state
power by invalidating state laws as violations of constitutional rights. While judicial review has therefore promoted both
centralization and state autonomy at different times, on balance it has strengthened the former at the expense of the
latter. This pattern has been especially prevalent since the 1930s, as the Supreme Court largely abandoned earlier
efforts to police limits on congressional power, while simultaneously enforcing a growing array of individual rights
against state and local governments. This chapter examines the impact of judicial review on American federalism
without attempting a normative judgment. It briefly outlines the structure of American federalism and judicial review,
and then describes the history of judicial review of structural limits on federal power. In the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, the Supreme Court engaged in limited, but significant efforts to constrain congressional power.
These efforts were to a large extent abandoned after the constitutional revolution of the New Deal period in the 1930s.
The Supreme Court has recently attempted to revive judicial enforcement of
limits on federal power. But so far these efforts have had only a limited
effect. The chapter then summarizes the history of judicial review of state laws. The range of issues on which federal
courts have invalidated state laws is extremely broad. Overall, the impact of these rulings in curbing state autonomy
significantly exceeds the effects of the courts’ more limited efforts to constrain federal power. The last part of the
chapter briefly explains why the latter result was not accidental. Because federal judges are appointed by the president
and confirmed by the Senate, the chance that they will resist the political agenda of the dominant political coalition in
the federal government is reduced. Even when federal judges do want to invalidate federal legislation, they may hesitate
to do so when the result might create a political confrontation that the courts are likely to lose. Federal judges face
fewer political risks when they strike down state legislation. The chapter is empirical, not normative. Still, if my
empirical analysis is correct, it is fair to ask whether there is a tension between my strong support for decentralized
federalism, and my support for robust judicial review. History suggests that American states and localities might have
greater autonomy if judicial review by federal courts were eliminated or at least significantly curtailed. The seeming
contradiction between these two commitments can be reconciled because of the fact that most judicially
enforced constraints on state power take the form of enforcing individual
rights rather than expanding the regulatory power of Congress or the
president. As I discuss in the chapter, and more fully in this article, in many situations the ultimate decentralization
is empowering individual choice in the private sector: [J]udicial protection of individual rights
against state governments… promote[s] decentralization in another
important sense; it devolves more decision-making power to individual
citizens and private organizations, which often means an even greater extent of decentralization than
would regulation by state and local governments. If, for example, federal courts prevent state governments from
censoring speech, regulating religion, restricting marriage rights, or overriding private property rights, power over
these aspects of society is transferred to a lower, more decentralized level than the state government or even a local
one. As a result, individual citizens are now more free to speak as they wish, use their property as they see fit, or marry
the partner of their choice.I do not value federalism for the sake of the states, but
because it serves as a check on the concentration of political power (particularly
important in a highly diverse society like our own), and a mechanism for enabling citizens to
vote with their feet. Decentralization of power all the way down to individual citizens can
often serve these purposes even more effectively than decentralization to
the state. I do not claim that we should always strive for the maximum possible limitation on federal power, or the
strongest possible protection for individual liberty. But there is, I think, great value in protecting
both to a far greater degree than the legislative and executive branches of government are likely to do on their own.
From this standpoint, American judicial review, has been a net plus , despite its very real and
significant shortcomings. In its absence, the federal government would today have
somewhat greater power over the states, and both federal and state authorities would probably have
substantially greater power to restrict the freedom of individual citizens . While I lament the
breakdown of judicial enforcement of structural constraints on federal

power during the New Deal era and its aftermath, there has been a modest, but
notable revival in recent years, one that could potentially gather
additional momentum…. Given the extreme difficulty of amending the US Constitution, we are probably
stuck with the current method of judicial selection, at least for a long time to come. But other federations
can still learn from our experience and potentially experiment with
alternative methods of judicial selection that give a greater role to
subnational governments.
Impacts
AT
A2 Federal Key to Heg
Federal control of education is sold as necessary to
competitiveness, but that’s propaganda.
Bennett, 2017, Mandate Madness: How Congress Forces States and
Localities to Do its Bidding and Pay for the Privilege James T. Bennett
professor of economics at George Mason University p. 139
Diversity, that word so beloved of college administrators, was once the hallmark of
American education. Today, with about 15,000 school districts and almost
100,000 public schools throughout the United States, the sheer multiplicity
of schools ought to guarantee various approaches to learning .l Yet there are
those who would paint all these schoolhouses in a single color. The
standardized test and the uniform curriculum are their lodestars . And their
weapon is one of the most controversial unfunded federal mandates in our history: No Child Left Behind.
No Child Left Behind, or NCLB, ranks with the Iraq War as the weightiest
legacy of the George W. Bush administration. Assessing the situation during the middle
of the second President Bush's reign, Patrick J. McGuinn wrote in No Child Left Behind and the
Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965—2005, that "the politics of education has been
nationalized to a degree unprecedented in the country's history, and the federal government's influence
And the bulwark of that transformation
over education policy has never been greater."2
was an unfunded federal mandate. The US Constitution does not grant
the federal government the power to make laws concerning the education of
children. Indeed, education is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Not that the lack of
such an authorization matters terribly much in our era, when most actions of
the federal government also seem to lack such sanction . e Founders clearly did not
regard the teaching of young people as a concern, even an ancillary concern, of the national government.
But they lacked the percipient understanding of such men as Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush.
Since the middle of the twentieth century, advocates of greater federal
spending and involvement in areas of life that had been generally regarded
as the province of family, church, or local community found that the magic words to
unlocking the public treasury are "child," "children," or "defense." No appropriation, no usurpation, no
violation of the Constitution or the erstwhile rights of parents is too egregious if the name of the proposal
contains one of those words. As I have discussed at length in a previous book, The Doomsday Lobby, the
federal government first poked its nose into public education in a big way under cover of the National
Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, which was sold to the public in the panic following the Soviet
Union's successful launch of the Sputnik satellite .
The National Defense Education Act—
you will notice which word comes first, defense or education—was a product
of the Cold War. It was sold as a weapon, and those who expressed doubt
that the federal government possessed the wisdom to intervene in what had
always been a local matter were scorned as sentimental fools who did not
understand the nature of the communist threat.
AT Fism decks Econ
Overall Federalism is key to competitiveness - the brink is
now
Katz, 17 – centennial scholar @ the Brookings Institution, Former chief of
staff and to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and
was the senior counsel and then staff director for the U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs(Bruce, “The new localism: How
cities and metropolitan areas triumph in the age of Trump”, BROOKINGS, 18
January 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/the-new-localism-
how-cities-and-metropolitan-areas-triumph-in-the-age-of-trump/, Accessed:
7/1/17)//SL
I believe that the coming decade will stimulate, by sheer necessity, a new
localism in the United States.
It will build on the incredible economic, fiscal, financial, and social

attributes that cities and urban counties have in this country.
It will stimulate innovations in growth, governance, and finance that are

specific and tangible and then are adapted, tailored, and replicated at
lightning speed.
It will, if designed smartly and implemented well, be a pathway to national
renewal and a more competitive, sustainable, and inclusive society.
It can yield better solutions to hard challenges since it matches problem
solving to the way world works (integrated, holistic, entrepreneurial rather
than compartmentalized, siloed, bureaucratic)
It can be a more efficient and effective use of public resources since it is
more aligned with market demand (and the distinctive
assets/priorities/needs of different metros) rather than political log rolling.
It can unlock and leverage trillions in private and civic capital as markets
are created and individuals and institutions find ways to invest in social
outcomes. It is a path towards liberating and galvanizing energy and capital
across the nation – to particularly invest in our future.
AT Federalism is Racist
Federalism isn’t inherently conservative — minorities
hold influence over state and local governments.
Gerken and Revesz 17 — Heather K. Gerken, J. Skelly Wright
Professor of Law at Yale Law School, former Professor of Law at Harvard
Law School, holds a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School, and
Joshua Revesz, Student at Yale Law School, 2017 (“Progressive Federalism:
A User’s Guide,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Number 44, Spring,
Available Online at http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/44/progressive-
federalism-a-users-guide/, Accessed 06-14-2017)
Progressives have lost power in Washington. Every national institution now
lies in the hands of the Republican Party. Given the slim chances of
Democrats’ winning back Congress in 2018, many think that the best
progressives can do is hunker down for the next four years, blocking
legislation on the Hill and challenging it in court. It’s a depressing picture
for those on the left. No one wants to be a member of a party whose
“victories” are all in the kill, whose only role in national politics is that of the
gadfly.
But if progressives can simply look outside the Beltway, they will find that
they still have access to one of the most powerful weapons in politics:
federalism. Using the power they wield in states and cities across the
country, progressives can do a good deal more than mourn and obstruct.
They can resist Washington overreach, shape national policies, and force
the Republicans to compromise. Cities and states have long been at the
center of the fight over national values. And it’s time progressives
recognized that federalism isn’t just for conservatives.
Unfortunately, the moment one mentions federalism many progressives stop
listening. The language of “states’ rights” has an ugly history, invoked to
shield slavery and Jim Crow. Federalism’s checkered past led political
scientist William H. Riker to remark in 1964 that “if one disapproves of
racism, one should disapprove of federalism.” Even today, many
progressives think of federalism as a parochial anachronism, better suited
for stymieing change than for effecting it.
But they are making a mistake. This is not your father’s federalism.
These days, state and local governments are often led by dissenters and
racial minorities, the two groups progressives think have the most to fear
from federalism. And this has allowed them to not only take advantage of the
enormous power that federalism confers within their own cities and states,
but to affect national debates, influence national policy, and force national
actors to the bargaining table. Their success shows that federalism is a
neutral and powerful tool for change, not an intrinsically conservative
quirk of U.S. government.
Empirics are a bad model for federalism — state
attitudes have changed.
Freeman and Rogers 7 — Richard B. Freeman, Herbert Ascherman
Professor of Economics at Harvard University, Program Director for Labor
Studies at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Fellow of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, holds a Ph.D. in Economics from
Harvard University, and Joel Rogers, Professor of Law, Political Science, and
Sociology at the University of Wisconsin, holds a Ph.D. in Politics from
Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School, 2007 (“The Promise of
Progressive Federalism,” Remaking America: Democracy and Public Policy
in an Age of Inequality, Edited by Joe Soss, Jacob S. Hacker, and Suzanne
Mettler, Published by the Russell Sage Foundation, ISBN 1610445104, p.
205)
American progressives are generally suspicious of federalism and the
authority it gives state and local governments to make social and economic
policy decisions. They would prefer the country run by a capable national
government that supports their political goals. Progressives believe that only
national power can lessen inequalities and fear that competition among
states leads to reduced labor standards and social expenditures. They know
that throughout United States history “states rights” has been associated
with the suppression of African Americans in the South and that many of the
achievements of twentieth-century American democracy—civil rights, the
New Deal, and the extension of social benefits and protection to all
Americans—required national action. Over the past few decades, as
American national politics has withdrawn from many of the commitments of
the New Deal, many progressives have decried the devolution of national
responsibilities to states. They see the lessons of history on federalism as
clear. More power to the states means more inequality, weaker civil rights,
less popular organization, greater business influence on government
decisions.
In this chapter we argue that the progressive disposition against federalism
is outmoded. States are too important and enduring a part of the American
national political system to be treated as some minor afterthought in
policy debate. The current economy and attitudes on civil rights are
different from those of the 1930s or 1960s. An exclusively national focus of
policy initiatives also reflects an unreal vision of the nature of modern
government and politics. The devolution of governmental authority to levels
closer to the persons it affects is a worldwide phenomenon.1
States also have the power to enact policies that improve the lives of
ordinary citizens. Responding to national political failure to deal with social
and economic problems in the 1990s and 2000s, many states have adopted
policies that advance individual freedom, protect public goods such as the
environment, or strengthen local protection of the interests of workers and
the poor. Although some states favor more conservative policies, enough
have chosen progressive policies to belie any general race to the bottom
in state policies. The wide variation in policies across states shows,
moreover, the utility of one-size-fits-all politics. Regardless of their political
coloration, the willingness of states to experiment with new approaches and
serve as “laboratories of democracy” is welcome in a time of uncertainty
about successor institutions to those of the New Deal and Great Society.2
Federalism won’t enable racism — no public support

and 14th Amendment checks.
218-219)
Social Exclusion and Local Domination
As noted in the introduction, one reason many progressives oppose
increased federalism is because “states’ rights” has a long association with
racism. We believe that the risk that allowing states a freer hand in
government would lead to the old abuses is exceedingly small in today’s
society. One reason is that exclusionist discriminatory practices of the type
that have shamed the country in the past no longer enjoy much popular
support. Without minimizing the problems created by individuals or firms
discriminating against particular groups, we assert that the civil rights
revolution effectively ended the notion that the government can engage in
such practices. Americans disagree strongly about the nuances of gay
marriage, immigrant rights, and unregulated abortion. They disagree about
the best means of redressing past racial wrongs, or whether they have a
responsibility to redress them at all. But analyses of social and political
attitudes consistently show that Americans are qualitatively more tolerant
toward diverse groups than they were a generation or two ago. In survey
after survey, white attitudes toward blacks, men toward women, straights
toward gays, and adherents of different religious faiths toward each other all
show increased acceptance of diversity (among other surveys, see Page and
Shapiro 1992; Mayer 1993; Fiorina 2005; McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal
2006). For overwhelming majorities of the public, the notion that public
power should be used to constrain opportunity on the basis of race or sex or
sexual orientation is simply no longer accepted.
A second reason why allowing states a freer hand in government is unlikely
to lead to the old abuses is that the geographic bases of domination are no
longer secure. The idea of a culture war in America may be overdrawn and
misleading, but the idea that the sides in that war match state boundaries is
preposterous. Almost all communities in the United States are more
diverse now than they were fifty years ago. Greater personal mobility, a
more integrated national and increasingly international market, the greater
role of multistate and multinational firms, national media, increased
immigration, and the urbanization of American life have all helped produce
this within-community diversity. And that means the likelihood of assembling
stable oppressive voter majorities is much smaller than it once was. The
same forces have also reduced the ability of any single uncontested
employer or small group of employers to have a stranglehold on local
political life. Americans have not enjoyed increases in real wages
commensurate with the growth of productivity, but the reason for this is not
that they are locked into company towns with little opportunity to switch
employers. The backwaters of racist reaction, and company towns, are
largely a thing of the past.
But assuming for the sake of argument that some state or group of
employers in fact sought to suppress individual rights, our proposed
progressive federalism would arrest any such effort. That is the point of
having a floor of individual constitutional rights and other statutory minima.
Under progressive federalism, if states conspicuously violate the [end page
218] Fourteenth Amendment or national civil rights law or other specified
national rights, the national government would have the duty to protect
those floors, using federal marshals if necessary, as in the past.
Sessions has made federalism bipartisan again meaning

we can get back to the progressive reforms that federalism
has historically been characterized by
Bill Blum, Lawyer, former State of California Administrative Law Judge,
novelist, and lecturer at USC Annenberg School of Communications, and
UCLA., 4-11-2017, "Has Jeff Sessions Ushered In A New Kind Of
Federalism?," HuffPost, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-
progressive-form-of-federalism-is-spreading-
since_us_58ed3180e4b0145a227cb914
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. He knows how to
You really have to hand it to
promote the doctrines of federalism and states’ rights , and tout the importance of the
10th Amendment. The diminutive, 70-year-old attorney general of the United States, whom “The
Daily Show” loves to mock as a mean-spirited hobbit from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth, has spent
much of his long and virulently conservative career in politics and the law supporting such
ideas in an effort to limit the scope of federal authority, especially in the
fields of civil and voting rights. Now, with the GOP firmly in control of all three branches of
government and Sessions hypocritically threatening to enforce President Trump’s Executive Order (EO)
No. 13,768—which, among other provisions, calls for cutting off federal funds to so-called sanctuary
cities—Sessions has managed to convert a growing number of liberals and
progressives to the federalist cause. We are, as a result, witnessing the spread of a
new, progressive form of federalism. When you think about it, the conversion makes
perfect sense. To derail the Trump administration’s domestic agenda —not just
as it affects sanctuary jurisdictions, but also on gay and transgender rights, criminal
justice and police reform, abortion, federal enforcement of marijuana laws, and the erosion
of environmental safeguards—progressives are taking a cue from the right to
bolster the autonomy of states and cities as they enact and defend initiatives
aimed at protecting minorities, the poor, the undocumented and our
ecosystems. For much of the 20th century to the present, federalism was code for political reaction
under the guise of strict constructionism. From economic questions, such as the legality of the federal
minimum wage, to issues of school desegregation, conservatives time and again invoked the 10th
Amendment as a basis for preserving the privileges of local elites, corporations and racial and
misogynistic hierarchies, whileliberals sought to expand the reach of the
Constitution and national regulatory oversight. Federalism as a legal philosophy has
never been the exclusive preserve of the right. Still, federalism as a legal philosophy has never
been the exclusive preserve of the right. There is an inherent tension in our constitutional
structure, dating back to the founding era, between Jeffersonian decentralists and Hamiltonian advocates
of national power. Often, the decentralists have stood against human rights, but not always. As
many
writer/producer Gail Ablow noted in a recent column posted by Moyers & Company,
important legal struggles began at the state level before succeeding on a
national scale. In 1783, for example, long before the enactment of the 13th
Amendment in 1865, Massachusetts abolished slavery in its state constitution.
Wyoming, of all places, accorded women the unrestricted right to vote in 1869, well
ahead of the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. “It is one of the happy
incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its
citizens choose, serve as a laboratory” of democracy, the great Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis wrote in a dissenting opinion penned in 1932. Perhaps the leading exponent of
progressive federalism today is professor Heather Gerken, selected in February as the first female dean
of Yale Law School. In an interview published on the school’s website last December, Gerken explained
her outlook: My main goal is to convince people thatfederalism, which most people
associate with conservatism, doesn’t have a political valence . Progressives
have long ignored the many democratic benefits associated with federalism
and localism because they associate decentralization with racism and
parochialism. They look to the national government to protect racial
minorities and dissenters. But this is not your father’s federalism . Because
minorities can rule at the local level, states and local governments have
become sites for empowering racial minorities and dissenters, the very groups that
progressives believe have the most to fear from decentralization . The same-sex marriage
movement is just the most well-known example of progressives using state and
local power to further their ends. But much of the work on the environment,
immigration, the minimum wage, policing, etc. is being done at the local
level these days. Although the progressive federalism movement will face
many discrete challenges in the days ahead, none will be more important
than the coming legal battles over sanctuary cities. In March, Sessions announced that
the Justice Department would begin to withhold grant money from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to
comply with a provision of Clinton-era federal legislation that, he argues, requires localities to participate
in the enforcement of immigration laws. Each year, the department awards upward of $4.1 billion
nationwide to finance a range of local law-enforcement programs, including assistance to victims of
violent crime. Sessions also threatened to “claw back” grants previously awarded. The terms of Trump’s
EO 13,768 go even further, suggesting that all federal monies could be withheld from such jurisdictions.
While there is no formal legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, it is estimated that there are more
than 300 cities and counties throughout the country that have earned the moniker because, to varying
degrees, they decline to honor at least some of the “detainer” requests sent to them by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE uses detainers to keep suspected undocumented immigrants who have
been arrested on state charges in local custody so they can be picked up and deported when they have
finished serving their state criminal sentences and would otherwise be released. To further compel and
shame localities to comply with detainers, the Department of Homeland Security has begun publishing
lists of jurisdictions that fail to fall in line. Sitting high in the sanctuary offender rankings are jails in
California, including those in Los Angeles, Sacramento and the Bay Area. A bill is also pending in the
California legislature that would make the entire state—currently the world’s fifth largest economy—one
According to Sessions, the crackdown is necessary
big sanctuary jurisdiction.
because of an immigrant crime wave. “[W]hen cities and states refuse to help enforce
immigration laws,” he said in his announcement, “our nation is less safe. Failure to deport aliens who are
convicted for criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk—especially immigrant communities in the
very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators. “DUIs, assaults, burglaries, drug
crimes, gang crimes, rapes, crimes against children and murders. Countless Americans would be alive
today—and countless loved ones would not be grieving today—if the policies of these sanctuary
jurisdictions were ended.” The facts, of course, are contrary. As several recent studies have shown,
immigrants commit significantly fewer crimes per capita than their native-born counterparts. Nor is there
Sessions’
any truth to the claim that crime rates in sanctuary cities are higher than elsewhere.
plans to withhold federal funds also rest on shaky legal grounds, and several
sanctuary jurisdictions have filed federal suits to block the implementation
of Trump’s executive order. ... Progressives are taking a cue from the right
to bolster the autonomy of states and cities...
Turns Case
Turns Case – Solvency
Even if the impact risk is minimal, federal control fails
and decks solvency of the aff: Results in ineffective
policymaking
III. THE PROBLEM WITH FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
Restrictions on the ability of state legislatures and courts to remedy
constitutionally deficient education systems are problematic, in large part
because the federal government has proven inept at formulating education
policy that is responsive to the needs of states. Nothing about the federal
government suggests that it should be unskilled at formulating education
policy. However, there are times in which federal education policy is
ineffective. These instances should force us to ask whether and when it is
normatively desirable for the federal government to be formulating
educational policy, particularly when a substantive guarantee of some
level of educational opportunity exists in the vast majority of states but not
at the federal level. Accordingly, this Part describes instances in which
federal involvement in education has proven to be less-than-successful.
State control of education is key to successful reform –

federal oversight ensures the plan fails
Hess and Kelly 15 (Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy
studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Andrew Kelly, resident
scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the
American Enterprise Institute, 9/15/15, “More Than a Slogan,”
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-
federalism-in-education-matters, MH)
Federalism matters for at least five reasons. It's a matter of size. Education
advocates suffer from severe bouts of Finland and Singapore envy. They tend to ignore that most of these
nations have populations of 5 million or so, or about the population of Maryland or Massachusetts.
Trying to make rules for schools in a nation that's as large and diverse as the
U.S. is simply a different challenge. It aligns responsibility and
accountability with authority. One problem with tackling education
reform from Washington is that it's not members of Congress or federal
bureaucrats who are charged with making things work or who are held
accountable when they don't. Instead, responsibility and blame fall on state
leaders and on the leaders in those schools , districts and colleges who do the actual
work. The more authority moves up the ladder in education, the more this divide worsens. It steers
decisions towards the practical. No Child Left Behind promised that 100 percent of
students would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. President Barack Obama wants to ensure that
all students can attend community college for "free" – though most of the funds would come from states.
It's easy for D.C. politicians to make grand promises and leave the
consequences to someone else. State leaders must balance the budget and
are answerable to voters for what happens in schools and colleges; this
tends to make them more pragmatic in pursuing reform . When policymakers are
embedded in a community, as mayors and state legislators are, there is also more trust and
opportunity for compromise. That kind of practicality might disappoint firebrands eager for
national solutions, but it's a better bet for students than the wish lists and airy promises of Beltway pols.
It leaves room for varied approaches to problem-solving. One of the
perils of trying to "solve" things from Washington is that we wind up with
one-size-fits-all solutions. No Child Left Behind emerged from a wave of state-based efforts to
devise testing and accountability systems. Those state efforts were immensely uneven,
but they allowed a variety of approaches to emerge, yielding the opportunity
to learn, refine and reinvent. That's much more difficult when Washington is seeking
something that can be applied across 50 states. It ensures that reform efforts actually
have local roots. The Obama administration's Race to the Top program
convinced lots of states to promise to do lots of things. The results have been
predictably disappointing. Rushing to adopt teacher evaluation systems on a political timeline,
states have largely made a hash of the exercise. Free college proposals make the same mistake; they
depend on states and colleges promising to spend more money and adopt federally sanctioned reforms,
an approach that seems destined to frustrate policymakers' best-laid plans.
Education Federalism Good - Flexibility
Federal education reform is unwanted and fails because of
school diversity
Greene 13 (Jay P. Greene, professor of education reform at the University
of Arkansas, 9-10-2013, "Fix Schools by Not Fixing Schools," Jay P. Greene's
Blog, https://jaypgreene.com/2013/09/10/fix-schools-by-not-fixing-schools/)
The main reason we should stop focusing on fixing traditional public schools
is that, for the most part, they don’t want to be fixed . The people who make their
living off of those schools have reasons for wanting schools to be as they are and have enormous political
Trying to impose reforms like
resources to fend off efforts to fundamentally change things.
merit pay, centralized systems of teacher evaluation, new standards, new
curriculum, new pedagogy, etc… on unwilling schools is largely a futile
exercise. They have the political resources to block, dilute, or co-opt these
efforts in most instances. Trying to impose these reforms despite fierce
resistance from traditional public schools usually does not improve outcomes
for students but it does produce a series of negative side-effects. First,
attempting to impose reforms on a politically powerful and unwilling school
system generates an enormous amount of strife and hostility . Teachers and their
friends hate it. Reformers waste energy and resources. Little is changed but everyone walks away hurt,
Second, attempting to impose
drained, and distracted from more productive activities.
reforms on traditional public schools requires a significant increase in
centralized political control. Reformers can’t possibly fight their battles in thousands of
individual school districts, so they favor centralizing power in the hands of big city mayors, state
If they can
departments of education, and the federal government. They see it as one-stop-shopping.
cram their preferred reforms through those centralized authorities, then
they think they will have won the battle in each district and school
controlled by that centralized authority. But they are likely to lose even when
they can concentrate their fire on the centralized authority. And even if they
prevail at the centralized level, traditional public schools are usually able to
subvert and render inert most reforms through poor implementation. The
reforms usually fail but the centralization remains, which is harmful in a
variety of ways, such as generally undermining our long-standing and
effective system of federalism and reducing access to educational
alternatives through Tiebout choice. Third, even in the rare cases where
centralized reforms are adopted and implemented, the very nature of
reforms that can jump those hurdles usually makes them ineffective or
counter-productive. Centralized reforms that can be adopted and
implemented have to be watered-down enough to gain broad support for
passage and implementation, rendering them mostly impotent . And to the extent
that they have some bite, they have to impose that bite uniformly on a large set of schools and
Such reforms have to be crude
circumstances, producing policies that are one size fits none.
things lacking in subtlety or nuance that could make them appropriate and
effective in highly varied contexts. Fourth, even if by some miracle an
effective and appropriate centralized reform with bite is adopted and
properly implemented, there is no natural political constituency to preserve
the integrity of that reform over time. These reforms may be adopted with support from
business or taxpayer groups, but those political interests cannot sustain their focus on maintaining
reforms over time. They have to get back to their businesses and regular lives. Meanwhile the angry
teachers who had a reform crammed down their throats are still working in those schools and remain
well-organized, ready to eviscerate reforms as soon as the temporarily-focused winning coalition moves
on to other matters.
Centralized reforms to fix public schools do not create a
constituency to protect them over time. The coalition supporting centralized
reforms is strongest at the moment of passage and steadily weakens over
time, while opposing forces in traditional schools can bide their time and
repeal or weaken reforms later.
Turns Inequality
Federalism reverses segregation and economic
inequality — minority rule is more important than
minority rights.
Gerken 12 — Heather K. Gerken, J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at
Yale Law School, former Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, holds a
J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School, 2012 (“A New Progressive
Federalism,” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Number 24, Spring, Available
Online at http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/24/a-new-progressive-
federalism/, Accessed 06-14-2017)
Federalism and localism, in contrast, depend on—even glory in—the idea of
minority rule. Neither theory requires you to like every policy passed at the
local or state level any more than a nationalist has to agree with everything
that Congress passes. But our current system rests on the assumption that
decentralization can produce a healthier democracy in the long term. Ours
is a world in which decision-making bodies of every sort (school committees,
juries, city councils) are dominated by groups of every sort (Italians and
Irish, Catholics and Jews, Greens and libertarians). We don’t worry about
this representational kaleidoscope—let alone condemn it as “segregated”—
merely because one group or another is taking its turn standing in for the
whole. Perhaps we shouldn’t worry when it is a racial minority group in that
position.
Minority rule can promote both the economic and political
integration of racial minorities. We have long understood minority rights as
furthering those goals, which is why we care so much about them. But
minority rule can further these goals as well. Often when we talk about
democratic equality, we focus on its symbolic benefits rather than its
material ones. We talk about the dignity of political participation but wrinkle
our noses at the idea of political patronage. But history suggests a more
muscular account of what a democracy can do for minorities. Politics can
play an important role in promoting economic integration, and
economics can play an important role in promoting political integration.
Pam Karlan and New York University Law Professor Sam Issacharoff, for
example, have argued that the economic progress of African Americans has
turned not on the vindication of civil rights, but on business set-asides,
affirmative action, and government employment. In their view, these
programs came about precisely because blacks were able to elect their
candidates of choice in majority-minority districts. “[T]he creation of a black
middle class,” they write, “has depended on the vigilance of a black political
class.” A group of economists at George Mason University found that black
employment rates, for instance, rise during the tenure of black mayors, an
effect that is particularly pronounced for municipal jobs. One might even
argue that this was the story of integration for white ethnics, as Justice
David Souter once argued. In Souter’s view, the Lithuanian and Polish wards
of Chicago and the Irish and Italian political machines in Boston helped
empower these groups. That power, in turn, “cooled” ethnicity’s “talismanic
force.” In these examples, political power didn’t just facilitate economic
integration. The economic advantages associated with political power
exerted a gravitational pull on outsiders, bringing them into the system and
giving them a stake in its success.
Admittedly, this argument involves a more rough-and-tumble account of
democracy than we read in our civics textbooks. And it certainly offers a less
pristine view of integration than the one we associate with the rights model.
But while we have long recognized the dignity conferred by the rights
afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment or civil-rights statutes, we should
also acknowledge the dignity involved in groups’ protecting
themselves rather than looking to the courts for help. Indeed, this notion
resonates entirely with the lesson of the civil rights movement. Rights were
not “conferred” upon African Americans. They fought for them, pushing
reluctant national leaders to do the right thing.
Those who favor racial integration might also value minority rule for reasons
that have nothing to do with its material benefits. We have long believed that
political participation matters for equality. But we typically think of
participation in highly idealistic and individualistic terms while ignoring
crass concerns like who wins and who loses. Academics thus praise diverse
democratic bodies because they involve the “politics of recognition”; they
grant racial minorities the “dignity” of voice, ensuring that they play a role
in any decision-making process.
However, when one turns to the question of winners and losers, the limits of
the diversity paradigm are clear. While the diversity paradigm guarantees
racial minorities a vote or voice on every decision-making body, it also
ensures that they will be the political losers on any issue on which people
divide along racial lines. Racial minorities are thus destined to be the junior
partner or dissenting gadfly in the democratic process. So much for dignity.
Minority rule, in sharp contrast, turns the tables. It allows the usual winners
to lose and the usual losers to win. It gives racial minorities the chance to
shed the role of influencer or gadfly and stand in the shoes of the majority.
Local institutions offer racial minorities the chance to enjoy the same sense
of efficacy—and deal with the same types of problems—as the usual
members of the majority. Minorities get a chance to forge consensus and to
fend off dissenters. They get a chance to get something done and to
experience the need for compromise, as dissenting from the margins
normally comes with the luxury of ideological purity. And as with members
of the majority, racial minorities don’t just have a chance to represent their
own group—they have a chance to take their turn to stand in for the whole,
which Princeton Professor George Kateb describes as a key feature of
representative democracy.
If the “politics of recognition” theorists are correct that the diversity
paradigm—granting racial minorities a voice on every decision-making body
—represents an acknowledgment of equal status, then federalism and
localism acknowledge the ability of racial minorities not just to participate,
but to rule. In place of what some call the “politics of presence,” we have the
politics of power. In place of the dignity of voice, we have the dignity of
decisions.
The effects of turning the tables are not, of course, confined to racial
minorities. It also deprives whites of the comfort and power associated with
their majority status. The notion of turning the tables thus taps into a deeply
intuitive idea of democratic fairness. Democracy works better when the
usual losers sometimes win and the usual winners sometimes lose. Everyone
ought to experience, in the words of President Bush, a good “thumpin’.”
Working
AT: Medicare Impact Turn
Non-unique—Trump and the GOP already targeting a gut
of Medicare now
Fitzgerald 1/23/17
Jennifer Fitzgerald, the CEO and co-founder of PolicyGenius, an independent
digital insurance company for consumers. “Beyond Obamacare—How Trump
and Price will disrupt the health care system”,
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-price-plans-for-obamacare-
medicare-and-medicaid-commentary.html
the major change to
Whether you're talking about the Republicans in general or Trump in particular,
Medicaid will likely come in the form of block grants . In short, here's how Medicaid works
now: each dollar spent in the program by a state government is matched by the federal government. Sometimes more
Block grants would provide a
money is given for states with a higher number of low-income citizens.
lump sum of money to states. That's basically it. States wouldn't get additional
federal funds, which means that they'd either have to raise taxes to
make up the difference, charge enrollees, or cut spending to
programs. Paul Ryan wants to allow states to require adults to work or receive training before they receive
Medicaid funds, and to charge Medicaid premiums. Under Mike Pence, Indiana's Medicaid system began requiring
premium payments, a system that happened to be guided by Seema Verma, who Trump nominated to lead the Centers
Estimates predict that over the next decade, annual
for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
block grant increases would average 4.3 percent less than Medicaid's
projected growth, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also estimates that by 2024,
under Ryan's proposed plan, Medicaid and CHIP -- the Children's Health Insurance Program -- would be
cut by 26 percent. The Republican course of action will result in one of two different
outcomes: the residents of the state pay more (whether it's only the enrollees, or everyone in the form of tax
hikes) or the most vulnerable population loses access to much-needed services – or both.
Democracy
Federalism is key to democracy
Bednar 05 “Federalism as a Public Good”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10602-005-2235-5
Jenna Bednar is a professor of political science at the University
of Michigan and a member of the external faculty at the Santa
Fe Institute. Accessed 6/24/17 KDS AK
Madison praised federalism for its potential to improve the overall quality of
representation over what was present in the state legislatures prior to
federation, bolstering the feasibility of democracy (the Federalist, Elazar
1987, Ostrom 1991), Other benefits of federalism cite the value of
decentralization: it may more effectively manage heterogeneous
populations; distributing authority at lower levels may serve as a pressure
valve, releasing ethnic tensions (the Federalist, Horowitz 1985, Stepan
1999). In the fiscal federalism literature, decentralization permits citizens to
elect politicians who will tailor policy to meet local preferences or to move to
states that better match their interests (Tiebout 1956, Inman and Rubinfeld
1992, Peterson 1995, Donahue 1997, Oates 1999). Most federations are
established for multiple reasons. In the Federalist, Hamilton, Madison, and
Jay allude to the unions potential to make the states more secure against
foreign invasion, to improve the economy through establishment of a
common market, to minimize the incidence and consequences of skirmishes
between the states, and (particularly Madison), to improve the quality of
representative democracy. A third and fourth reason for federating should be mentioned. First, some federations were
established or encouraged by a colonial power with the aim of maintaining dependence, a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy. A fifth
objective comes from the political economy of fiscal federalism literature (see especially Cre´mer and Palfrey 1999, 2002 and Hafer and
Landa 2004). There are conditions where a majority would prefer federation to either confederation (no federal tax rate) or centralization
(no regional tax). However, one must note that these results really concern the divide-the-dollar potential of federalism: that is, how one
might divide the federal spoils. Given that federalism is an institutional arrangement, and that institutions create winners and losers, some
will prefer federalism—even a majority—if it allows them to take advantage of the minority. This advantage of federalism over unitary or
completely decentralized governance does not emphasize federalism’s potential to increase total utility; it is a calculation based upon the
utility of single agents. The redistributive aspects of federalism are very real, but are largely a problem of federalism, not a virtue (Filippov
et al. 2004). Neither of these reasons are selections that a public would make behind the veil of ignorance; that is, in both cases, federalism
is adopted to advantage some over others.
Democratic values are necessary for world peace

Lynn-Jones 98
http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-
democracy “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy.” March 1998.
Sean M. Lynn-Jones is Editor of International Security, the International
Security Program's quarterly journal. He is also series editor of the Belfer
Center Studies in International Security, the Program's book series that is
published by MIT Press. Sean previously served as Managing Editor of
International Security (1987–1991) and was a fellow at the Center (1984–
1987 and 1991–1992). He is a member of the board of the International
Security and Arms Control Section of the American Political Science
Association. Accessed 6/25/17 KDS AK
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies,
the spread of democracy will benefit the international system by
reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies do not wage war on other
democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the definitions of
"war" and "democracy" used-has been called "one of the strongest nontrivial
and nontautological generalizations that can be made about international
relations."51 One scholar argues that "the absence of war between
democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law
in international relations."52 If the number of democracies in the
international system continues to grow, the number of potential conflicts
that might escalate to war will diminish. Although wars between
democracies and nondemocracies would persist in the short run, in the long
run an international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful
world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would
gradually enlarge the democratic "zone of peace."
Constitution
Constitution Turn:
A. Federal regulation of education is unconstitutional.
Salisbury 3 — David F. Salisbury, Director of the Center for Educational
Freedom at the Cato Institute, former Associate Professor in the Department
of Educational Research at Florida State University, holds a Ph.D. in
Instructional Technology from Brigham Young University, 2003 (“28.
Department of Education,” Cato Handbook For Congress: Policy
Recommendations For The 108th Congress, Available Online at
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-handbook-
policymakers/2003/9/hb108-28.pdf, Accessed 06-11-2017, p. 295-296)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
—Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The U.S. Department of Education, formed in 1979 during the Carter
administration, represents an intrusion by the federal government into an
aspect of American society for which there is no constitutional authority.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress no authority whatsoever to collect
taxes for, fund, or operate schools. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment,
education should be entirely a state and local matter.
For more than 200 years, the federal government had left education to those
who were in the best position to oversee it—state and local governments and
families. Richard L. Lyman, president of Stanford University, who testified at
the congressional hearings on forming the new department, pointed out that
‘‘the two-hundred-year-old absence of a Department of Education is not the
result of simple failure during all that time. On the contrary, it derives from
the conviction that we do not want the kind of educational system that such
arrangements produce.’’
Without question, the Framers intended that most aspects of American life
would be outside the purview of the federal government. They never
envisioned that Congress or the president would become involved in funding
schools or mandating policy for classrooms. As constitutional scholar Roger
Pilon has said: ‘‘From beginning to end the [Constitution] never mentioned
the word ‘education.’ The people, in 1787 or since, have [end page 295]
never given the federal government any power over the subject—despite a
concern for education that surely predates the Constitution.’’
B. The Constitution is a moral decision rule. Ends-
based disads can’t outweigh.
Bayer 11 — Peter Brandon Bayer, Lawyering Process Professor at the
William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, former
Assistant Professor and Director of the Legal Research, Analysis, and
Writing Program at St. Thomas University School of Law, holds an LL.M.
from Harvard Law School, a J.D. from New York University School of Law,
and an M.A. in Sociology from New York University, 2011 (“Sacrifice and
Sacred Honor: Why the Constitution is a ‘Suicide Pact’,” William & Mary Bill
of Rights Journal (20 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 287), December, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Introduction
To be a true constitution, that which a society calls its constitution must
enforce values so imperative, so fundamental, that the constitution
comprises not only a way to live but more profoundly, a reason to die.
Customarily through, for example, military service, individual citizens or
groups of citizens may be required to risk their lives to preserve their
constitution and the nation over which it presides. However, a true
constitution rightfully demands that the entire constitutional order —the
whole society regulated by that constitution—risk its own demise rather
than betray the essential precepts that the constitution embodies. Only
principles of such magnitude warrant inclusion in the supreme document of
a particular people. n1 [*290]
Simply believing that a particular constitution is worth dying for, however, is
not enough. To be a legitimate constitution—to actually be worthy of such
communal sacrifice—the given constitution must be moral; that is, both
designed to enforce and actually capable of enforcing the abiding moral
duties that demarcate legitimate from illegitimate governments.
Pursuant to the character of true and legitimate constitutions, the
Constitution of the United States defines who we are, what we are and,
most importantly, why we are. Our Constitution purports to set the
governing minima without which no society may be legitimate. Accordingly,
and quite deliberately, while a legal document, the Constitution is a
profoundly moral thesis as well. It could not be otherwise because the
Constitution's overarching endeavor is enforced morality, specifically
"fundamental fairness" via due process of law n2 which, as Justice Felix
Frankfurter aptly enthused, is "ultimate decency in a civilized society . . . ."
n3 America's validation stems from the morality of the Constitution and how
steadfastly we maintain it. n4
In contravention of our constitutional duty is the long-standing chestnut: the
Constitution is not a suicide pact. n5 Of course, no one would argue that the
Constitution is literally a "suicide pact," meaning the Constitution requires
those governed thereunder to kill themselves. n6 Nor would reasonable
theorists claim it to be a suicide pact [*291] "in the sense that the
Constitution was meant to fail." n7 Rather, commentators apply the not a
suicide pact metaphor to support the Constitution of necessity , the premise
that if circumstances raise significant jeopardy and lesser measures appear
unavailing, government may do virtually anything—abridge or suspend any
liberty—both to preserve the nation and to ensure the well-being of its
institutions. n8
Several critics challenge that theory's empirical bases arguing, for example,
that the definition of "necessity" is overinclusive. n9 Critics further argue
that the Constitution of necessity betrays pivotal American principles of law,
rights, dignity and separation of powers. n10 However, criticism usually
stops well short of accepting the Constitution as a metaphorical "suicide
pact," averring instead that necessity is the ultimate "compelling state
interest," overpowering liberty if the exigency is dire enough. n11
I join the very few n12 who respond that, even if limited to situations of
actual imminent danger to the very continuation of American society,
necessity as the Constitution's "first principle" defies the Constitution's true
moral nucleus that explains and justifies our nation: due process of law.
While many articles challenge the Constitution of necessity as anathema to
the inherent nature of American government, n13 such arguments alone
cannot explain why, under sufficiently urgent circumstances, we ought not to
abandon all constitutional liberty if that is what it takes, for however long it
takes, with the earnest intent to restore liberty the very moment the danger
has passed. n14 [*292]
Accordingly, this Article proposes a deeper grounding to explain why the
Constitution is a suicide pact. Specifically, morality, the very fabric of the
Constitution, forbids us from abandoning our basic moral-societal precept of
due process, even when faithful abidance is extraordinarily dangerous.
We must understand that more than simple liberty is essential to our
constitutional government. Rather, we must appreciate that government
ensures liberty as integral to its unalterable duty to be moral. Liberty is not
an end in itself, but a means; preserving morality is the end, the absolute
goal of government. Thus, in a unique figurative sense, the Constitution
must be a suicide pact, for as the prominent ethicist Immanuel Kant nobly
appreciated regarding morality's overarching context, "Let justice be done
even if the world should perish." n15
The proof takes several steps. Part I undertakes a thorough review of
deontology, the philosophy arguing—correctly, I believe—that morality is
transcendent, a set of a priori principles discernable through reason.
Morality, then, does not care what the possible outcomes of a particular
moral problem may be. n16 Pursuant to deontological philosophy, the
"sacrifice," to which the title of this Article refers, is the duty to abide by
morality no matter what the cost. n17
Thereafter, Part II argues that this Nation's originators were deontologists
who declared in the Nation's founding document that government is
legitimate only insofar as it safeguards morality derived from "the Laws of
Nature and Nature's God," manifested as "unalienable Rights that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." n18 For the
preservation of those moral principles, the Founders pledged their "Lives,"
"Fortunes," and "sacred Honor," n19 meaning that it is the duty of all
Americans—their "sacred Honor"—to sacrifice, if necessary, their lives and
property to defend legitimate government. We thus discover an interesting,
informative and useful provenance linking the sacrifices attendant to
deontological morality with the birth of the United States. n20
The Founders understood that their appreciation of, and dedication to,
morality was incomplete—a confession analysts find apt as evinced by the
presence of slavery, [*293] along with several other strikingly unethical
political and pragmatic arrangements surrounding both the Declaration and
its later legal iteration, the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders expected
future generations to enrich the moral bases of America, including
repudiating ideas and practices that the Founders themselves accepted. n21
Part III asserts that the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant, as contemporarily
understood, presents the improved moral philosophy hoped for by the
Founders. Written shortly after the American Revolution, Kant's theory of
dignity explains why obeying morality is more important than life itself;
n22 a principle applicable not only to persons and groups, but also to
nations and societies. Kantian ethics, therefore, explicate that the highest
principle is not survival but, rather, moral rectitude.
Kant's ideas should control the understanding of the Constitution , most
particularly the commands of due process of law, as Part IV explains.
Although never explicitly cited as authority, Kant's dignity principle informs
modern due process jurisprudence, which is sensible because the
Constitution was drafted to enforce the moral quest commemorated in the
Declaration. The comfortable application of Kantian ethics to constitutional
due process demonstrates that, in the singular sense described above, the
Constitution should be, must be and is a suicide pact.
Civil Rights
State power is important for racial minorities’ rights
Gerken 12 (Heather K. Gerken is a professor at Yale Law School. Gerken has
an undergrad from Princeton University and a Law degree from the University of
Michigan Law School. Gerken is the author of The Democracy Index: Why Our
Education System is Failing and how to fix it. Spring 2012. “A New Progressive
Federalism.” The Democracy Journal. http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/24/a-
new-progressive-federalism/ Kent Denver - ES)
But it is a mistake to equate federalism’s past with its future. State and
local governments have become sites of empowerment for racial
minorities and dissenters, the groups that progressives believe have
the most to fear from decentralization. In fact, racial minorities and
dissenters can wield more electoral power at the local level than they do at
the national. And while minorities cannot dictate policy outcomes at the
national level, they can rule at the state and local level. Racial minorities
and dissenters are using that electoral muscle to protect themselves from
marginalization and promote their own agendas. Progressives have long looked to
the realm of rights to shield racial minorities and dissenters from unfriendly majorities. Iconic
measures like the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting
Rights Act all offer rights-based protections for minorities. But reliance on rights
requires that racial minorities and dissenters look to the courts to shield
them from the majority. If rights are the only protections afforded to racial
minorities and dissenters, we risk treating both groups merely as what
Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan calls “objects of judicial solicitude
rather than efficacious political actors in their own right.” Minority rule, by
contrast, allows racial minorities and dissenters to act as efficacious political
actors, just as members of the majority do . Think, for example, about where
groups we would normally call a “minority” now actually constitute a
majority: a mostly African-American city like Atlanta, a city such as San
Francisco where the majority favors same-sex marriage, or a state like
California or Texas where Latinos will soon be in the majority. In each of
those cases, minority rule—where national minorities constitute local
majorities—allows minorities to protect themselves rather than look to
courts as their source of solace. It empowers racial minorities and
dissenters not by shielding them from the majority, but by turning
them into one.
Domestic Terrorism
Or: Nat. Disasters
Collapse of federalism kills homeland security
effectiveness
Roberts 14
Professor in Government at the Virginia Tech Center for Public
Administration and Policy [Patrick, “The Lessons of Civil Defense Federalism
for the Homeland Security Era,” Journal of Policy History, Vol. 26, No. 3, p.
354-356, Emory Libraries]
homeland security could learn from civil
From the point of view of American government,
defense’s success in using federalism to meet diverse needs across geographic
regions and mission areas. Contemporary homeland security programs have drawn criticism for
developing procedures that prioritize the terrorist threat and marginalize efforts to prepare for natural
Homeland security policies have also been shown to
hazards such as fires and floods.3
lack coordination and accountability, and reformers have proposed greater centralization
and federal government oversight to bring coherence to the field.4 In contrast to this recommendation,
thedecentralized federalism of the early civil defense period offers advantages over
the more heriarchical and centralized approach to today’s homeland security. [End
Page 354]
This article analyzes three areas in which civil defenders achieved purposes that ought to be of interest
to today’s homeland security officials: public involvement, state and local implementation of a national
program, and preparation for natural disasters. Homeland security agencies have achieved mixed results
at best in these areas. One of the primary achievements of civil defense, in contrast, was the substantial
level of public involvement in and awareness of the program in its World War II and Cold War varieties.
To be fair, Americans during that period were more likely to belong to voluntary associations such as the
PTA or church groups than to participate in formal civil defense programs.5 Nevertheless, the point of
civil defense was to build awareness of the collective national effort to prepare for attack, and many
Americans did volunteer. During World War II, a small number of civil servants recruited citizen
volunteers to plan evacuation routes and blackout drills and monitor the skies for enemy aircraft. The
collective national effort continued on a smaller scale during the Cold War.
In addition to public involvement in a national project, civil defenders at the state and local level
succeeded in using a national and largely military program to prepare for natural disasters. For example,
North Carolina’s governor created programs to involve citizens in military-style planning for air attacks
When disasters did occur, civil defense
as well as planning for floods and hurricanes.
agencies and volunteers used their managerial and technical skills to aid in
the response. State and local civil defenders went beyond the militaristic
national aims of civil defense in implementing the programs in their
districts. National leaders knew that this flexibility helped to make civil
defense more palatable; a national-level program to prepare for attack
from overseas was a hard sell unless the program could have some day-to-
day utility for states and localities. Since then, American federalism has
transformed from a division of labor among separate spheres to greater
cooperation among levels of government to a situation where federal
authorities presume to take the lead in all domains. The collapse of an
earlier federalism of shared responsibilities has been costly for
today’s homeland security programs.6
One obvious basis for comparison is the shared federal character of both Cold War civil defense and
contemporary homeland security. Cold War civil defense was arguably a more successful case of
homeland security
subnational governments using federalism to suit their needs, whereas
policies have spawned complaints about an overbearing national-level
bureaucracy. For example, May et al. criticize homeland security’s “failure to foster a
strong [End Page 355] constituency among state and local interests, or among
first responders.”7 What is more, some homeland security officials have made the same point:
during his tenure, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff hyperbolically
warned against a “‘Soviet-style’ management, where there’s the heavy hand of
government on everything” version of homeland security . Instead, he thought
states and localities should have more discretion .8 By contrast, one might say
that civil defense half a century ago showed the light hand of government and the dividends of such an
approach.
Civil defense’s successes are remarkable given that national politicians interpreted civil defense as first
and foremost a defensive military tactic. In achieving its defense aim, however, President Dwight
Eisenhower recognized that effective civil defense needed cooperation from
localities. Eisenhower was one of the last presidents to endorse the spirit of cooperative federalism,
where the national government pursues national aims but has faith in the distinctive capacities of the
The construction of interstate highway systems is the paradigmatic
states.9
example: Congress appropriated the funds and set standards, while states carried out the
construction. Like civil defense, the highway project was justified as essential for national defense, but
the roads were used largely for civilian purposes. Eisenhower used the same rhetoric of cooperative
federalism in other domains. “Civil
defense by its nature is a critical local problem,”
he said. “You cannot give civil defense to Atlanta from New York City or vice
versa. The people on the spot have got to take an interest or it cannot be
done.”10 The need for local buy in allowed state and local civil defense
agencies to use their resources to prepare for a range of situations,
including natural disasters. Local buy in also required local mobilization ,
signing up people to volunteer for drills and campaigns.
In an age in which American government is criticized for being broken because of its outdated
Constitution and gridlock among branches of government, or when federalism is said to fail
during catastrophic disasters, the history of civil defense provides a more hopeful
example.11 One of the virtues of American federalism is its ability to respond to different needs in
different geographic areas. The development of speedy and expert hurricane preparations and response
in Florida and California’s evolving building codes to protect against earthquakes are just two
contemporary examples of how subnational governments made innovations beyond national government
civil defense also shows the virtues of an American
standards.12 The history of
federalism that allows states and localities to participate in a national
project, while giving them substantial discretion to meet
geographically-specific needs. [End Page 356]
That’s key to prevent terrorism

Jenkins 15
Senior Adviser to the RAND President and a MA in history from University of
California (Los Angeles) [Brian, “The Implications of the Paris Terrorist
Attack for American Strategy in Syria and Homeland Security,” RAND, Nov
2015, p. 8-10,
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT445/RAN
D_CT445.pdf, accessed 15 Aug 2016]
The United States must be prepared for an array of terrorist attacks—mini-
Mumbai scenarios like the one carried out in Paris cannot be ruled out.
Authorities have uncovered a number of plots involving armed assaults by
gunmen and suicide attacks. More likely to unfold on American soil, however, are the low-level,
often amateurish attempts that we are familiar with.
Larger-scale terrorist plots, if initiated from abroad, would still require local confederates. The record of
U.S. intelligence efforts since 9/11 has been remarkable. Of close to 60 known jihadist terrorist plots, all
but a handful have been interrupted. We are batting .900.
Intelligence has been our first line of defense. The 9/11 attacks brought about unprecedented
international cooperation among intelligence services and law enforcement organizations. This needs to
be maintained and expanded. Our European allies are still struggling to achieve the kind of cooperation
among their intelligence services that we have achieved here. The United States should assist Europe in
whatever way it can while enhancing American access to vital information on foreign fighters or terrorist
networks that could threaten U.S. security.
Americans are uncomfortable with domestic intelligence efforts, and some

communities find them offensive. Domestic intelligence is vital to
homeland security and to preventing the kind of suspicions and hostilities
that arise when terrorist attacks occur. Efforts aimed at countering violent extremism,
which some communities find equally offensive, cannot substitute for domestic intelligence and criminal
investigations.
Foreign fighters coming back from Syria must be identified. The Visa Waiver
program does not offer anybody a free pass to enter the country. There are still checks in place. But
terrorist watch lists need to be informed by continuing exchanges of
information between the United States and visa waiver countries.
The intelligence role of U.S. Customs and Border Protection can be enhanced. Secondary interviews of
U.S. ports of entry should be viewed as opportunities to collect
those arriving at
intelligence. I am not suggesting that we increase the number of secondary interviews, but that we
exploit them.
The United States does not face the deluge of refugees pouring into Europe. Unlike Europe, U.S.
authorities will have more opportunities to vet applicants before they arrive, and the numbers being
admitted are much smaller.
However, these are extraordinary circumstances. While the refugees may be fleeing from some of the
same groups that are currently being attacked by the United States, they are coming from an active war
America’s opponents are
zone where violence continues, where loyalties are fluid, and where
exhorting followers to carry out terrorist attacks in the U nited States. Security
concerns dictate thorough vetting.
It is not just a matter of keeping the bad guys out. The refugees currently flowing into Europe include a
large percentage of single young males. This is typical of refugee populations, but these young men are
coming from violent environments; they have little or no education; they will be difficult to employ.
Frustrated and angry, some will turn to crime. Others may be receptive to radical ideologies.
Recruiting does happen here. Beginning in 2007, several dozen Somali-Americans,

mainly from Minneapolis, returned to Somalia to fight invaders from Ethiopia and later
to join al Qaeda’s affiliate, al-Shabaab. This was a community already troubled by its young men
joining street gangs. After learning of the recruiting that had secretly been going on, the community
cooperated with authorities to successfully halt it.
The United States excels at assimilating immigrants, but a tiny fraction of America’s new arrivals
invariably bring the quarrels of their homeland with them. In a country of immigrants, this is not a new
phenomenon. Previous diasporas have produced their share of terrorist groups and criminal gangs. There
is no evidence, as far as I know, to indicate that Arab or Muslim immigrants in this country are having
trouble assimilating into American society.
Theconflicts in the Middle East and their consequences add layers to the
existing terrorist threat. The threat is dynamic, and every major terrorist attack tells
us more about how our foes operate.
Extinction
Hellman 8
Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis
of Nuclear Deterrence” SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI,
http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a
full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order
A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a
before proceeding.
catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station
on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in
direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-
ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant . Former Secretary of Defense
William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the
next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons
inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one percent, but notes, “We would never accept a
situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A
nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but
In a survey of 85 national security experts,
extremely low-probability.” [Hegland 2005].
Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the “probability of an
attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in
the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it more
likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-
15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent
terrorism is one of the potential trigger
with the approach of this article. Because
mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include
estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall
risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce
which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear
war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the
threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are
unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In
society’s almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war
fact,
makes studying that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The
danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3
This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with
the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean
a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be
termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World
War II’s fatalities were double or triple that number—chaos prevented a more precise determination.
In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those
two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but
survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while
horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover.
In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961
speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, “Global war
has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you
No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a
stand only to lose.
duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide .” Former Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S.
and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed”
[McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam
Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were
“totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth
and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the
horrendous toll that World War III would exact: “The
resulting deaths would be far
beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77
percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and
30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30
days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical
care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the following winter, but it is not possible to
estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects.” [OTA 1979,
page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a
concern that assumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash
nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms
and dust from so many nearly simultaneous
could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the
face of the earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the
dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking
Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether
a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests
that even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as
India and Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due
to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is
uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi-
neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and
assume that preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option .
Education
State control of education is key to successful reform –
federal oversight ensures the plan fails
Hess and Kelly 15 (Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy
studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Andrew Kelly, resident
scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the
American Enterprise Institute, 9/15/15, “More Than a Slogan,”
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-
federalism-in-education-matters, MH)
Federalism matters for at least five reasons. It's a matter of size. Education
advocates suffer from severe bouts of Finland and Singapore envy. They tend to ignore that most of these
nations have populations of 5 million or so, or about the population of Maryland or Massachusetts.
Trying to make rules for schools in a nation that's as large and diverse as the
U.S. is simply a different challenge. It aligns responsibility and
accountability with authority. One problem with tackling education
reform from Washington is that it's not members of Congress or federal
bureaucrats who are charged with making things work or who are held
accountable when they don't. Instead, responsibility and blame fall on state
leaders and on the leaders in those schools , districts and colleges who do the actual
work. The more authority moves up the ladder in education, the more this divide worsens. It steers
decisions towards the practical. No Child Left Behind promised that 100 percent of
students would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. President Barack Obama wants to ensure that
all students can attend community college for "free" – though most of the funds would come from states.
It's easy for D.C. politicians to make grand promises and leave the
consequences to someone else. State leaders must balance the budget and
are answerable to voters for what happens in schools and colleges; this
tends to make them more pragmatic in pursuing reform . When policymakers are
embedded in a community, as mayors and state legislators are, there is also more trust and
opportunity for compromise. That kind of practicality might disappoint firebrands eager for
national solutions, but it's a better bet for students than the wish lists and airy promises of Beltway pols.
It leaves room for varied approaches to problem-solving. One of the
perils of trying to "solve" things from Washington is that we wind up with
one-size-fits-all solutions. No Child Left Behind emerged from a wave of state-based efforts to
devise testing and accountability systems. Those state efforts were immensely uneven,
but they allowed a variety of approaches to emerge, yielding the opportunity
to learn, refine and reinvent. That's much more difficult when Washington is seeking
something that can be applied across 50 states. It ensures that reform efforts actually
have local roots. The Obama administration's Race to the Top program
convinced lots of states to promise to do lots of things. The results have been
predictably disappointing. Rushing to adopt teacher evaluation systems on a political timeline,
states have largely made a hash of the exercise. Free college proposals make the same mistake; they
depend on states and colleges promising to spend more money and adopt federally sanctioned reforms,
an approach that seems destined to frustrate policymakers' best-laid plans.
Failed states
Federal overreach has international ramifications
Herrell et al, 16 Yvette Herrell is an American politician and a
Republican member of the New Mexico House of Representatives (May 13,
“Federalism and International Relations,” American Legislative Exchange
Council, https://www.alec.org/task-force/federalism-and-international-
relations/) AAB
State legislators and their constituents are stakeholders in many of the most
important national and international issues of the day. The members of
the Federalism and International Relations Task Force believe in the power
of free markets and limited government to propel economic growth in the
United States and around the globe, and that these guiding principles are
just as relevant overseas as they are in America. The Task Force brings
together state legislators, policy experts and industry representatives to
develop model policy to increase exports, safeguard intellectual property
rights, promote the nation’s security, and restore the Constitutionally-
designated balance of power between the states and the federal
government.
The Task Force has considered and adopted model policy on the very
initiatives that grow the U.S. economy, create American jobs and unleash the
innovative policy-making capacity of all 50 states. Model policy to address
the finalization of a truly free-market Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as well
as leverage America’s growing ability to export domestically produced
energy are among those in the International policy portfolio. However,
American ingenuity and the intellectual property (IP) underpinning it are the
engines driving U.S. economic growth. Underscoring the important role that
strong IP rights play in creating high-paying American jobs and spurring
America’s innovation economy round out the Task Force’s International
model policy library.
Real solutions to America’s challenges can be found in the states –
America’s fifty laboratories of democracy – not in one-size-fits-all federal
government policies that disregard regional differences and local community
needs. The nation has drifted away from our Founding Fathers’ vision by
concentrating more power with national government structures.
Overregulation and redundant bureaucracy that hinder economic growth, a
ballooning national debt that threatens our nation’s security, and federal
mismanagement of our country’s most precious resource – the lands within
America’s borders – have been the consequences of this federal overreach.
The Task Force has adopted model policy supporting the use of Article V of
the U.S. Constitution as a tool to restore appropriate control to the states
including the proposal of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. ALEC has established the Center to Restore the Balance of
Government to serve as a resource to state on setting priorities on state
sovereignty issues and to provide the tools lawmakers need to champion
policies that lead to state control over state issues.
This unique partnership between those interested in international issues and
those whose primary focus is federalism has served Task Force members
and the model policy adopted in the Task Force well. Our models are
discussed at the highest levels of U.S. federal and state governments, and
foreign governments and international bodies are familiar with ALEC model
policy related to their regions.
Decentralized federalism is key to the survival of fragile

multi-national states
Abdinoor, 13 – Graduate degree Candidate @ The University of Nairobi
Institute of Diplomacy and International Studies at time of writing, now MSc
@ University of Nairobi & BBA @ Kenya Methodist University(Abdi,
“FEDERALISM AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR PEACE AND
RECONSTRUCTION: THE CASE OF SOMALIA”, UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI,
2013,
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/93115/Abdinoor_Fede
ralism%20as%20an%20instrument%20for%20peace%20and
%20reconstruction%3a%20the%20case%20of%20Somalia.pdf?
sequence=2&isAllowed=y, Accessed: 6/30/17)//SL
Decentralized federal constitutions are characterized by fairly

autonomous provinces and a weak central authority in the powers
granted to the executive and national parliament. The Brazilian and
American versions both exemplify cases with strong regional states and a
relatively weak central government. In the American model, when coming
together states voluntarily pooled their sovereignty and designed a
constitution to protect their rights against encroachments by the central
government, and hence to limited majority rule.23 In the US Senate, each
state is equally weighted, with two members per state, whether California or
Nebraska, irrespective of the size of their electorate. The powers of the US
Senate are also roughly counterbalanced by the House of Representatives.
The US-model of federalism therefore limits the powers of the executive and
the popular branch of the legislature. The Brazilian constitution also
illustrates this model with a political system combining a fragmented
multiparty system with ‘personalistic’ and undisciplined parties, the
separation of executive-legislative powers, and vigorous state federalism.24
As a result of divided government and the weaknesses of parties, Brazilian
democracy has frequently experienced legislative-executive stalemate and
policymaking logjams, generating what has been termed ‘deadlocked
democracy’, or a crisis of governability.25
By contrast, centralized federal constitutions grant only limited autonomy to
states and allocate the predominant power and authority to the central
government, whether the president and executive branch or the prime
minister representing the largest party in the lower house of parliament.
These cases are closer to the unitary model. In Austria, Belgium, and India,
for example, the number of state representatives sitting in the upper
chamber is weighted by the size of the electorate within each state, and the
lower house retains greater powers than the upper. Moreover in cases of
asymmetrical federalism, such as in India and Canada, some rights are
limited to specific linguistic or cultural minorities, such as those granted to
Franco-phones in Quebec or to Muslim family courts in India, rather than
being universal. The Indian and Belgian constitutions retained greater
powers for the central state, with some concessions made to states’ rights in
order to contain pressures for succession.
In Malaysia, power is shared among a few main regions, with restricted
political or fiscal decision-making among lower tiers of government. 26
During the early1990s, powerful ethnically based republics challenged the
central authorities in the Russian Federation on key reforms, and a weak
federal government appeared unable to counter their claims to sovereignty.
The interpretation of recent developments remains a matter of dispute, with
some observers seeing Russia persisting as a weak federation, while others
suggest that regional prerogatives have been substantially curtailed since
the election of 2000, with Moscow reasserting central control.27
The advantages of decentralization should be particular evident in deeply-

divided plural societies. Different institutional forms of decentralization,
notably federal constitutions, have long been recommended as the
preferred mode of democratic governance designed to maintain
stability within multinational states. Lijphart theorizes that if political
boundaries for subnational governments reflect social boundaries,
diverse plural societies can become homogeneous within their regions,
thereby reducing communal violence, promoting political stability,
and facilitating the accommodation of diverse interests within the
boundaries of a single state.28 Plural societies are characterized by the
existence of multiple groups, whether demarcated by class, linguistic,
religious, racial, tribal, or caste-based identities. Federalism and
decentralization are thought to be particularly important strategies for
plural societies where groups live in geographically concentrated
communities and where the administrative boundaries for political units
reflect the distribution of these groups.
These arrangements allow spatially-concentrated groups a considerable
degree of self determination to manage their own affairs and to protect
their own cultural, social, and economic interests within their own
communities, for example to control religious teachings in school
curriculums, to determine levels of local taxation and expenditure for poorer
marginalized areas which have lost out to development, to administer
internal security forces and justice systems, and to establish language policy
regulating public broadcasting and official documents.29
Federal constitutions represent only one form of decentralization and similar
claims can be advanced for other related institutions. In plural societies,
where ethnic groups are geographically dispersed, Lijphart30 theorizes that
administrative and political decentralization also helps to promote
accommodation, for example allowing minorities to elect local
representatives who could manage policies towards culturally sensitive
issues such as education. Local forms of decision-making can be regarded as
particularly important for the management of tensions among specific ethnic
communities living within particular areas, by facilitating the inclusion of
leaders drawn from ethnic minorities through municipal and state elections.
In England, for example, municipal councils facilitate the election of
representatives drawn from the Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, and Afro-
Caribbean communities in the inner city areas of Birmingham, Bradford,
Leeds, and London, where minority populations are concentrated. Through
decentralization, ethnic communities can protect their rights and
defend their interests in specific local areas, even within unitary
states.
Lijphart and other scholars have emphasized the importance of
decentralization for stability, peace-building and democratic
consolidation in fragile multinational states. For example, when
comparing data from the Minorities at Risk project, Bermeo adds that armed
rebellions are three times more common among groups living in unitary than
in federal states, while these groups also experience lower levels of
discrimination and grievances.31 Stephan is also a strong proponent of this
form of government, suggesting that plural societies such as the Russian
Federation, Indonesia, and Burma/Myanmar will never become consolidated
democracies without workable federal systems. All stable contemporary
multinational democracies are federal, including Switzerland, Canada,
Belgium, Spain and India. At the same time he warns that federal
arrangements pose serious risks for the emergence of ethnic nationalist
parties in transitional states emerging from autocracy where regional
elections are held prior to nation-wide contests. 32 Additionally, Gurr has
also advocated power-sharing arrangements and group autonomy as a
solution to deep-rooted ethnic conflict and civil wars. 33 Hechter also
suggests that plural states such as India and Nigeria would probably not
have survived without some form of decentralized governance.34
Failed states cause nuclear war – extinction

AFC 07 (African Studies Centre et al, The Transnational Institute, The
Center of Social Studies, Coimbra University, and The Peace Research
Center – CIP-FUHEM, “Failed and Collapsed States in the International
System,”
http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/archives/reports/failedstates.pdf,
December 2007, NRG)
In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would
mean that several more countries in the world could not be held to account for respecting international agreements in various
fields, be it commercial transactions, debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and the use of the national territory for criminal or terrorist activities. The
increase in failed states would immediately lead to an increase in international migration, which
could have a knock-on effect, first in neighbouring countries which, having similar politico-
economic structures, could suffer increased destabilization and collapse as well.
Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example. Increased
international migration would, secondly, have serious implications for the Western world. In
Europe it would put social relations between the population and immigrant communities under
further pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also endanger the
security of Western states and societies. Health conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like
Ebola or Sars would spread because of a lack of measures taken in collapsed areas. Weapons of mass
destruction could come into the hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups,
political factions in control of part of a collapsed state or an aggressive political elite still in control of a national
territory and intent on expansion. Not only North Korea springs to mind; one could very well imagine such states in
(North) Africa. Since the multilateral system of control of such weapons would have ended in part
because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through unilateral
action - a system that would inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime
- one could be faced with an arms race that would sooner or later result in the actual
use of these weapons. In the malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also further
deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as trade relations, thus undercutting any
possible consensus on stemming the growth of collapsed states and the introduction of
stable multilateral regimes towards matters like terrorism, nuclear weapons and
international migration. Disagreement is already rife on a host of issues in these fields. At
worst, even the Western members of the Westphalian system - especially those bordering on
countries in the former Third World, i.e. the European states - could be faced with direct
attacks on their national security.
Syria Modelling
Federalism is necessary to solve Syria.
Michael O'Hanlon 15, 10-6-2015, "Syria’s one hope may be as dim as
Bosnia’s once was," Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-
debate/2015/10/06/syrias-one-hope-may-be-as-dim-as-bosnias-once-was/
To find common purpose with Russia, Washington should keep in mind the
Bosnia model, devised to end the fierce Balkan conflicts in the 1990s. In that 1995
agreement, a weak central government was set up to oversee three largely
autonomous zones. In similar fashion, a future Syria could be a confederation of several sectors:
one largely Alawite (Assad’s own sect), spread along the Mediterranean coast; another Kurdish, along the
north and northeast corridors near the Turkish border; a third primarily Druse, in the southwest; a fourth
largely made up of Sunni Muslims; and then a central zone of intermixed groups in the country’s main
population belt from Damascus to Aleppo. The last zone would likely be difficult to stabilize, but the
others might not be so tough. Under such an arrangement, Assad would ultimately have to step down
As a compromise, however, he could perhaps remain
from power in Damascus.
leader of the Alawite sector. A weak central government would replace him.
But most of the power, as well as most of the armed forces. would reside
within the individual autonomous sectors — and belong to the various
regional governments. In this way, ISIL could be targeted collectively by all
the sectors. Once this sort of deal is reached, international peacekeepers
would likely be needed to hold it together — as in Bosnia. Russian troops could help
with this mission, stationed, for example, along the Alawite region’s borders. This deal is not, of course,
ripe for negotiation. To make it plausible, moderate forces must first be strengthened. The West also
needs to greatly expand its training and arming of various opposition forces that do not include ISIL or al-
Nusra. Vetting standards might also have to be relaxed in various ways. American and other foreign
trainers would need to deploy inside Syria, where the would-be recruits actually live — and must stay, if
they are to protect their families. Meanwhile,regions now accessible to international
forces, starting perhaps with the Kurdish and Druse sectors, could begin
receiving humanitarian relief on a much expanded scale. Over time, the
number of accessible regions would grow, as moderate opposition forces are
strengthened. Though it could take many months, or even years, to achieve the
outcome Washington wants, setting out the goals and the strategy now is
crucial. Doing so could provide a basis for the West’s working together with
— or at least not working against — other key outside players in the conflict,
including Russia, as well as Turkey, the Gulf states and Iraq. The Russian
intervention in this war has admittedly made things far more complicated. But if Washington uses
this moment to recognize that its current strategy in Syria is failing, it may
find a path forward that could offer better cooperation between Moscow and
Washington. More important, this could be a path that meshes far more
realistically with the realities of power and politics inside this forlorn, war-
torn land.
Philipinnes Modelling
The Philippines may adopt the US’ model of federalism
Rood 16, Steven, “Finding Federalism in the Philippines.” Steven Rood is
a part of Asia Foundation. October 1, 2016. East Asia Forum
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/10/01/finding-federalism-in-the-
philippines/
This is all due to the convictions of one man: President Rodrigo Duterte.
Advocacy for federalism has its centre of gravity in the Mindanao region.
From the perspective of a Davao — the region’s largest city — Manila is
overbearing. In Mindanao, federalism is seen as a way of satisfying the
aspirations of its local Muslim population by adding to the powers that have
already been devolved to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Federalism was
discussed briefly in the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987
Constitution, but was rejected due to fears of fragmentation . As part of the post-
dictatorship thrust towards democracy, a degree of decentralisation was instituted under the 1991 Local
Government Code, which introduced local-level responsibility for health, environment, social services and
agriculture. Some have argued that local governments have not fulfilled these mandates. Others have
By the end of the decade,
suggested that insufficient power and funds were devolved in 1991.
arguments were being made that federalism was the next step in bringing
democracy to communities throughout the country. In 2005, then president Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo convened another Constitutional Commission and appointed Jose Abueva as chair, a
leading federalism advocate. But the Commission’s recommendations did not include federalism. Instead
it recommended an indefinitely long process of instituting ‘autonomy’ in different areas. Opposition from
the Commission’s members and elected provincial politicians stymied the move. Following this the focus
of the debate shifted to instituting a parliamentary system of governance rather than the current
presidential form — this may have been a maneuver to secure another term for Macapagal-Arroyo who
Advocates of a shift to federalism often pair it with a
was the president at the time.
desire to change to a parliamentary form of government . But this is unpopular with
the average citizen. Surveys have repeatedly found that Filipinos want to vote for their leaders instead of
Surveys also show
having members of the legislature decide who heads the executive branch.
that while there is little knowledge about federalism among the population,
people generally favour greater autonomy of regions and localities. This vague
endorsement by citizens is unsurprising given that even their elected leaders seem uncertain on the
topic. In an interview, Duterte argued for a federal parliamentary system, similar to that seen in
But he also added that the Philippines could look into
Singapore and Malaysia.
adopting the model used by the United States. Singapore, as an island-state,
is not federal. The US is federal but also presidential. And while it is true
that Malaysia has a parliamentary government with federalism, it is
described as centralised. As the national legislature begins to consider ways to amend the
constitution — possibly after another round of recommendations — Duterte’s direction of change is not at
all clear.
Federalism in the Philippines will reap many benefits

Senate Press Release 4-4-17, “Federalism to solve inequities and
longstanding problems in the Philippines.” April 4, 2017. Senate of the
Philippines.
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2017/0404_pimentel2.asp
in the Philippines, Senate President Aquilino L.
With social and economic inequity rising
Pimentel III told legislators from all over the world that the Philippine
government was eyeing a major structural reform to ensure that all Filipinos enjoy the fruits of
the country's economic growth: the adoption of federalism. Addressing participants of the
136th Interparliamentary Union Assembly, the Senate President said that the country's "chosen weapon
to fight the inter-generational problems of poverty, inequality, and the societal instability that result
therefrom, is not merely policy change but structural change-structural change in the form of the
adoption of the Federal System of Government." The senator from Mindanao, who gave a speech on the
assembly's theme, "On Redressing Inequalities: Delivering on Dignity and Well-Being for All," explained
the Philippines, like the rest of the world, was also grappling with "the
that
wealth gap." "Reports indicate that GDP and GNP Growth rates in the world have been rising. Yet,
despite these rising rates, serious inequalities on income, economic opportunity and political inclusion
still persist, threatening to jeopardize economic sustainability, reverse the progress on poverty, and affect
world security," lamented Pimentel. "The
Philippines," stressed Pimentel, "is too
familiar with this wealth gap, especially the gap which exists within the
country. Last year, our economy again posted a strong 6.6% growth in GDP, following steady growth in
the previous years-but it has yet to be truly felt by the majority of our citizens, especially the poor that
still comprise a little more than 1/4 of our population." Pimentel said that contributing to this problem
was the fact that the Philippines is a unitary state, with more than 60% of its GDP generated in Metro
Manila and the areas near the national capital. Pimentel admitted that "the poorest and least developed
areas of the Philippines are found in the far south of the capital, in the island called Mindanao." "In short,
the richest areas in the Philippines are the capital and those closest to it. The poorest are those farthest
from the capital." The election of President Rodrigo Duterte in May 2016, explained Pimentel, was the
electorate's response to this longstanding problem. One of the major thrusts of Duterte, the first
President from Mindanao, is the country's adoption of federalism. " We
believe that by
federalizing the Philippines, we immediately obtain the following benefits:
we involve the regions in national decision making; we accelerate the
economic development of the regions as the regions will be free to
determine their over-all direction," said Pimentel. The 1990 Bar topnotcher revealed that
under the proposed federalism plan of Duterte, the country will be divided into eleven regions, thereby
the shift to federalism would
resulting in "eleven centers of power." According to Pimentel,
also encourage the preservation of the culture, language, and other
practices and beliefs of our the country's numerous ethno-linguistic groups.
While Pimentel emphasized that the adoption of a federal system of government would take time as this
involves the revision of the Constitution, it would result in peace in Mindanao, "as some rebel groups
therein have been clamoring for decades for some kind of autonomy rule." "Let us be open to challenging
the status quo and make the attitudinal change of entertaining outside of the box solutions to inter-
generational problems."
Decentralized government reduces conflict and increases

political stability in Indonesia and the Philippines (also
argues for decentralization in general)
Hofmeister and Tayao 2016 (Wilhelm Hofmeister, Director of
Regional Programme Political Dialogue with Asia Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Singapore, Edmund Tayao, Master of Arts in Political Science, University of
Santo Tomas, Philippines, eds. Federalism and Decentralization :
perceptions for political and institutional reforms, Konrad-Adenauer-
Stiftung, 2016, p. 56)
Decentralization can produce positive effects on the quality of democracy
and the strengthening of governance. A major point is that the election of local
leaders by the local citizenry makes the local leaders accountable to the
interest of the citizens. If they only follow selfish interests and ignore the people’s preferences
and demands, they might not be re-elected. Therefore, the local leaders—at least in theory—try to
avoid illegal practices and self-enrichment, since the local elections provide
a mechanism to register satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a representative’s
performance (Kulipossa 2004: 769). Another often quoted advantage of decentralization is
the idea that local elections enhance pluralism and political competition —both
major preconditions for a liberal democracy—at the local level. Several contenders from
different social backgrounds have the opportunity to compete in free and fair elections. Devolution
offers previously disadvantaged groups and candidates the opportunity to
take part in elections and political decision-making processes afterwards. One of
the most intended effects of devolution is the containment of separatism and
communal violence. Often, these conflicts are caused by a perception of
discrimination against ethnic or religious minorities within a nation state. Local
autonomy offers these groups the chance to practise their culture /traditions and
manage their affairs without central government interference, thus contributing to
crisis prevention and socio-political stability (Mehler 2001: 292f.). The legitimacy of
those in power at the local level is enhanced, often facilitating the deepening of existing democracy .
Increased political awareness and participation is also generally quoted as one of
the main advantages of decentralization processes, because ordinary citizens
witness democratic procedures directly in their villages and can even run as
candidates. Democracy is thus not limited to the far-away capital but is closer to the needs of the citizens
and directly involves the individual in political decision-making (Rondinelli 1980: 135f.). The closer
relation of the ordinary citizens with its political system can lead to a
strengthening of a democratic political culture and democratic patterns of attitude.
Indeed, in many parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, decentralization has
brought about increased public participation and opened new platforms for
civil society activism. This has led to a vibrant civil society in many places, which
comprises many social and political organizations and cares about matters of local
interests. A recent study of Antlöv and Wetterberg revealed that the activities of civil society
organizations have augmented to a great extent and became a regular feature of local
politics in Indonesia (Antlöv and Wetterberg 2011). The political awareness of ordinary
people has also increased. Local authorities are now monitored more strictly, not only by the elected
local council (DPRD), but also by civil society organizations who act as watchdogs of good governance.
The transparency and accountability of local administrations has risen
enormously in recent years, what can be credited to the devolution . Additionally,
political participation on the local level increased significantly in many places. Public
hearings on local budgets, for instance, have been introduced in dozens of regencies and cities. In many
cases, local governments’ ability to respond to local needs more rapidly and appropriately could be
observed. The quality of public service delivery has also increased in many cities and
districts as a result of the decentralization measures.
Indonesia Modelling
Federalism resolves ethnic conflict and boosts the
economy—Indonesia proves
Hofmeister and Tayao 2016 (Wilhelm Hofmeister, Director of
Regional Programme Political Dialogue with Asia Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
Singapore, Edmund Tayao, Master of Arts in Political Science, University of
Santo Tomas, Philippines, eds. Federalism and Decentralization :
perceptions for political and institutional reforms, Konrad-Adenauer-
Stiftung, 2016, p. 58)
Decentralization can also be advantageous for the resolution of ethnic and
religious conflicts. Giving local autonomy to these groups can not only be useful for the reduction
of violence, but also for the improvement of the quality of democracy. Ethnic and religious minorities
themselves often feel disadvantaged by the national government and demand
more autonomy, and as a last resort, a secession. In such cases, the national army under the
control of the national government tries to suppress violent regional conflicts. These separatist
tendencies and the human rights violations of the military further weaken the
legitimacy of the democratic order and contribute to the regression of democracy. The
significant impact of decentralization on conflicts based on ethnicity and
religious conflicts is that local autonomy opens avenues for negotiations
between the central government and the insurgents . More powers for local
governments offer more possibilities for the protection of the interests of minorities, which in turn can
decentralized government structures allow
improve the chances for peace. Additionally,
the adjustment of national policies according to local customs and culture.
This might help to reduce ethnic and religious tensions in multi-ethnic and
multi-religious states. Decentralization can thus be seen as a tool to ameliorate local disaffection
with the capital in the country’s centre. If violent conflicts diminish, the overall quality of democracy
In Indonesia, one of the most visible successes of the decentralization
rises.
process was the drastic reduction of separatist tendencies since the early 2000s.
The decision of the national government to give the local units discretion over their
natural and other economic resources reduced the resentments against the national
elite in Jakarta. Some regions witnessed an economic boom and now belong to
the fastest economically growing areas in the country. Development in certain areas,
particularly in the outer islands, is not hindered by resource exploitation for the profit of Jakarta elites
anymore. Conflicts over the distribution of wealth from the natural resources of
the outer islands with the centre have thus decreased to a great extent. Additionally the political
devolution of tasks to locally elected governors, mayors, and bupati gave political space
to a multitude of specific local identities and reduced separatist tendencies. Locals who are
not satisfied with political, social and economic developments at their local level now first blame their
elected local representatives rather than the central government. Thus, in many of the troubled
spots of the years between 1998 and 2000, such as Poso, the Moluccas, and West and
South Kalimantan, decentralization led to a sharp decrease of communal
violence. Ethnic conflicts that were caused by local elites in search of power and material gains could
be abated since many of these elites could achieve their goals without having to resort to violence
(Aspinall 2010: 28). Instead, they were empowered to take over local government positions, which
enabled them to rule and to enjoy material benefits for themselves.
Nigeria Modelling
Federalism is Nigerian’s best available option and needs
only be improved to address new issues
Babalola 14 Dele Babalola, Assistant Lecturer in the School of Politics and International
Relations at the University of Kent at Canterbury, 8-25-2014, "Nigeria: Federalism Works," IPI Global
Observatory, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2014/08/nigeria-federalism-works/
One hundred years after British colonialists unified two protectorates to create Nigeria, the problems
inherent in lumping together myriad different peoples and regions continue to provoke debate and
The primary goal of the
controversy. This is often directed at Nigeria’s federal system.
Nigerian Federation has been to “hold together” the myriad ethnic group s
that make up the Nigerian state. Put differently, federalism as a political system
was adopted in Nigeria to deal with the problems associated with diversity.
There is no denying that the federal system has not been able to hold together the federal society without
the survival of the Federation is an overall
some acrimony. But it is fair to contend that
success, despite its inherent centrifugal forces such as a high ethnic rivalry, religious differences, and
abundant oil resources which could act as a catalyst for disintegration. The Nigerian state may be
described as a dysfunctional federation in need of bold political reforms, but it is erroneous to suggest
that federalism has completely failed in the country and should be jettisoned. As Nigeria has done
it should work out ways to improve upon the
throughout its post-independence history,
current federal system and redress imbalances. But in doing so, it ought to bear in
mind that federalism is Nigeria’s best available option .
Nigeria Collapse spills over

Gardner 6 [Dan Gardner, “Western world ignoring demise of Nigeria”, The
Ottawa Citizen, 3/23/06, lexis]
Imagine a country that is one of the world's largest exporters of oil .
Imagine a country in which ethnic and sectarian violence has killed thousands and driven millions
from their homes, a country so fragile that a recent report commissioned by the CIA concluded there
is a good chance it will collapse. Imagine a country that Osama bin Laden has declared to be "ripe for
liberation." This country is not in the Middle East . It's also not on the minds of western
media or politicians, despite the almost unimaginable havoc that would be unleashed if the feared
It is Nigeria. A British invention, Nigeria is a country made up of some
collapse comes.
250 ethnic groups and countless tribal subdivisions sharing only a weak national identity. It is
also a country of intense and growing religious passions whose 132 million people are divided almost
equally between Christians and Muslims. Violent earthquakes can erupt along any of these fault lines.
In February, Muslims in the north murdered 50 Christians. Christians in the south retaliated by
murdering Muslims. Thousands fled in terror. These latest clashes started with protests against the
Danish cartoons, but most have less exotic origins. People fight for land or God. They fight to control
local governments. They fight to avenge insults. In the Niger Delta, they fight for control of oil.
Dozens die in one clash. Hundreds in another. It's low-grade warfare but the toll steadily climbs. By
one estimate, 20,000 Nigerians have been killed in fighting since 1999, when democracy was restored
after 16 years of military rule. And for every corpse, more than a hundred people have been driven
from their homes. "The magnitude, scope, character and dimension of internally displaced persons in
Nigeria is frightening," declared a report released last week by Nigeria's National Commission for
Refugees. Since 1999, the commission says, three million people have fled. Their plight represents
one of the gravest humanitarian crises in the world. It is also one of the most unrecognized. The
bloody clashes in Nigeria almost never rate a mention in the western media and western politicians
pay even less attention to the country than they do to other African hot spots. As a result, very few
people in Canada realize how dangerous the situation has become. "While currently Nigeria's leaders
are locked in a bad marriage that all dislike but dare not leave," states a 2005 report commissioned
by the CIA, an event such as a coup attempt could spark open warfare and
"outright collapse." AN OIL SHOCK The consequences would be immense. "If
Nigeria were to become a failed state," the report concluded, "it could drag
down a large part of the West African region." Millions would flee. There's also
the matter of oil. Even now, world oil prices jump every time a bullet is fired in the Niger Delta .
If Nigeria were to collapse, there could be an oil shock the like of which
we haven't seen since the Iranian Revolution. And since the long-term energy
strategy of the United States assumes rising African oil production, chaos
in the Niger Delta would almost certainly bring in the Marines .
That goes nuclear

Lancaster 00 (Carol, Associate Professor and Director of the Master's of
Science in Foreign Service Program – Georgetown University, “Redesigning
Foreign Aid”, Foreign Affairs, September / October, Lexis)
THE MOST BASIC CHALLENGE facing the United States today is helping to preserve peace. The end of
the Cold War eliminated a potential threat to American security, but it did not eliminate conflict. In 1998
alone there were 27 significant conflicts in the world, 25 of which involved violence within states. Nine of
those intrastate conflicts were in sub-Saharan Africa, where poor governance

has aggravated ethnic and social tensions . The ongoing war in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo has been particularly nightmarish, combining intrastate and interstate
conflict with another troubling element: military intervention driven by the
commercial motives of several neighboring states. Such motives could fuel
future conflicts in other weak states with valuable resources. Meanwhile, a number of other wars
-- in Colombia, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Angola, Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi --
have reflected historic enmities or poorly resolved hostilities of the past. Intrastate conflicts are likely to
creating large
continue in weakly integrated, poorly governed states, destroying lives and property,
numbers of refugees and displaced persons, and threatening regional
security. The two interstate clashes in 1998 -- between India and Pakistan and Eritrea and Ethiopia --
involved disputes over land and other natural resources. Such contests show no sign of disappearing.
with the spread of w eapons of m ass d estruction, these wars could prove
Indeed,
more dangerous than ever.

Cyber/Disease Impact
Federalization kills cybersecurity and public health
Mayer et al, President @ Buckeye Institute for Public Policy, 11
(Matt A. Mayer is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and
President of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions in Columbus,
Ohio. He has served as Counselor to the Deputy Secretary and Acting
Executive Director for the Office of Grants and Training in the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Deputy
Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International
Studies and Director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign
Policy Studies, a division of the Davis Institute, at The Heritage Foundation.
Jessica Zuckerman is a Research Assistant in the Allison Center at The
Heritage Foundation. “Homeland Security 4.0: Overcoming Centralization,
Complacency, and Politics,”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/homeland-security-4-0-
overcoming-centralization-complacency-and-politics)
Federal catastrophic disaster planning remains moribund , while Washington

declares more federal disaster declarations every year for events of lesser and lesser consequence. Bad policies
are endangering progress in disaster preparedness , immigration, and border security. For
its part, Congress’s performance has remained lackluster. Unworkable mandates, such as the requirement
for 100 percent scanning of inbound transoceanic shipping containers, remain on the books.
Congressional oversight, scattered across dozens of committees and subcommittees, remains
dysfunctional. Getting the national homeland security enterprise right
remains one of the most difficult challenges in Washington because it runs
up against the standard Washington practices of overcentralization, complacency,
and entrenched politics. Centralization. The U.S. Constitution divides power between the federal government
and state and local governments. This federalist principle is not some archaic concept dreamt up by the Founding
Fathers to placate skeptics of a strong central government, but rather deliberately designed to protect the nation from
recognizes the reality that state and local
overcentralization of power in Washington. It also
governments have the resources, geographic locus, and experience to best
deal with physical threats in their own communities. Complacency. Ensuring national
security is a competition between determined, innovative adversaries and the American people. If the U.S. becomes
complacent or focuses on the past, it will pay a heavy price. On the other hand, Americans and their representatives
must temper expectations with realistic outcomes, realizing that the nation cannot expect to stay one step ahead of the
terrorists if it accepts the status quo. Politics. Homeland security is at least as susceptible to politics as every other
function of the federal government. Every Member of Congress has constituents, companies, and other stakeholders
lobbying for more money and more resources. Every Member has committee assignments that endow him or her with
power and attract powerful “friends.” Congress has a reputation for passing laws that send politically expedient
messages, but call for unattainable results. Politics frequently fails to produce good policy results. Ten years after 9/11 is
a good time to address these challenges directly. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently released its 67-
page report “Implementing 9/11 Commission Recommendations: Progress Report 2011.” Regrettably, this summary
report epitomizes everything that is wrong with the current state of homeland security: too much triumphalism and not
enough recognition of the pressing challenges in building the homeland security enterprise that the nation needs. The
report does not acknowledge how overcentralization, complacency, and misguided politics have thwarted efforts to
address the challenges laid out by the 9/11 Commission. It contains little discussion of whether these recommendations
are still relevant or whether they were the right answers in the first place. Finally, the 9/11 Commission findings focused
on the problems of 10 years ago as they were understood then, not on today’s threats. The experience of the past 10
years suggests different answers. The recommendations in this report are based on research by Heritage Foundation
analysts over the past decade and on extensive outreach to and engagement with many of the stakeholders in the
homeland security enterprise. This is the third in a series of reports in which The Heritage Foundation has participated.
“DHS 2.0: Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security” (2004) served as a basis for the reorganization undertaken
in 2005. “Homeland Security 3.0: Building a National Enterprise to Keep America Safe, Free, and Prosperous” (2008)
provided insights for the department’s first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) in 2010. The Obama
Administration also followed the report’s recommendation to integrate the National Security and Homeland Security
Council staffs. Now is the time to think about the next iteration of homeland
security. The recommendations in this report outline the essential steps for establishing enduring and effective
homeland security for the United States. This report does not address every challenge. For example, it does not discuss
cyber security in depth, which has become a critical homeland security concern that the nation is not well poised to
The first step in addressing the problem of
address, according to many experts.
cybersecurity and other emerging challenges that range from bioterrorist
threats and pandemics to natural catastrophes is to lay the
foundation for homeland security. That is the aim of this report. The report’s 35 recommendations are organized
in three sections, corresponding with the three significant obstacles: overcentralization, complacency, and politics. In
each section, the research team has noted critical findings and observations and identified means to address them. Part
I: Making Federalism Work The U.S. Constitution created a federalist system. It gave the federal government expressed,
but limited, powers and reserved all remaining powers for the states and the people. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments
firmly established the federalist system of government by stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should
“not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”[1] and by adding the corollary provision that
“powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.”[2] As James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers, “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to
all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the
Washington has
internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.”[3] Yet over the past 70 years,
continued to seize or de facto possess ever-growing control over activities that had
long been the purview of state and local governments. This is equally true in homeland security .
For example, the federal government continues to subsidize more and more of
the response to disasters, increasing reliance on the federal government and
undermining efforts to create stronger and more resilient
communities. This trend is making Americans less safe. The inherent
bureaucratic processes of federal decision making, the geographic size and
diversity of the United States, and the minimal manpower that the federal
government actually controls across America are poorly suited to many
homeland security tasks. This problem has also taken the U.S. further
away from its constitutional foundation, with the federal government taking still more
power away from state and local governments under the guise of the latest emergency. It is time to end this power grab.
The next homeland security agenda should lead the United States back toward its
constitutional foundation, in which the federal government possessed limited and
discrete powers and the state and local governments exercised the bulk of
the powers that impacted lives of Americans. Choosing the right path back toward federalism will not be easy. It
will require hard choices by decision makers and an American public willing to stop looking to Washington to solve every
problem.
Pandemics risk extinction

Kerscher 14—Professor, unclear where because every website about him
is in German
(Karl-Heinz, “Space Education”, Wissenschaftliche Studie, 2014, 92 Seiten)
The death toll for a pandemic is equal to the virulence , the deadliness of the
pathogen or pathogens, multiplied by the number of people eventually infected. It
has been hypothesized that there is an upper limit to the virulence of
naturally evolved pathogens. This is because a pathogen that quickly kills its
hosts might not have enough time to spread to new ones, while one that kills
its hosts more slowly or not at all will allow carriers more time to spread the
infection, and thus likely out-compete a more lethal species or strain. This simple model
predicts that if virulence and transmission are not linked in any way, pathogens
will evolve towards low virulence and rapid transmission . However, this
assumption is not always valid and in more complex models, where the level
of virulence and the rate of transmission are related, high levels of virulence
can evolve. The level of virulence that is possible is instead limited by the
existence of complex populations of hosts, with different susceptibilities to infection, or by
some hosts being geographically isolated. The size of the host population and competition between
There are numerous historical
different strains of pathogens can also alter virulence.
examples of pandemics that have had a devastating effect on a large number
of people, which makes the possibility of global pandemic a realistic threat
to human civilization.
Cyber-attacks cause extinction

Fritz 9 (Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear
Nonproliferation and Disarmament, Jason, researcher for International
Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army
officer and consultant, and has a master of international relations at Bond
University, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control,” July,
http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf)
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source
knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network
operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If
access to command and
control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack
another, thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear power. This may be an easier
alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves.
This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high
speed, removal of geographical distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing
computer tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an
internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness
in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the
hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals. All computers which are connected to the internet are
susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed network may also be
compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless
access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-
mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to the installation
of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed
network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly.
Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental
technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as
nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is
impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest
multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low
radio frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines .
Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear
weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a
retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did
not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer network
operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through
additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be
engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a
US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the
US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be
disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be
planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction.
Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed
responses. For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with
Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in
identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between
these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist
attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a
hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also
be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials . A sophisticated and all
encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch
nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.
Iraq Modelling
US specifically influences Iraqi federalism – which is key to
counter civil war and ISIS. Absent federalism, escalation
would spill-over to the region
Pollack ‘14
(Kenneth, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy,
Brookings Institute, “Options for U.S. Policy Toward Iraq,” July 24,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2014/07/24-options-us-policy-
toward-iraq-pollack)
Iraq has fallen once more into
Second, it is equally critical that we accept the reality that
civil war. It is not “on the brink of civil war.” It is not “sliding into civil war.”
It is not “at risk of a new civil war.” It is in a civil war . This is what civil war looks
like. And civil wars have certain dynamics that need to be understood if they are to be ended, or even
merely survived. Iraq’s current situation is the recurrence of the civil war of 2006-2008. In 2007-2008,
the United States committed tremendous military and economic resources to pull Iraq out of that first
instance of civil war. This time around, Washington has made clear that it will not devote anything like
the same resources and there is no other country that can. This second point is important because
civil wars like Iraq’s are difficult for external powers to end
intercommunal
without either a significant commitment of resources or a terrible slaughter by one or
more of the combatants. Given the American public’s understandable unwillingness to re-commit the kind
of resources we did in 2007-2008, we are unlikely to bring the Iraqi civil war to a speedy end with
minimal bloodshed and still safeguard the range of American interests engaged there. For those reasons,
the hard truth we face is that, in the circumstances we currently find ourselves in, our options range from
bad to awful. Nevertheless, doing nothing because all of the options are unpalatable would be the worst
choice of all.Civil wars do not just go away if they are ignored. They burn on
and on. They also have a bad habit of infecting neighboring states—just as
the Syrian civil war has helped re-ignite the Iraqi civil war. If we try to turn our back on Iraq
once again, it will affect its neighbors . It could easily affect the
international oil market (and through it, the U.S. economy , which
remains heavily dependent on the price of oil no matter how much we may
frack). It will also generate terrorists who will seek to kill Americans. So our
option may be awful, but we have no choice but to try to make them work. Plan A: Rebuilding a
(Somewhat) Unified Iraq Although I believe that the Obama Administration’s Iraq policy has been
disastrous, and a critical factor in the rekindling of Iraq’s civil war,[1] I find myself largely in agreement
Our first priority should
with the approach they have adopted to deal with the revived civil war.
be to try to engineer a new Iraqi government that Kurds, Shi’a and moderate
Sunnis can all (endorse) embrace, so that they can then wage a unified
military campaign (with American support) against ISIS and the other Sunni militant groups.[2]
That needs to remain Washington’s priority until it fails because it is the best outcome for all concerned,
including the United States.Doing so would be the most likely way to dampen or
eliminate the current conflict, and create the fewest causes for future
violence. It could also succeed relatively quickly —in a matter of months
rather than years like all of the other options . However, it will be extremely difficult to
pull off. The keys to this strategy will be to convince the Kurds not to break from
Iraq and convince moderate Sunnis to remain part of the Iraqi political
process—and to turn on ISIS and the other Sunni militant groups. As I and
other experts on Iraq have written, this will require both a new political leadership and a drastic
overhaul of Iraq’s political system. With regard to the former condition, at this point, it
seems highly unlikely that Nuri al-Maliki can remain prime minister and retain either the Kurds or
meaningful Sunni representation in his government. However, even if he were removed and new, more
Sunni leaders
acceptable leaders chosen, there would still be a long way to go.[3] Even moderate
insist on decentralizing power
are not going to go back to the status quo ante. They now
from the center to the periphery, a redistribution of power within the federal
government, and a thorough depoliticization of the Iraqi security services so
that they cannot be used as a source of repression by what will inevitably be
a Shi’a-dominated central government. They are likely to demand to be
allowed to form a federal region like the Kurdistan Regional Government ,
complete with a separate budget and their own military forces akin to the Kurdish Peshmerga. For their
part, the Kurds will want even more than that. At this point, given the extensive autonomy that the KRG
already enjoys, coupled with the territorial and administrative gains it has won in the wake of the ISIS
offensive, greater federalism probably won’t be an adequate alternative to independence for the Kurds. If
the Kurds can be prevented from seceding, it will probably require Baghdad to accept a confederal
arrangement with Erbil. The difference here is that in a typical federal system, resources and authorities
are generated from the center and delegated to the periphery for all but a limited number of constrained
keeping the Kurds on board will likely necessitate a shift to
functions. However,
one in which resources and authority begin in the periphery and then are
shared with the center for specific purposes and under specific
constraints. The Kurds are likely to insist that the KRG maintain the current lines of control in
disputed territories unchanged until a referendum can be conducted in accordance with article 140 of the
Iraqi constitution. Baghdad will have to recognize Erbil’s right to develop and market the oil it produces
as the new status quo. As for oil revenues, Erbil will demand that it be allowed to keep the Kirkuk oil
fields it has now secured, and agree that Baghdad and Erbil each be allowed to pump as much oil as they
Assuming that moderate Sunnis,
like and pay all of their own expenses from those revenues.
Kurds and moderate Shi’a can all agree on these various changes, we could
see the resurrection of a unified Iraqi polity . It is reasonable to assume
that in those happy circumstances, many Sunni tribes will be ready to fight
ISIS and the other Sunni militant groups—and to accept assistance from the United States to do so.
(Although they have made clear that they will not accept assistance from the Iraqi security forces until
they have been thoroughly depoliticized.) Moreover, these are really the only circumstances in which the
United States should be willing to provide large-scale military assistance to the Iraqi government to fight
ISIS and the other militant groups. Only in those circumstances will such assistance be seen as non-
partisan, meant to help all Iraqis and not just the Shi’a (and their Iranian allies).
Federalism reduces conflict between Kurds and Iran, Iraq,

and Turkey
Entessar 2010 (Nader Entessar, Professor and Chair, Department of
Political Science and Criminal Justice, University of South Alabama, Kurdish
Politics in the Middle East, Lexington Books, 2010, p. 228)
two desirable techniques, both of which require constitutional re structuring, can be
All in all,
mentioned as desirable ways to reduce conflict between the Kurds and the
central authorities in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. First, the establishment of
genuine federal structures and a move away from the strong centralism that
characterizes all three countries can help bring about democratic, participatory
systems. Nigeria, with its myriad of ethnic and religious groups, has succeeded for the
most part in reducing ethnic violence through its functioning federalism . 4 4
As I discussed in Chapter 3, Iraq's 2005 constitution has envisioned a federal
system, largely based on the recognition of the country' main ethnic groups.
This process must be implemented in stages and not imposed in a short time frame.
Imposed federalism would likely fail in the long run, a it did in the former Yugoslavia in 1991. Each
country will have to develop it federal structure within it own unique
political milieu and with re peel to its own unique Kurdish problem.
EU Modelling
Federalism in the EU is key to responding to the refugee
crisis and strengthening border security
Hartog 16 (Kyrill Hartog, journalist for La Grieta, 1/14/16, “Federalism in
the European Union: solution or demise?,”
http://lagrietaonline.com/federalism-in-the-european-union-solution-or-
demise/, Accessed 7/14/17, MH)
First and foremost it is important to understand why politicians and policymakers such as Verhofstadt are
The case for a federal Europe rests on
increasingly advocating for Federalism in Europe.
the premise that a divided Europe is a weak Europe. In the broadest terms,
a federal reform of the EU would therefore aim to create an economic and
fiscal union, a banking union and a political union among the 28 member
states. This would mean centralizing many aspects of political organization
that are now largely decided by each member state individually. Currently,
member states’ power to exercise national sovereignty often comes at a
price, namely a lack of coherence at the European policy level . That is precisely
what Verhofstadt means when he states “the problem is that there is not enough
Europe.” Federalism in the EU would mean reforming current decision-
making processes, for instance by changing the voting system in the Council
of the European Union from unanimity to majority vote . At present, major
policies affecting the whole of the EU can only be passed or rejected by the
Council if all 28 member-states agree unanimously. Examples of policy areas that
require unanimity are common foreign and security policy, citizenship and EU finances. Federalists
argue that eliminating this requirement will shorten the period of
deliberation and enable the executive branch to take decisions more quickly
and effectively. The proposed federal reform could have a large impact on
many crucial issues, including some of the most problematic policy areas in
the EU today: migration and the economy . The current refugee crisis could
benefit from a federal approach to EU border policy. As a matter of fact, the
Commission has recently submitted a proposal to the Council and the Parliament for the creation of a
European Border and Coast Guard to better absorb the shock of the refugee crisis. Despite facing protest
by some member states who are afraid of surrendering authority over national border policy to Brussels,
the EU coastguard and border protection force
the proposal’s logic is undisputable:
would facilitate a coordinated operation at the European level. This federal
approach could help untangle the yarn of bureaucracy that currently
plagues EU border policy by harmonizing asylum laws and transit
regulations, and by improving coordination among the relevant
stakeholders. Arguably, a federal response to the current influx of refugees
could benefit all parties involved in the crisis: governments, refugees, NGOs and
civilians alike.
Secession
Only federalism can save America from secession
French, 17 – senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the
National Review Institute, an attorney (concentrating his practice in
constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation
Iraqi Freedom (David, “We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward
Divorce”, National Review, 8 June 2017,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448385/americans-left-right-liberal-
conservative-democrats-republicans-blue-red-states-cultural-segregate,
Accessed: 7/8/17)//SL
I don’t believe a civil-war mentality will save America. There are simply too
many differences and too many profound disagreements for one side or the
other to exercise true political dominance. Red won’t beat blue in the same
way that blue beat gray. Adopt the civil-war mentality and you’ll only hasten
a potential divorce. No, absent a presently unforeseen unifying ideology,
event, or person, the idea that will save America is one of the oldest ideas of
the Republic: federalism.
So long as we protect the “privileges and immunities” of American
citizenship, including all of the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, let
California be California and Texas be Texas. De-escalate national politics.
Ideas that work in Massachusetts shouldn’t be crammed down the throats of
culturally different Tennesseans. Indeed, as our sorting continues, our ability
to persuade diminishes. (After all, how can we understand communities we
don’t encounter?)
If we seek to preserve our union, we’re left with a choice — try to

dominate or learn to tolerate? The effort to dominate is futile, and it will
leave us with a permanently embittered population that grows increasingly
punitive with each transition of presidential power. There is hope, however,
in the quest to tolerate. Our Constitution is built to allow our citizens to
govern themselves while protecting individual liberty and providing for the
common defense. It’s built to withstand profound differences without asking
citizens or states to surrender their strongest convictions. We can either
rediscover this federalism, or we may ultimately take a third path — we may
choose to separate.
Secessionism goes global and nuclear

James D. Fearon May 21, 2004 Department of Political Science Stanford
University “Separatist Wars, Partition, and World Order”
https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/Separatist-Wars-Partition-and-World-
Order.pdf/NRG)
Civil wars of separatist nationalism raged around the globe in the 1990s, in
the Balkans, India, Russia, Azerbaijan, Sudan, Indonesia, Britain (Northern Ireland), Turkey, Georgia,
the Philippines, and Burma, to name only some of the more prominent examples. These wars have
caused considerable loss of life, massive refugee crises, economic
devastation, significant strains on great power relations and important
international institutions like NATO and the United Nations, and a
significant risk of nuclear war in South Asia. What should be done? Thus far, the western
powers’ approach has been ad hoc, with little public discussion of the broader
implications of particular cases and the problems for the international
system posed by separatist nationalism.1 At least five sorts of ad hoc responses can be identified: 1. The imposition of
weak international protectorates by stronger states through international organizations, as at Dayton, over Kosovo, Northern Iraq, and, earlier, Cyprus. 2. Disapproval
but little or no direct action, either due to lack of interest (Kurds in Turkey, Tamils in Sri Lanka, Southerners in Sudan, Tuaregs in Mali, and many other such cases) or
due to the power of the states involved (Russia/Chechnya, China/Tibet, India/Kashmir). 3. Weak international attempts to facilitate partition when this is by mutual
consent of some sort (East Timor, Eritrea, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the West Bank in a halting way). 4. Stable cease-fires and de facto partitions, as in Nagorno-
Karabagh and Somaliland. 5. Some efforts to help negotiate power-sharing agreements, as in Northern Ireland and Angola (the latter with a largely ethnic but not
That international responses to wars of separatist nationalism have

separatist war).
been ad hoc is not surprising. International relations is the realm of the ad

hoc, and even if it were possible it is hard to imagine a general, one-size-fits-
all approach that would make sense. But the lack of discussion about the
broader implications of different possible policies in particular cases is
surprising. Here is a possible explanation. For the western powers, separatist nationalism is so perplexing and fundamental a problem that it has to be
ignored as a general phenomenon. The problem is that the overwhelmingly accepted diagnosis of the cause of separatist nationalism implies a policy remedy no major
power can stomach. In brief, the standard diagnosis is Wilsonianism, the theory that separatist nationalism stems from bad borders and incompatible cultures.
Wilsonianism holds that violent separatism arises when state borders are not properly aligned with national groups, which are fixed, preexisting entities. Separatism is
due to the injustice of depriving proper nations of proper states. If one accepts this, then the remedy for nationalist wars is obvious. Just redraw the borders. Impose
with each nationalist war foreign policy analysts in the U.S. and elsewhere have called for
partitions. And indeed
partition as the obvious and proper solution.2 In the wake of the intense killing and brutality in Bosnia and Kosovo, partition has often
seemed, reasonably, “inevitable.” Even if these people lived together once, analysts say, how can they live together now? If one accepts the general diagnosis, the
argument for partition seems inescapably strong. So why not do it? Why aren’t the major powers leaping on partition as the obvious solution, rather than setting up
costly and ineffectual protectorates? Are there any good reasons to oppose partition, or are the western powers just misguided, cowardly, or transfixed by a naive and
there are
dangerous commitment to multiculturalism (Mearsheimer and Van Evera 1995; Mearsheimer and Pape 1993)? I argue in this paper that
indeed good reasons to be skeptical of partition as a general solution to

nationalist wars. The most important of these, and the least explored, are two types of incentive effects. First, ad hoc partition
applied to one trouble spot may help produce more violent separatist nationalist movements
elsewhere, in addition to making existing nationalist wars more difficult to

resolve. The Wilsonian diagnosis is wrong. The world is not composed of a fixed number of true nations, so that peace can be had by properly sorting them into
states. Rather, there is literally no end of cultural difference in the world suitable for politicization in the form of nationalist insurgencies. As long as controlling a
recognized state apparatus is a desirable thing and “nationhood” is understood to ground claims to a state, ambitious individuals will try to put together nationalist
movements to claim statehood. A (de facto) policy of partition that says, in effect, “You may get a state if you can get a bloody enough nationalist insurgency going”
provides the wrong incentives. The more general point is that whether partition is good idea depends in part on one’s theory of what causes separatist nationalism. I will
argue that the dominant theory of Wilsonianism is misleading, and implies ad hoc “solutions” that states are right to shy away from.
Segregation
Federalism reverses segregation and economic
inequality — minority rule is more important than
minority rights.
federalism/, Accessed 06-14-2017 KDS ES)
Federalism and localism, in contrast, depend on—even glory in—the idea of
minority rule. Neither theory requires you to like every policy passed at the
local or state level any more than a nationalist has to agree with everything
that Congress passes. But our current system rests on the assumption that
decentralization can produce a healthier democracy in the long term. Ours
is a world in which decision-making bodies of every sort (school committees,
juries, city councils) are dominated by groups of every sort (Italians and
Irish, Catholics and Jews, Greens and libertarians). We don’t worry about
this representational kaleidoscope—let alone condemn it as “segregated”—
merely because one group or another is taking its turn standing in for the
whole. Perhaps we shouldn’t worry when it is a racial minority group in that
position. Minority rule can promote both the economic and political
integration of racial minorities. We have long understood minority rights as
furthering those goals, which is why we care so much about them. But
minority rule can further these goals as well. Often when we talk about
democratic equality, we focus on its symbolic benefits rather than its
material ones. We talk about the dignity of political participation but wrinkle
our noses at the idea of political patronage. But history suggests a more
muscular account of what a democracy can do for minorities. Politics can
play an important role in promoting economic integration, and
economics can play an important role in promoting political integration. Pam
Karlan and New York University Law Professor Sam Issacharoff, for
example, have argued that the economic progress of African Americans has
turned not on the vindication of civil rights, but on business set-asides,
affirmative action, and government employment. In their view, these
programs came about precisely because blacks were able to elect their
candidates of choice in majority-minority districts. “[T]he creation of a black
middle class,” they write, “has depended on the vigilance of a black political
class.” A group of economists at George Mason University found that black
employment rates, for instance, rise during the tenure of black mayors, an
effect that is particularly pronounced for municipal jobs. One might even
argue that this was the story of integration for white ethnics, as Justice
David Souter once argued. In Souter’s view, the Lithuanian and Polish wards
of Chicago and the Irish and Italian political machines in Boston helped
empower these groups. That power, in turn, “cooled” ethnicity’s “talismanic
force.” In these examples, political power didn’t just facilitate economic
integration. The economic advantages associated with political power
exerted a gravitational pull on outsiders, bringing them into the system and
giving them a stake in its success. Admittedly, this argument involves a more
rough-and-tumble account of democracy than we read in our civics
textbooks. And it certainly offers a less pristine view of integration than the
one we associate with the rights model. But while we have long recognized
the dignity conferred by the rights afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment
or civil-rights statutes, we should also acknowledge the dignity involved
in groups’ protecting themselves rather than looking to the courts for
help. Indeed, this notion resonates entirely with the lesson of the civil rights
movement. Rights were not “conferred” upon African Americans. They
fought for them, pushing reluctant national leaders to do the right thing.
Those who favor racial integration might also value minority rule for reasons
that have nothing to do with its material benefits. We have long believed that
political participation matters for equality. But we typically think of
participation in highly idealistic and individualistic terms while ignoring
crass concerns like who wins and who loses. Academics thus praise diverse
democratic bodies because they involve the “politics of recognition”; they
grant racial minorities the “dignity” of voice, ensuring that they play a role
in any decision-making process. However, when one turns to the question of
winners and losers, the limits of the diversity paradigm are clear. While the
diversity paradigm guarantees racial minorities a vote or voice on every
decision-making body, it also ensures that they will be the political losers on
any issue on which people divide along racial lines. Racial minorities are
thus destined to be the junior partner or dissenting gadfly in the democratic
process. So much for dignity. Minority rule, in sharp contrast, turns the
tables. It allows the usual winners to lose and the usual losers to win. It
gives racial minorities the chance to shed the role of influencer or gadfly and
stand in the shoes of the majority. Local institutions offer racial minorities
the chance to enjoy the same sense of efficacy—and deal with the same
types of problems—as the usual members of the majority. Minorities get a
chance to forge consensus and to fend off dissenters. They get a chance to
get something done and to experience the need for compromise, as
dissenting from the margins normally comes with the luxury of ideological
purity. And as with members of the majority, racial minorities don’t just have
a chance to represent their own group—they have a chance to take their
turn to stand in for the whole, which Princeton Professor George Kateb
describes as a key feature of representative democracy. If the “politics of
recognition” theorists are correct that the diversity paradigm—granting
racial minorities a voice on every decision-making body—represents an
acknowledgment of equal status, then federalism and localism acknowledge
the ability of racial minorities not just to participate, but to rule. In place of
what some call the “politics of presence,” we have the politics of power. In
place of the dignity of voice, we have the dignity of decisions. The effects of
turning the tables are not, of course, confined to racial minorities. It also
deprives whites of the comfort and power associated with their majority
status. The notion of turning the tables thus taps into a deeply intuitive idea
of democratic fairness. Democracy works better when the usual losers
sometimes win and the usual winners sometimes lose. Everyone ought to
experience, in the words of President Bush, a good “thumpin’.”
Hegemony
Federal overreach on domestic affairs undermines U.S.
global leadership.
Rivlin 92 — Alice M. Rivlin, Senior Fellow and Former Director of
Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, former Hirst Professor of
Public Policy at George Mason University, former Founding Director at the
Congressional Budget Office, holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Radcliffe
College (Harvard University), 1992 (“Federal Policy Goes Global,” Reviving
the American Dream: The Economy, the States & the Federal Government,
Published by the Brookings Institution, ISBN 0815774761, p. 30-31)
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 governmental [end page 30]
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.
U.S. leadership is vital to global stability. Relative decline

opens a power vacuum that spurs conflict.
Goure 13 — Daniel Goure, President of The Lexington Institute—a
nonprofit public-policy research organization, Adjunct Professor in Graduate
Programs at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown
University, Adjunct Professor at the National Defense University, former
Deputy Director of the International Security Program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, has consulted for the Departments of
State, Defense and Energy, has taught or lectured at the Johns Hopkins
University, the Foreign Service Institute, the National War College, the
Naval War College, the Air War College, and the Inter-American Defense
College, holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in International Relations and
Russian Studies from Johns Hopkins University, 2013 (“How U.S. Military
Power Holds the World Together,” inFocus Quarterly—the Jewish Policy
Center's journal, Volume VII, Number 2, Summer, Available Online at
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4397/us-military-power, Accessed 08-17-
2013)
The Centrality of U.S. Power
There are three fundamental problems with the argument in favor of
abandoning America's security role in the world. The first problem is that
the United States cannot withdraw without sucking the air out of the
system. U.S. power and presence have been the central structural
feature that holds the present international order together. It flavors the
very air that fills the sphere that is the international system. Whether it is
the size of the U.S. economy, its capacity for innovation, the role of the dollar
as the world's reserve currency or the contribution of U.S. military power to
the stability and peace of the global commons, the present world order has
"Made in the USA" written all over it.
The international system is not a game of Jenga where the worst thing that
can happen is that one's tower collapses. Start taking away the
fundamental building blocks of the international order, particularly
American military power, and the results are all but certain to be major
instability, increased conflict rates, rapid proliferation of nuclear
weapons, economic dislocation and, ultimately, serious and growing
threats to security at home.
Competitiveness
Federalism is key to competitiveness - the brink is now
Katz, 17 – centennial scholar @ the Brookings Institution, Former chief of
staff and to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and
was the senior counsel and then staff director for the U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs(Bruce, “The new localism: How
cities and metropolitan areas triumph in the age of Trump”, BROOKINGS, 18
January 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/the-new-localism-
how-cities-and-metropolitan-areas-triumph-in-the-age-of-trump/, Accessed:
7/1/17)//SL
I believe that the coming decade will stimulate, by sheer necessity, a new
localism in the United States.
It will build on the incredible economic, fiscal, financial, and social

attributes that cities and urban counties have in this country.
It will stimulate innovations in growth, governance, and finance that are

specific and tangible and then are adapted, tailored, and replicated at
lightening speed.
It will, if designed smartly and implemented well, be a pathway to national
renewal and a more competitive, sustainable, and inclusive society.
It can yield better solutions to hard challenges since it matches problem
solving to the way world works (integrated, holistic, entrepreneurial rather
than compartmentalized, siloed, bureaucratic)
It can be a more efficient and effective use of public resources since it is
more aligned with market demand (and the distinctive
assets/priorities/needs of different metros) rather than political log rolling.
It can unlock and leverage trillions in private and civic capital as markets
are created and individuals and institutions find ways to invest in social
outcomes. It is a path towards liberating and galvanizing energy and capital
across the nation – to particularly invest in our future.
State innovation is key to economic competitiveness

DeMuth, distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute 11
(Christopher Demuth, 6-12-2011, "Beware the Erosion of Competition," AEI,
http://www.aei.org/publication/beware-the-erosion-of-competition/) lr
Competition is a fact of life--the driving force of biological evolution and a constant presence in all
human interactions. It is also a method of organization, used to promote efficiency and
excellence and to resolve conflict peaceably. Competition is the key to the
success of private-market economies and is used in many other areas; for example, the Nobel
and Pulitzer prizes spur competition in the sciences and in journalism. Even when we don't like competition when we
The
face it in our personal lives, we appreciate its benefits and admire it in action--from Steve Jobs to Li Na.
American Constitution uses competition to promote good government.

Regular democratic elections limit incumbents' hold on power and open succession to outside competition. The
"separation of powers" in our national government forces Congress and the president to compete for public favor and to
balance each other's excesses; the 2010 election is only the latest to demonstrate that Americans like their government
divided.Under our federalist system, states compete for citizens and
employers by offering different mixes of schools, transportation, public
amenities, regulations, and taxes--think of booming Texas versus bankrupt California. And the
federal and state governments compete with each other , as in the current state
challenges to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the federal challenge to Arizona's immigration law. The
Constitution also protects and promotes private competition. The First
Amendment is more than a matter of individual rights: it also ensures unbridled competition in the supply of news,
religious faiths, political creeds, and information of all kinds. These are great goods in themselves and also keep political
officials relatively honest and well-informed. And out of mischief: the First Amendment averts political-religious violence,
stemming from the prospect of a state religious monopoly, of the sort that was common in England and Europe when the
Constitution was drafted and that remains a terrible problem in the Arab Muslim world today. Finally, the Constitution
contains many provisions protecting private property and free economic competition. The Founders regarded
competitive enterprise as a critical source of prosperity and national strength. They also hoped that numerous
competing and conflicting interests would cancel each other out politically, thereby weakening demands for special-
interest favoritism. The competitive nature of the American system means that our government is often fractious,
muddled, and indecisive. As a result, we hear frequent calls for a parliamentary system where the executive is a
handmaiden of the legislature. But parliamentary systems are prone to instability--especially in the face of crises, when
legislative divisions can cause the government to fall at the worst possible time. Also, authoritarian governments such as
China's are sometimes envied (sotto voce) for their superior decisiveness and orderliness. But authoritarian
governments become corrupt, sclerotic, and insular over time. The American regime, now 222 years old, has outlasted
hundreds of regimes that looked stronger for a time but came to ignominious and often ruinous ends. In government as
Our political system is, however,
in biology, competition promotes resilience and adaptability.
becoming markedly less competitive. State policy competition is being

supplanted by "cooperative federalism"--as a result of federal policies (such
as Medicaid) that encourage state uniformity and judicial policies that permit states to "export" taxes
and regulatory requirements to citizens of other states. The National Labor Relations Board's current
effort to prevent Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina rather than Washington state is a conspicuous effort
to inhibit state policy competition. But the most worrisome instance of declining political competition is the weakening--
collapse might be a better word--of the separation of powers. Our national government is now, in many critical respects,
a unilateral Executive government with occasional oversight by the Congress and Judiciary. Most domestic discretionary
policy-making is now conducted by regulatory agencies. The agencies are executive-legislative hybrids that write and
enforce rules--de facto laws which often have enormous economic consequences--under very broad delegations of
authority from the Congress. The migration of law-making from the Congress to regulatory agencies has been underway
for many decades, but has accelerated dramatically since the financial crisis of 2008. In the course of the financial crisis,
the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department made financial commitments of more than $2 trillion, used
regulatory powers aggressively to arrange mergers of private banks, and bailed out and acquired substantial control
over scores of major financial institutions and two automobile companies. The major decisions were all made within the
executive branch, with scant congressional involvement. Congress was outraged--yet promptly acquiesced through
Congress passed two laws--the Dodd-Frank Act
supporting legislation. And then, a year later,
and Affordable Care Act--which set new standards of legislative delegation.

Although both statutes are very long, they decide very little; instead they create new regulatory agencies and launch
many hundreds of new rule-making proceedings, under extraordinarily vague standards that leave the serious policy
The new structures of national policy in the financial and
choices to the agencies.
health-care sectors are still largely unknown, to be determined as the agency proceedings run
their course. But one thing is certain: both sectors will become much less
competitive. A few large financial institutions will be designated
"systemically important" and thereafter operate under the government's
protection. When power is concentrated in government, it becomes
concentrated in the private sector as well.
Economic strength ensures heg effectiveness and conflict
suppression- no alt causes
Hubbard, Open Society Foundations program assistant, 2010
(Jesse, “Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical Analysis”, 5-28,
http://isrj.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/hegemonic-stability-theory/)
Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearson’s r-value is -.836. In the
case of American hegemony, economic strength is a better predictor of violent
conflict than even overall national power, which had an r-value of -.819. The data is also well within the
realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the data for British hegemony was not as striking, the
same overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively
related with violent conflict, and yet use of force by the hegemon was positively correlated with violent conflict in both
cases. Finally, in both cases, economic power was more closely associated with conflict levels than military power.
Statistical analysis created a more complicated picture of the hegemon’s role in fostering stability than initially
anticipated. VI. Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers regarding the
complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned first to the existing theoretical literature on hegemonic stability theory. The
existing literature provides some potential frameworks for understanding these results. Since economic strength proved
to be of such crucial importance, reexamining the literature that focuses on hegemonic stability theory’s economic
implications was the logical first step. As explained above, the literature on hegemonic stability theory can be broadly
divided into two camps – that which focuses on the international economic system, and that which focuses on armed
conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from the first camp are still of
economic
relevance. Even Kindleberger’s early work on this question is of relevance. Kindleberger posited that the
instability between the First and Second World Wars could be attributed to
the lack of an economic hegemon (Kindleberger 1973). But economic instability obviously has
spillover effects into the international political arena. Keynes, writing after WWI, warned in his seminal tract The
Economic Consequences of the Peace that Germany’s economic humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the
nation’s political culture (Keynes 1919). Given later events, his warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second
World War, however, the European continent has not relapsed into armed conflict. What was different after the second
global conflagration? Crucially, the United States was in a far more powerful position than Britain was after WWI. As the
tables above show, Britain’s economic strength after the First World War was about 13% of the total in strength in the
international system. In contrast, the United States possessed about 53% of relative economic power in the international
system in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild Europe’s economic strength with billions of
dollars in investment through the Marshall Plan, assistance that was never available to the defeated powers after the
First World War (Kindleberger 1973). The interwar years were also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars that
likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast, when Britain was more powerful, it was able to facilitate
greater free trade, and after World War II, the United States played a leading role in creating institutions like the GATT
that had an essential role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an
important factor in the overall security environment should not be discounted, especially given the results of my
Another theory that could provide insight into the patterns
statistical analysis.
observed in this research is that of preponderance of power. Gilpin theorized
that when a state has the preponderance of power in the international
system, rivals are more likely to resolve their disagreements without
resorting to armed conflict (Gilpin 1983). The logic behind this claim is simple – it makes
more sense to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This simple yet powerful theory can help explain the
puzzlingly strong positive correlation between military conflicts engaged in by the hegemon and conflict overall. It is not
necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon instigates further conflict in the international system. Rather, this
military involvement could be a function of the hegemon’s weaker position, which is the true cause of the higher levels
Additionally, it is important to note that military
of conflict in the international system.
power is, in the long run, dependent on economic strength. Thus, it is possible
that as hegemons lose relative economic power, other nations are
tempted to challenge them even if their short-term military capabilities are still strong.
This would help explain some of the variation found between the economic and military data. The results of this analysis
are of clear importance beyond the realm of theory. As the debate rages over the role of the United States in the world,
hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the table. What this research makes clear is that a strong
hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system. However, this should not give
policymakers a justification to engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international
If anything, this research points to the central importance of economic
stability.
influence in fostering international stability. To misconstrue these findings to
justify anything else would be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a
stabilizing role in the international system, but this role is complicated. It is
economic strength, not military dominance that is the true test of hegemony. A weak state
with a strong military is a paper tiger – it may appear fearsome, but it is
vulnerable to even a short blast of wind.
Populism/Trump
Federalism is key to resist populism
That is a mistake. Federalism doesn’t have a political valence. These days

it’s an extraordinarily powerful weapon in politics for the left and the right,
and it doesn’t have to be your father’s (or grandfather’s) federalism. It can
be a source of progressive resistance — against President’s Trump’s
policies, for example — and, far more importantly, a source for compromise
and change between the left and the right. It’s time liberals took notice.
Here are three important ways progressives can take a chapter from the
conservatives’ playbook and use their control over state and local
governments to influence the national agenda, shape policy results, and
encourage political compromise. If Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo or Eric
Garcetti is looking for a “to do” list for the next four years, it’s here.
Uncooperative federalism
People assume that if Congress changes a law, everything changes on a
dime. They forget that Congress depends heavily on states and localities to
implement federal policy.
The federal government doesn’t have enough resources to deal with
immigration, enforce its own drug laws, carry out its environmental
policies, build its own infrastructure, or administer its health care system.
Instead, it relies on the states to do much of this work. We call such
arrangements between the states and federal government “cooperative
federalism.” But we forget that they create many opportunities for what
Jessica Bulman-Pozen and I have called “uncooperative federalism.”
Populism destroys human rights and democracy

Roth, 17 – Executive director of Human Rights Watch, Educated at Yale
law and Brown(Kenneth, “The Dangerous Rise of Populism”, WORLD
REPORT, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-
chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism, Accessed: 7/1/17)//SL
The appeal of the populists has grown with mounting public discontent
over the status quo. In the West, many people feel left behind by
technological change, the global economy, and growing inequality. Horrific
incidents of terrorism generate apprehension and fear. Some are uneasy
with societies that have become more ethnically, religiously and racially
diverse. There is an increasing sense that governments and the elite ignore
public concerns.
In this cauldron of discontent, certain politicians are flourishing and even
gaining power by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect
or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and
cultural preferences of the presumed majority. They scapegoat refugees,
immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty.
Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia are on the rise.
This dangerous trend threatens to reverse the accomplishments of the

modern human rights movement. In its early years, that movement was
preoccupied with the atrocities of World War II and the repression
associated with the Cold War. Having seen the evil that governments can do,
states adopted a series of human rights treaties to limit and deter future
abuse. Protecting these rights was understood as necessary for individuals
to live in dignity. Growing respect for rights laid the foundation for freer,
safer, and more prosperous societies.
But today, a growing number of people have come to see rights not as
protecting them from the state but as undermining governmental efforts to
defend them. In the United States and Europe, the perceived threat at the
top of the list is migration, where concerns about cultural identity, economic
opportunity, and terrorism intersect. Encouraged by populists, an
expanding segment of the public sees rights as protecting only these “other”
people, not themselves, and thus as dispensable. If the majority wants to
limit the rights of refugees, migrants, or minorities, the populists suggest, it
should be free to do so. That international treaties and institutions stand in
the way only intensifies this antipathy toward rights in a world where
nativism is often prized over globalism.
It is perhaps human nature that it is harder to identify with people who
differ from oneself, and easier to accept violation of their rights. People take
solace in the hazardous assumption that the selective enforcement of rights
is possible—that the rights of others can be compromised while their own
remain secure.
But rights by their nature do not admit an à la carte approach. You may not
like your neighbors, but if you sacrifice their rights today, you jeopardize
your own tomorrow, because ultimately rights are grounded on the
reciprocal duty to treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. To
violate the rights of some is to erode the edifice of rights that inevitably will
be needed by members of the presumed majority in whose name current
violations occur.
We forget at our peril the demagogues of yesteryear—the fascists,
communists, and their ilk who claimed privileged insight into the majority’s
interest but ended up crushing the individual. When populists treat rights as
an obstacle to their vision of the majority will, it is only a matter of time
before they turn on those who disagree with their agenda. The risk only
heightens when populists attack the independence of the judiciary for
upholding the rule of law—that is, for enforcing the limits on governmental
conduct that rights impose.
Such claims of unfettered majoritarianism, and the attacks on the checks
and balances that constrain governmental power, are perhaps the greatest
danger today to the future of democracy in the West.
Nuclear war
Burke-White 04—William W., Lecturer in Public and International
Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at
Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic
Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum.
Rts. J. 249, Lexis
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--
argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more
prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation
between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity
to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to
U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts
of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action
overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War
period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own
citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To
the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records
decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by
human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since
1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling
indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A
central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of
peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation
discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful
new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human
rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights
would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes
the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as
presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy
prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling
benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic
human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to
prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through
the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the
particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation
on human rights issues.
Decentralization
Decentralization is key to solving major issues such as
ethnic or secessionist conflict. Thus passing policies such
as the AFF plan through the federal gov’t by including
state opinions would do better for solving regional
conflicts such as racial tensions in educational spaces or
the achievement gap between different ethnic groups.
Brancati, D. (2006). Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the
Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism? International Organization,
60(3), 651-685. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877823
Political decentralization is commonly believed, however, to reduce ethnic conflict and
decentralization is thought to reduce
secessionism in the world today+ Conventionally,
ethnic conflict and secessionism in democracies by bringing the government
closer to the people, increasing opportunities to participate in government, and giving
groups control over their political, social, and economic affairs + 3 In practice,
however, decentralization has been more successful in reducing ethnic conflict and
Political decentralization has been
secessionism in some countries than in others+
successful in curbing ethnic conflict and secessionism in Belgium, India, and
Spain, for example, but has been much less successful in curbing ethnic conflict and
secessionism in Nigeria, Indonesia, and the former Yugoslavia+
Terrorism
Centralization trades off with federal governments ability
to combat terrorism – federalism is key
Pietro S. Nivola Senior Fellow Emeritus - Governance Studies October 1,
2005 “Why Federalism Matters” https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-federalism-
matters/ IB
disorder
Apart from creating confusion and complacency in local communities, a second sort of
begot by a national government too immersed in their day-to-day minutia is
that it may become less mindful of its own paramount priorities. ¶ Consider an
obvious one: the security threat presented by Islamic extremism. This should
have been the U.S. government’s first concern, starting from at least the early
1990s. The prelude to September 11, 2001 was eventful and ominous. Fanatics
with ties to Osama bin Laden had bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Muslim militants had tried to
hijack an airliner and crash it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia, were blown up, killing nearly a score of American servicemen in 1996. Courtesy of Al Qaeda,
truck bombings at the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 caused thousands of
What
casualties. Al Qaeda operatives attacked the USS Cole in 2000. ¶ And so it went, year after year.
is remarkable was not that the jihadists successfully struck the Twin Towers
again in the fall of 2001 but that the United States and its allies threw no forceful
counterpunches during the preceding decade, and that practically nothing
was done to prepare the American people for the epic struggle they would
have to wage. Instead, the Clinton administration and both parties in Congress mostly
remained engrossed in domestic issues, no matter how picayune or petty .
Neither of the presidential candidates in the 2000 election seemed attentive to the fact that the country
and the world were menaced by terrorism. On the day of reckoning, when word reached President
George W. Bush that United Airlines flight 175 had slammed into a New York skyscraper, he was busy
The government’s
visiting a second-grade classroom at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida. ¶
missteps leading up to September 11th, in short, had to do with more than
bureaucratic lapses of the kind identified in the 9/11 Commission’s detailed litany. The failure
was also rooted in a kind of systemic attention deficit disorder. Diverting too much time and
energy to what de Tocqueville had termed “secondary affairs,” the nation’s public
servants from top to bottom grew distracted and overextended. ¶ To be sure, the
past four years have brought some notable changes. Fortifying the nation’s security and
foreign policy, for instance, remains a problematic work in progress, but is at least no
longer an item relegated to the hind sections of newspapers and presidential speeches. Nonetheless,
distraction and overextension are old habits that the government in Washington
hasn’t kicked. Controversies of the most local, indeed sub-local, sort—like the case of Terri Schiavo
—still make their way to the top, transfixing Congress and even the White House. ¶ The sensible
way to disencumber the federal government and sharpen its focus is to take
federalism seriously—which is to say, desist from fussing with the
management of local public schools, municipal staffing practices, sanitation standards,
routine criminal justice, family end-of-life disputes, and countless other chores customarily in
the ambit of state and local governance. Engineering such a disengagement on a full scale,
however, implies reopening a large and unsettled debate: What are the proper spheres of national and
local authority?
Extinction
Nathan Myhrvold, PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics from Princeton, former chief technology officer
of Microsoft, 13 [July 2013, “Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action,” The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf]
Several powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works. Technology now allows
stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund themselves in an unprecedented fashion .
That, coupled with the extreme difficulty of finding and punishing a stateless group, means that stateless groups are
positioned to be lead players on the world stage. They may act on their own, or they may act as proxies for
nation-states that wish to duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces to be reckoned with. At the same
time, a different set of technology
trends means that small numbers of people can obtain
incredibly lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a small group can be as lethal as
the largest superpower. Such a group could execute an attack that could kill millions of people. It is
technically feasible for such a group to kill billions of people, to end modern civilization—perhaps
even to drive the human race to extinction. Our defense establishment was shaped over decades to
address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat our nation faced: Soviet or Chinese missiles. More recently, it
has started retooling to address tactical terror attacks like those launched on the morning of 9/11, but the reform process
is incomplete and inconsistent. A real defense will require rebuilding our military and intelligence capabilities from the
ground up. Yet, so far, strategic terrorism has received relatively little attention in defense agencies, and the efforts that
have been launched to combat this existential threat seem fragmented. History suggests what will happen. The only thing
that shakes America out of complacency is a direct threat from a determined adversary that confronts us with our
shortcomings by repeatedly attacking us or hectoring us for decades.
AT: Race to the Bottom
Race to the bottom arguments are wrong – empirics prove
they are more accountable and fast acting than the feds
Pietro S. Nivola Senior Fellow Emeritus - Governance Studies October 1,
2005 “Why Federalism Matters” https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-federalism-
matters/ IB
Opinions are bound to differ on which level of government should have the last word about marriages or
abortions. More puzzling is how the central government has come to meddle incessantly in matters that
Contemporary
are ordinarily much more mundane, often meeting little or no resistance.
American federalism badly needs a realignment here. For the often indiscriminate
preoccupation of national policymakers with the details of local
administration is not just wasteful; it can be irresponsible .¶ Let us glance at a small
sample of local functions now monitored by federal agencies and courts. Federal law these days is
effectively in the business of determining the minimum drinking age for motorists, setting the licensing
standards for bus and truck drivers, judging the fitness tests for recruits of local police or fire
departments, overseeing spillages from thousands of city storm sewers, requiring asbestos inspections in
classrooms, enforcing child support payments, establishing quality standards for nursing homes,
removing lead paint from housing units, replacing water coolers in school buildings, ordering sidewalk
ramps on streets, deciding how long some unruly students in public schools can be suspended, purifying
county water supplies, arresting carjackers, mandating special education programs for preschoolers,
influencing how much a community has to pay its snowplow operators or transit workers, planning
athletic facilities at state universities, supplying communities with public works and reimbursements for
nearly any kind of natural disaster, telling localities in some states how to deploy firefighters at burning
buildings, instructing passengers where to stand when riding municipal buses, and so on. ¶ Several of
these illustrations may sound farcical, but none is apocryphal. The directives for firefighters, for example,
are among the many fastidious standards formulated by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. The pettifogging about where to stand in buses is a Department of Transportation
regulation, which, believe it or not, reads as follows: ¶ Every bus, which is designed and constructed so as
to allow standees, shall be plainly marked with a line of contrasting color at least 2 inches wide or
equipped with some other means so as to indicate to any person that he/she is prohibited from occupying
a space forward of a perpendicular plane drawn through the rear of the driver’s seat and perpendicular
to the longitudinal axis of the bus. Every bus shall have clearly posted at or near the front, a sign with
letters at least one inch high stating that it is a violation of the Federal Highway Administration’s
regulations for a bus to be operated with persons occupying the prohibited area. ¶ Tangents like these are
baffling. Why should a national cabinet department or regulatory bureaucracy be bothered with how
“standees” ride local buses or how a town’s firefighters do their jobs? If municipal transit authorities or
fire departments cannot be left to decide such particulars, what, if anything, are local governments for?
Surely, most of the matters in question—putting out a fire, taking a bus ride, disciplining a troublemaker
in school, removing hazards like asbestos or lead from a school or a house—rarely spill across
Nor can a
jurisdictions and so do not justify intervention by a higher order of government. ¶
plausible case be made that central overseers are needed for each of these
assignments because communities would otherwise “race to the bottom .” How
many states and localities, if left to their own devices, would practice fire prevention so ineptly that they
Before Congress acted to rid the Republic
require tutelage from a federally approved manual?
of asbestos, the great majority of states already had programs to find and remove the
potentially hazardous substance. Long before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
promulgated expensive new rules to curb lead poisoning, state and municipal code
enforcement departments were also working to eliminate this danger to the public
health.
Warming
2nc I/L
First,
State power necessary to mitigate the impact of warming

Maharrey 2017 - Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment
Center
Michael, "The Left Proves You Don’t Need D.C. to Address Environmental
Policy," Jun 14, https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/06/the-left-
proves-you-dont-need-d-c-to-address-environmental-policy/
Within weeks of Donald Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate
accord, the left has already begun to prove you don’t need the federal
government forcing environmental policies to address climate issues. State
and even local action can effectively move things forward. To date, 285
U.S. mayors have agreed to align their cities with provisions in the Paris
agreement and work toward its climate goals. This includes nine of the 10
largest cities in America — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston,
Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose. “We will continue to
lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy
efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks.
We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean
energy economy, and stand for environmental justice. And if the President
wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic
Paris Agreement, we’ll build and strengthen relationships around the world
to protect the planet from devastating climate risks.” This builds on a local
movement to address environmental issues that started earlier this spring.
In March, a group of mayors declared they would not enforce a Trump
administration executive order to roll back some environmental policies
Pres. Obama implemented. Crubed.com compared these local efforts on the
environment to so-called sanctuary city policies. Much like the sanctuary
city battle playing out between the federal government and cities that have
refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, these 75 cities
are squaring off against Trump’s new policies with pointed, collective
actions that defy the new administration. When Trump announced he was
changing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, a group of Climate Mayors
banded together to order $10 billion worth of electric vehicles for their city
fleets to prove that the future of transportation is not fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, some states are taking action on the climate as well. Last week,
Hawaii Gov.David Ige signed two bill relating to environmental policy.
Senate Bill 559 “expands strategies and mechanisms to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions statewide,” and House Bill 1578 to “identify agricultural and
aquacultural practices to improve soil health and promote carbon
sequestration – the capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon
dioxide to mitigate climate change.” Upon signing the bills Ige said, “and
with that signature, Hawaii becomes the first state in the nation to join the
Paris agreement.” New York Gov. Abdrew Cuomo, California Gov. Jerry
Brown and Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee have agreed to form a United
States Climate Alliance. The group hopes to convene a coalition of U.S.
states committed to upholding the Paris agreement. “New York State is
committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless
of Washington’s irresponsible actions. We will not ignore the science and
reality of climate change, which is why I am also signing an Executive Order
confirming New York’s leadership role in protecting our citizens, our
environment, and our planet,” Cuomo said in a statement. When it comes to
environmental and immigration policy, the left has discovered federalism.
Progressives have embraced James Madison’s blueprint for addressing
“unwarrantable” federal actions – refuse to cooperate with the federal
government. Whether or not you agree with the specific policies, this was
how the system was designed to work. A decentralized approach allows
various jurisdictions to experiment with different policies. If they prove
effective, others will do the same. If not, others will reject them and try
different approaches. That’s how the system is supposed to work. But when
you force one-size fits all solutions down from Washington D.C., you will
always meet resistance. In a local setting, you have a better chance of
forming something close to a consensus on certain issues. You won’t get
much resistance to fighting “climate change” in a city like Santa Monica. You
will almost never develop broad support with a national initiative, And when
you do succeed in getting a policy implemented at the federal level, a new
administration can end what you worked for in one fell swoop .
Environmentalist have learned this the hard way with the transition from the
Obama to the Trump administration. State and local reaction to the Trump
administration’s withdraw from the Paris agreement proves an important
point. You don’t have to force solutions from D.C., even on so-called global
issues like the environment.
Undermining cooperative federalism makes climate

mitigation impossible --- that turns the aff.
Andreen et al. 08 (William Andreen a professor of Law at the University of Alabama //
Robert Glicksman the Chair of the University of Kansas Law School and Director of the CPR // Nina
Mendelson a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and a Resident Scholar at the CPR // Rena
Steinzor a Research Professor of Law at the University of Maryland and Director of CPR // Shana Jones a
Policy Analyst at the CPR “Cooperative Federalism and Climate Change: Why Federal, State, and Local
Governments Must Continue to Partner,” The Center for Progressive Reform, 29 May 2008, p. 10-12,
http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/cooperative_federalism_and_climate_change.pdf)
Complete preemption of state and local authority to address climate

change would not only be inconsistent with federalism values and with
nearly forty years of federal environmental regulation, it also would prevent
the United States from taking the steps needed to avoid the potentially
devastating effects of climate change. In particular, prohibiting state and local
governments from acting in areas that have always been within their
exclusive jurisdiction – including the regulation of electric utilities, land use control, agriculture,
landfills, and building codes – would make it impossible for the U nited States to
achieve the carbon reductions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.
States are now targeting these sources in creative and innovative ways ,
including renewable portfolio standards, emissions trading programs, and policies relating
to residential energy usage, transportation planning, taxation, and waste reduction. Preempting
these efforts will be detrimental to reducing carbon emissions for the following
reasons:
A “top-down” approach characterized by complete preemption of state and local climate

change programs ignores the reality of climate change, namely that it is a problem
caused by disparate and diverse sources and that all of these sources must
reduce their carbon emissions if we want to address the problem effectively. As many states
have already shown, a rational and effective climate change policy requires the use of many different
tools. Sucha “portfolio” approach affords state and local governments the
flexibility they need to implement the policies and programs that serve their
unique constituencies best. In addition, “[d]iversification enhances a
state’s resilience to external energy challenges,” allowing states to be better prepared
when prices spike. 66 Complete preemption would both preclude flexibility and
impair effectiveness in the nation’s quest to minimize the adverse effects of
climate change.
Not only are state and local governments able to use legal tools that are not available to the
national government, they are far better suited to motivate the lifestyle changes
among their citizens that will prove essential to an effective climate
change policy over the long run. Unless individuals bear some of the burden
of combating climate change, the entire task will be thrust upon the
industries responsible for generating most of the nation’s GHGs (although
compliance with climate change requirements by industries such as electric utilities obviously will affect
individual citizens indirectly). Lifestyle changes will require “local commitment, down to individuals, to
accomplish the type of economic and societal transformations that will be necessary to achieve very large
reductions in carbon.”67
The kinds of emissions trading regimes envisioned under most pending federal climate change bills will
not be enough to combat climate change. Development and transportation decisions made by local
governments will be key to reducing carbon emissions. One estimate finds that “if 60 percent of new
growth” consists of “compact” or “high-density” development,”68 up to 85 million metric tons of carbon
gas emissions could be prevented from reaching the atmosphere each year by 2030,” the equivalent of a
28 percent increase in federal vehicle efficiency standards.69 This is five percent greater than the levels
of emissions reductions predicted to be generated by the increased vehicle efficiency standards
mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence Security Act – reduction predictions that notably do not take
into account the likelihood that driving will continue to increase. 70 State and local governments
recognize that they must promote less driving, not more, if carbon emissions are to be reduced
significantly.
Another reason to preserve state and local authority to address climate

change, notwithstanding the establishment of federal programs, is to
preserve state and local authority to deal with the divergent impacts that
climate change is likely to have in different parts of the country. Regional
variation in the impacts of climate change is likely to be significant .71 Some
regions will experience severe droughts. Others will lose coastlines. Still others will suffer from flooding
States will need the authority to enact more
caused by severe weather events.
stringent programs or supplemental programs tailored to address the
unique impacts that climate change will have on their populations and
natural resources. States will also play crucial roles in adaptation
planning. Although we know that the impacts of climate change will differ by region, we cannot
predict with certainty what these differences will be. In the face of such uncertainty, straitjacketing states
by forcing them to conform to a single, minimally protective federal regime would be both unnecessarily
limiting and unwise.
States and localities often serve as the federal government’s agent or

partner in the implementation of federal environmental legislation, and the
freedom to apply the experience and expertise they have developed over
the past four decades by creating programs that supplement federal climate
change efforts will be invaluable and necessary if federal climate change
programs are to succeed. A cooperative approach that retains state and local authority better
utilizes state and local resources than an approach that vests the exclusive power to deal with climate
change in the federal government.
A bottom-up approach of federalism is critical to confront

warming
Hart 2017 - Senior Fellow @ Brooking Metro Program
David, Mark Muro, and Chad Smith, "How states and localities can limit the
fallout of Trump's withdrawal from Paris," Jun 2,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/06/02/how-states-and-
localities-can-limit-the-fallout-of-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris/
Which prompts our second idea—the creation of a major new forum for
publicizing and adding up commitments. Bottom-up engagement would
become even more powerful if subnational governments made it in unison at
a new American Clean Energy Convention. At such a convention, each state
could share its own state-determined plan to reduce emissions to the degree
and in the manner that best suits it. Where states are unwilling to do so,
delegations made up of localities and private leaders might fill in. Such an
American Clean Energy Convention would help to reassure the world that it
is the federal government, not America, that is withdrawing from the Paris
Agreement. At the same time, the convention, by drawing on the creativity
of our dynamic federal system, might also inspire its participants to take
more ambitious steps at the state and local levels. Friendly competition,
synergies between regional energy systems, and mobilization of citizens and
companies could turn the process of making declarations into powerful race
to the top.
In any event, a new, more concerted, and more effective surge of “bottom-
up” climate and energy problem-solving is now surely needed. States and
localities should respond to President Trump’s rash and short-sighted
decision with a new phase of commitment to transform our old, outmoded
1900s energy system into a dynamic, clean system suited to this new
century.
In this way a four-year hiatus in federal policy need not become the end of
the world. Indeed, ambitious steps by states and localities would ensure that
a future president who wants to rejoin the Paris Agreement—to which every
other nation in the world but two belongs—gets a running start.
I/L – States k2 Paris
States determine the fate of Paris
Iversen 2017 - Associate Director, Climate and Resources @ CFR
Lindsay, "The United States Left the Paris Agreement. Good," Jun 16,
https://www.cfr.org/blog-post/united-states-left-paris-agreement-good-0
All things being equal, there is enormous value in keeping the United States
inside the Paris agreement. It is the world’s largest cumulative greenhouse
gas emitter and the second largest annual emitter. It is a hotbed of
innovation in clean energy and the world’s largest economy and primary
political power. But despite these attributes, it is not obvious that it is
valuable to keep the United States in at any price.
Having the world’s richest and most powerful country inside the deal
advocating for its improvement is one thing. But if its goal is to erode the
foundations of the deal from within, by weakening the expectation that
countries’ pledges will rise in ambition over time and cheapening the
normative bonds that undergird the deal’s power, the United States would
actually diminish the health, strength, and effectiveness of the deal.
Already, other countries are stepping up to claim the climate leadership role
the United States has so carelessly discarded. The European Union and
China reaffirmed their commitment to the accord in the days leading up to
Trump’s announcement, pledging to meet their emissions and funding
commitments under the deal and to “significantly intensify their political,
technical, economic and scientific cooperation on climate change and clean
energy.” India’s government also underscored its intent to remain in the
agreement, noting that it “has taken up renewable energy as an article of
faith and is steadfast on its Paris commitments, irrespective of what others
do.” Cities, states, and corporations throughout the United States have
likewise reaffirmed their plans to proceed with emissions cuts. If these and
other signatories hold to these renewed commitments, the deal has a
chance.
I/L – Paris Success Key
Successful Paris and US reductions are key to solve
warming
Kleven 2016 - economic risk consultant based in Singapore
Anthony, "Why US Leadership on Climate Change Still Matters," Jun 11,
emirates-business.ae/why-us-leadership-on-climate-change-still-matters/
As the United States hosted the 7th Clean Energy Ministerial in San Francisco on June 1-2, the Obama
administration sought to demonstrate global leadership on green energy and climate change. Those
efforts, however, are being undercut by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump and Republicans in
Congress. Just a few days before the meetings began, Trump promised to cancel the COP21 climate
accords and embrace both coal energy and the Keystone XL pipeline if he wins the election .
With the
European Union in disarray and China and India prioritizing economic growth over
environmental concerns, U.S. leadership remains critical for the agreement’s
success. If Washington fails to fulfill its obligations, the deal could fall apart —
even as global temperatures rise and the devastating effects of climate change become ever more
apparent. In condemning such accords, opponents like Trump often cite insufficient action by China and
India. Though the two countries are regularly scrutinized for not doing enough to cut greenhouse gas
emissions and for their heavy reliance on coal to spur development, the United States is to blame as well.
As the world’s second-largest polluter and second-highest per capita emitter (significantly
higher than either India or China), the United States is ultimately just as much of a wildcard
in climate change efforts. While President Obama has made historic commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions within the COP21 framework, it was not without political obstacles. The
agreement faced stiff opposition in Congress, as has long been the case with climate accords. Having
learned the lessons of past failed agreements, COP21 was made non-binding (in part to circumvent the
need for Congressional ratification). Even so, a future president could just as easily undo the agreement,
and that appears to be Donald Trump’s intention. This has already happened once: President George W.
European,
Bush reversed Bill Clinton’s decision to include the United States in the Kyoto Protocol.
Chinese, and Indian diplomats are already worried that an American
decision to renege on the COP21 would fatally undermine the agreement.
Such an outcome would be a tremendous embarrassment for the United
States and a significant step backward from its position of global leadership.
For all the obstacles faced in Washington, there is no other diplomatic workhorse willing to put its full
weight behind the grinding work of a multilateral energy shift. The only recently changed attitudes of
China and India toward climate change efforts illustrate this point. As the world’s first and fourth largest
polluters respectively, and with emission volumes projected to increase significantly further, Chinese and
Indian buy-in is essential. In place of cooperation, however, their actions on curtailing emissions have
been inadequate and at times downright obstructive. The two countries jointly brought 2009’s COP15 to
a halt: during the talks, China refused to accept proposed emissions targets and India rejected emissions
reductions it had itself proposed. The two countries ultimately brokered their own agreement with South
Africa and Brazil. China’s lingering reticence on climate issues is evident in other instances as well. The
environmental safeguards put forward by its Asian Investment Infrastructure Bank (AIIB) were criticized
for their rushed consultations and limited scope, seen as particularly meager for a $100 billion
institution. It is still too early to know how seriously the AIIB will take implementing world-class
standards, but critics worry the shortcomings in the bank’s environmental framework leave ample room
for subjective interpretation. Ultimately, both China and India are primarily concerned with sustaining
economic growth and will use cheap, dirty energy like coal if it offers them the best avenue to do that. As
such, they are unwilling to accept more drastic emissions cuts for fear of harming to their economies.
Despite India and China’s derelictions, there are still some notable examples of leadership outside the
core of developed nations. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), for example, played a major role
at COP21. With rising sea levels threatening to swallow entire islands, AOSIS has been among the most
vocal advocates for action on climate change. Even oil-producing states such as Kazakhstan have become
vocal leaders in the fight against climate change, with president Nursultan Nazarbayev renewing calls at
the recent Astana Economic Forum for the development of a green economy road map based on the COP
21. The Kazakh capital will host the green energy-focused Astana Expo 2017 next year, emphasizing
energy efficiency technologies, smart cities, and renewable energies, thereby marking a strikingly bold
tone from other former Soviet republics. More immediately impacted by the effects of climate change,
vulnerable countries like Bangladesh added much political impetus to COP21 as well. Even the likelihood
of danger, however, does not always suffice to compel nations to act. The Philippines is a case in point.
Despite the threat of rising sea levels to the over 7,000 islands that make up the country, Manila is still
pushing ahead with coal plants to meet its drastic energy needs. Ultimately, the limited clout these
countries enjoy and their relatively small share of global emissions inhibits their ability to influence
With Europe preoccupied, China and India conflicted,
global environmental action.
and other developing nations lacking influence, the United States is still the
only nation positioned to lead the world in its efforts to combat climate
change. The COP21 agreement is not without problems, but it also offers much hope. Only with
faithful implementation in Washington will Beijing and New Delhi keep pace
in tightening their emissions targets. For this to happen, U.S. policymakers must
resist the distrust of the outside world seemingly embraced by a skeptical
American public. If a President Donald Trump were to follow through on his pledges to throw out
American climate commitments, he could doom the international community’s joint efforts less than a
year after the agreement was signed in New York.
AT: States can’t solve
States can solve warming – and federalism is key – that’s

our 1NC Ibbitson evidence – local governments are best
able to respond to the situation on the ground because
they are closer – there’s only a risk they solve because the
fed is doing nothing with Trump – our evidence says that
30 states are already taking action
State power necessary to mitigate the impact of warming

Maharrey 2017 - Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment
Center
Michael, "The Left Proves You Don’t Need D.C. to Address Environmental
Policy," Jun 14, https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/06/the-left-
proves-you-dont-need-d-c-to-address-environmental-policy/
Within weeks of Donald Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate
accord, the left has already begun to prove you don’t need the federal
government forcing environmental policies to address climate issues. State
and even local action can effectively move things forward. To date, 285
U.S. mayors have agreed to align their cities with provisions in the Paris
agreement and work toward its climate goals. This includes nine of the 10
largest cities in America — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston,
Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Dallas, and San Jose. “We will continue to
lead. We are increasing investments in renewable energy and energy
efficiency. We will buy and create more demand for electric cars and trucks.
We will increase our efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, create a clean
energy economy, and stand for environmental justice. And if the President
wants to break the promises made to our allies enshrined in the historic
Paris Agreement, we’ll build and strengthen relationships around the world
to protect the planet from devastating climate risks.” This builds on a local
movement to address environmental issues that started earlier this spring.
In March, a group of mayors declared they would not enforce a Trump
administration executive order to roll back some environmental policies
Pres. Obama implemented. Crubed.com compared these local efforts on the
environment to so-called sanctuary city policies. Much like the sanctuary
city battle playing out between the federal government and cities that have
refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, these 75 cities
are squaring off against Trump’s new policies with pointed, collective
actions that defy the new administration. When Trump announced he was
changing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, a group of Climate Mayors
banded together to order $10 billion worth of electric vehicles for their city
fleets to prove that the future of transportation is not fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, some states are taking action on the climate as well. Last week,
Hawaii Gov.David Ige signed two bill relating to environmental policy.
Senate Bill 559 “expands strategies and mechanisms to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions statewide,” and House Bill 1578 to “identify agricultural and
aquacultural practices to improve soil health and promote carbon
sequestration – the capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon
dioxide to mitigate climate change.” Upon signing the bills Ige said, “and
with that signature, Hawaii becomes the first state in the nation to join the
Paris agreement.” New York Gov. Abdrew Cuomo, California Gov. Jerry
Brown and Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee have agreed to form a United
States Climate Alliance. The group hopes to convene a coalition of U.S.
states committed to upholding the Paris agreement. “New York State is
committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless
of Washington’s irresponsible actions. We will not ignore the science and
reality of climate change, which is why I am also signing an Executive Order
confirming New York’s leadership role in protecting our citizens, our
environment, and our planet,” Cuomo said in a statement. When it comes to
environmental and immigration policy, the left has discovered federalism.
Progressives have embraced James Madison’s blueprint for addressing
“unwarrantable” federal actions – refuse to cooperate with the federal
government. Whether or not you agree with the specific policies, this was
how the system was designed to work. A decentralized approach allows
various jurisdictions to experiment with different policies. If they prove
effective, others will do the same. If not, others will reject them and try
different approaches. That’s how the system is supposed to work. But when
you force one-size fits all solutions down from Washington D.C., you will
always meet resistance. In a local setting, you have a better chance of
forming something close to a consensus on certain issues. You won’t get
much resistance to fighting “climate change” in a city like Santa Monica. You
will almost never develop broad support with a national initiative, And when
you do succeed in getting a policy implemented at the federal level, a new
administration can end what you worked for in one fell swoop .
Environmentalist have learned this the hard way with the transition from the
Obama to the Trump administration. State and local reaction to the Trump
administration’s withdraw from the Paris agreement proves an important
point. You don’t have to force solutions from D.C., even on so-called global
issues like the environment.
2NC Impact
Warming risks extinction – time frame is short: the early
impacts including food shortages cause nuclear war
Torres 2016 -Director of the X-Risks Institute
Phil and Peter Boghossian [prof of philosophy @ Portland State], "The
Looming Extinction of Humankind, Explained," Aug 18,
motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/armageddon-comma-explained
*Rees – Sir Martin Rees, co-founder of the Centre for the Study of Existential
Risk
This leads to the final category of risks, which includesanthropogenic disasters like climate
change and biodiversity loss. While neither of these are likely to result in our extinction, they
are both potent “conflict multipliers” that will push societies to their limits,
and in doing so will increase the probability of advanced technologies being
misused and abused. To put this in stark terms, ask yourself this: is a nuclear war
more or less likely in a world of extreme weather, mega-droughts, mass
migrations, and social/political instability? Is an eco-terrorist attack
involving nanotechnology more or less likely in a world of widespread
environmental degradation? Is a terrorist attack involving apocalyptic fanatics more or less
likely in a world of wars and natural disasters that appear to be prophesied in ancient texts? Climate
change and biodiversity loss will almost certainly exacerbate current
geopolitical tensions and foment entirely new struggles between state and
nonstate actors. This is not only worrisome in itself, but with the advent of advanced technologies ,
it could be existentially disastrous. It’s considerations like these that have lead the experts
surveyed above, Rees, and other scholars to their less-than-optimistic claims about the future. The fact
is that there are far more ways for our species to perish today than ever
before, and the best current estimates suggest that dying from an existential
catastrophe is more likely than dying in a car accident. Even more, there are
multiple reasons for anticipating that the threat of terrorism will nontrivially increase in the coming
decades, due to the destabilizing effects of environmental degradation, the democratization of
technology, and the growth of religious extremism worldwide.
Trump Agenda
2NC — Impact Explanation
Progressive federalism allows states to assert “states’
rights” in bucking Trump’s agenda on a broad range of
issues including executive overreach, environmental
policies, immigration and marijuana legalization — that’s
Chemerinsky.
Trump’s agenda is an existential risk — policies that
promote authoritarianism, protectionism, militarism,
environmental destruction, or undermine disease
response, arms control, and the safe management of
emerging technologies all threaten the survival of human
civilization — that’s Baum.
2NC — Federalism Checks Trump: General
Federalism prevents executive overreach while helping
minorities get political power.
Somin 16 — Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University,
former John M. Olin Fellow in Law at Northwestern University Law School,
holds a J.D. from Yale Law School and an M.A. in Political Science from
Harvard University, 2016 (“Heather Gerken on Trump and progressive
federalism,” The Washington Post, December 14th, Available Online at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/12/14/heather-gerken-on-trump-and-progressive-
federalism/?utm_term=.b6e833c4f04d&tid=a_inl, Accessed 06-19-2017)
Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken has long argued that liberals
should take a more favorable view of federalism. In an important new article
on Vox, she outlines a variety of ways in which they could potentially use
state and local power to resist the Trump administration. There are a
number of parallels between Gerken’s argument and my own analysis of the
same subject. For example, we both outline similar strategies that sanctuary
cities could use to resist Trump’s efforts to deport undocumented
immigrants.
Perhaps the most notable difference between Gerken’s position and mine is
that she puts little if any emphasis on judicially enforceable limits on federal
power. This is part of a longstanding disagreement between Gerken and
other modern progressive champions of federalism on the one hand, and
conservative and libertarian federalists on the other. In my view, the new
progressive federalism would be on a sounder footing if its advocates accept
the need for strong, binding constitutional limits on federal power rather
than resist it. In some of her recent writings, Gerken has shown greater
openness to such limits on than in the past. But I think she and other liberals
should move further in that direction.
Gerken’s Vox article actually underscores this point very well, even if
perhaps unintentionally. Many of her suggested strategies for resisting
Trump implicitly depend on constitutional limits on federal power for their
effectiveness. For example, her (and my) recommendation that sanctuary
cities should refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts relies on
Supreme Court decisions forbidding federal “commandeering” of state and
local governments. Otherwise, Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress
could simply enact laws ordering the states to comply, and potentially
imposing severe punishment on officials who refuse to do so.
Both the sanctuary city policy and some of Gerken’s other ideas might be
undermined if the federal government could use conditional spending grants
to pressure dissenting states into obedience. As Gerken briefly notes, such
pressure tactics are rendered more difficult by Supreme Court decisions
requiring that any such conditions be unambiguously clear, related to the
purpose of the federal grant in question, and not so sweeping as to be
“coercive.”
Tighter constraints on federal power could also curb other dangers posed
by Trump to blue states, such as efforts to undermine state-level marijuana
legalization. In addition, liberal efforts to use federalism to resist Trump are
more likely to succeed in both courts of law and the court of public opinion if
they attract at least some conservative and libertarian support. That support
is more likely to be forthcoming if it is based on acceptance of generalized
limits on federal power that can protect right and left alike, as opposed to ad
hoc opposition to specific Trump policies.
Some liberals will likely continue to oppose nearly all hard-wired structural
constraints on federal power for fear that they might be used to impede
federal efforts to protect racial, ethnic, and other minorities. But as both
Gerken and I have explained in the past, greater political decentralization
can often benefit vulnerable minorities, particularly under modern
conditions. Moreover, it is possible to impose tighter limits on federal power
in many other areas, while still leaving the federal government broad power
to combat invidious discrimination by state and local authorities.
Ultimately, the greatest threat to both unpopular minorities and many other
groups is a largely unconstrained federal government dominated by their
political enemies. In a diverse and increasingly polarized society with deep
reservoirs of partisan hatred, both right and left have much to fear from
such concentrated power. Recent political history shows that neither side
can hope to stave off the threat by establishing a stranglehold over
Washington that eliminates the possibility that the other will return to
power. Rigorous enforcement of tight constitutional constraints on federal
authority cannot completely eliminate the danger posed by the combination
of polarization and the vast power of the modern state. But it can make it
less menacing than it would be otherwise.
States can constrain Trump and create innovative

policies — federalism is key.
Harvard University, 2017 (“Why we need enforceable constitutional limits on
federal power,” The Washington Post, January 3rd, Available Online at
conspiracy/wp/2017/01/03/why-we-need-enforceable-constitutional-limits-on-
federal-power/, Accessed 06-19-2017)
Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerken has a posted a thoughtful
response to my commentary on her analysis of the ways in which liberals
and others could use federalism to resist the upcoming Trump
administration. We agree that federalism can play a valuable role in many
ways. But Gerken argues that we don’t need judicially enforceable
constitutional limits on federal power in order to do so.
Gerken argues that such limits are both infeasible and undesirable. I think
she is mistaken on both counts. We need enforceable limits on federal
power so that dissenting states and localities don’t get trumped by Trump
– or any other federal enforcer.
In Gerken’s view, “judicial efforts to hold back the tide of federal power have
been a failure.” They have indeed not gone as far as I and many others
would like. But there has been important progress in recent years. That
progress has gone far enough that many of the liberal proposals for resisting
Trump actually rely on Supreme Court decisions limiting federal power. As I
noted in my earlier post on Gerken’s work, this is true of her own and other
liberals’ suggested strategies for protecting “sanctuary cities.”
Moreover, judicial enforcement of federalism could be much more effective if
it enjoyed broader support, particularly from liberals. If Gerken and other
leading liberal scholars and judges come around on the issue, the courts
could do a lot more to restrict federal power than is currently the case. As
with most forms of judicial review, judicial protection for federalism is likely
to be stronger if it enjoys substantial bipartisan support. There is much that
liberals could accomplish if they join with libertarians, conservatives, and
others to help make federalism great again.
Gerken also wants the federal government to retain the power to “trump”
state policies because she wants a form of federalism that enables states to
help “forge national norms rather than allow us to shield ourselves from the
federal policies with which we disagree.” As discussed in my earlier post and
earlier critiques of Gerken’s work, I think the idea of a federal trump card is
at odds with Gerken’s own emphasis on the value of federalism in protecting
vulnerable dissenters and minorities. I cannot resist adding that the trump
card looks even more dubious than usual in the soon-to-be era of Donald
Trump. A trump card that regularly falls into the hands of Trump and his ilk
is not one that liberals – or the rest of us – should support.
States that adopt innovative policies can indeed help create better norms
that spread to other parts of the nation. But they don’t have to do that
through federal coercion that compels the rest of the country to adopt them.
In many cases, the better approach is a combination of competition and
expanding opportunities for people to “vote with their feet” for better
jurisdictions. Competition and foot voting put pressure on underperforming
states and localities to improve their policies, while giving citizens greater
freedom and more choice than is available with top-down federal norm-
setting through trump cards (or even Trump cards).
Finally, Gerken reiterates her longstanding argument that states don’t need
enforceable constitutional protections to resist the federal government,
because they can often do so in other ways. She is surely right to argue that
state resistance to federal dictates does not always depend on formal
constitutional rules. But, in the absence of enforceable limits on federal
power, such resistance will often be either ineffective, or unlikely to arise in
the first place.
For example, state and local resistance to Trump’s potential attacks on
sanctuary cities is not likely to succeed if the federal government could
simply order local officials to do its bidding, on pain of severe penalties.
State and local resistance to this and other federal policies can also be
undermined (and often has been) by conditional federal grants, especially if
there are no limits on the scope and extent of the conditions and associated
penalties for violators.
It is true, as Gerken famously put it, that, absent enforceable constitutional
limits on federal power, states and localities can still wield the “power of the
servant.” But they can accomplish a lot more if they were also masters of
their own domain. There is a reason why we normally assume that masters
have greater autonomy than servants do. To adapt one of Gerken’s other
famous phrases, those who value “dissenting by deciding” should help
ensure that dissenting states actually have the final power of decision over
some range of important issues. Otherwise, they might get trumped by
Trump.
Only strong states’ rights can constrain Trump

executive overreach.
Hamilton 17 — Marci A. Hamilton, a columnist for News Week, 2017
(“How to stop Trump? The founding fathers thought of that,” Newsweek,
January 30th, Available Online at http://www.newsweek.com/how-stop-trump-
founding-fathers-thought-550014, Accessed 06-22-2017)
For those panicking at President Donald Trump’s speedy signing of a pile of
executive orders that reverse longtime policies during his first week, take a
deep breath.
The Framers crafted a system to check men like Trump, and in fact they
expected most everyone to hold power to abuse it.
The Framers of the Constitution, intellectually led by James Madison and
James Wilson, were informed by an attitude toward human nature that is the
key to the Constitution’s enduring success: Assume anyone who holds power
will be tempted to abuse it, and then limit it.
It is related to Presbyterian-based Calvinism at the time, and the influence of
now-Princeton University’s Reverend John Witherspoon, but they took that
principle out of its theological underpinnings and crafted a Constitution for
all Americans, whether Deists, Christians, Jews or other believers.
This core insight that humans can’t be trusted and need to be checked is the
reason the United States will survive and even thrive during a Trump
presidency.
For the Framers, the question to be addressed for every provision of the
Constitution was this: If we give this amount of power to this
individual/institution, how do we check it? The result in broad outline
produced the following checking structures: separation of powers (between
the three branches of government—legislative, executive and judicial);
separation of power between the federal government and the states;
and separation of power between church and state.
Strong federalism checks Trump executive overreach.

Loth 17 — Renée Loth, an editor at the Boston Globe, 2017 (“Liberals are
reconsidering federalism in the wake of Trump,” Boston Globe, January 9th,
Available Online at
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/01/09/liberals-are-reconsidering-
federalism-wake-trump/HgskudDGK4Claz7coGTa7M/story.html, Accessed
06-22-17)
With all of official Washington in the grip of Republicans, and an autocratic
— not to say imperial — figure in the White House, many liberals are taking
a second look at the 10th Amendment. That’s the one where all power not
explicitly granted to the federal government by the US Constitution devolves
to the states. “Progressive federalism,” a term that once might have been
considered an oxymoron, is coming into vogue as worried Americans look to
the states to protect their rights or to resist President-elect Donald Trump’s
more despotic policy proposals.
Already, states are preparing rearguard actions against executive
overreach. California has declared that it will remain committed to the
Paris climate accords even if Trump, as threatened, pulls the United States
out of the global agreement. Just last week the California state legislature
hired former attorney general Eric Holder to help craft legal strategies to
thwart the Trump agenda. A number of cities have pledged to continue
protecting undocumented immigrants from deportation roundups despite
Trump’s threats to cut off their federal funding. “The states are where it’s
at,” says Carol Rose, director of the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union.
“We are the safe havens of democracy.”
It’s ironic that progressives find themselves looking for decentralized
solutions to overweening power in Washington. Federalism, and its coarser
cousin “states’ rights,” have long carried a noxious whiff of bigotry because
of Southern-state resistance to civil rights and the abolition of slavery. And,
since at least the 1960s and President Johnson’s Great Society, liberals have
looked to Washington for broad safety-net protections, and to the Supreme
Court to confer an ever-widening circle of liberties. Small-government
federalists, by contrast, have often pushed local control as a cover for
retrograde policies on civil rights and social welfare, including deep budget
cuts masquerading as “block grants.”
Federalism checks trump — nullification and local

resistance fail.
Messamore 17 — W.E. Messamore, has an entrepreneurship major and
is a graduate of Belmont University, 2017 (“Democrats Use Federalism,
“States’ Rights” in Fight Against Trump, Republicans,” IVN, March 2nd,
Available Online at https://ivn.us/2017/03/02/democrats-use-federalism-
states-rights-fight-trump-republicans/, Accessed 06-22-17)
With Republicans in control of the White House and both houses of
Congress, Democrats may find refuge in the use of states’ rights and even
local defiance of federal policy on the city level.
Heather Gerkin, the J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School
writes:
“Progressives have long been skeptical of federalism, with the role that
“states’ rights” played in the resistance to the civil rights act and
desegregation typically featuring prominently in their criticism…
That is a mistake. Federalism doesn’t have a political valence. These

days it’s an extraordinarily powerful weapon in politics for the left
and the right, and it doesn’t have to be your father’s (or
grandfather’s) federalism.”
Relinquishing the tactics of nullification and local resistance to federal

policies they disagree with is a mistake Democrats have vocally signaled
that they are not going to make.
Major metropolitan governments are the only level of US government that
Democrats control today with Democratic governors outnumbered by
Republican governors 31 to 19, and after losing the White House and failing
to secure either chamber of Congress.
Of America’s 20 biggest cities, however, all but three are locked up by
Democratic mayors and closely aligned blue electorates comprising 32
million Americans. And they have vowed to actively defy Trump.
Immigration is a major example:
“…in Los Angeles, where nearly half of the city’s residents are Latino,
Mayor Eric Garcetti has vowed to do everything he can to fight
widespread deportations of illegal immigrants.
In New York, with a large and diverse Latino population, Mayor Bill
de Blasio has pledged not to cooperate with immigration agents. And
Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago has declared that it ‘will always be a
sanctuary city.’
Across the nation, officials in sanctuary cities are gearing up to oppose
President-elect Donald J. Trump if he follows through on a campaign promise
to deport millions of illegal immigrants.”
And Democratic mayors in major US cities are promising to ignore federal
policy and chart their own path on policing issues like drug prohibition
enforcement, stop-and-frisk, and sentencing; climate change and renewable
energy; healthcare and entitlement programs; and civil rights issues for
LGBT.
2NC — Federalism Checks Trump: Agenda
Federalism is more effective at protecting minority
rights and limiting Trump overreach on marijuana
legalization and immigration.
Harvard University, 2016 (“Trump, federal power, and the left – why liberals
should help make federalism great again,” The Washington Post, December
5th, Available Online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/12/05/trump-federal-power-and-the-left-why-liberals-
should-help-make-federalism-great-again/, Accessed 06-19-2017)
One of the few beneficial effects of Donald Trump’s unexpected election
victory has been a renewed interest in federalism among many on the left. In
recent days, prominent liberal legal scholars Noah Feldman and Jeff Rosen,
and political scientist Corey Brettschneider have all published notable
articles on how state and local governments can use federalism to curb
Trump and protect vulnerable minorities. All three argue that liberals
should make use of constitutional constraints on federal power traditionally
championed by conservatives and libertarians, including the conservative
majority on the Supreme Court. Feldman’s article on how federalism can be
used to protect sanctuary cities actually makes many of the same points as
my own earlier piece on the same subject.
Some conservatives and libertarians will be tempted to dismiss the new
liberal interest in federalism as unprincipled opportunism. Until recently,
most liberals forcefully opposed the pro-federalism Supreme Court decisions
many now seek to rely on to shield blue states against Trump. The next time
there is a liberal Democrat in the White House, perhaps they will do so
again.
“Fair weather federalism” is indeed a common phenomenon, on the right as
well as the left. Both Democrats and Republicans tend to support expansive
federal authority when their side is in power in Washington, and view it
more skeptically when they are on the outs. It’s certainly possible that this
will turn out to be just another iteration of the same old story.
But if we want to break this sad pattern, we should spend less time on
recriminations over past inconsistencies and more looking for ways to build
a durable cross-ideological coalition in favor of stronger enforcement of
constitutional limits on federal power. In this context, it is important to
recognize that newfound liberal interest in federalism is not solely a result of
their fear of Trump. In recent years, some on the left have shown a greater
openness to setting limits on federal power, and scholars such as Heather
Gerken have pointed out that state and local governments now often protect
vulnerable minorities better than Washington does.
Liberals could potentially build on these ideas to use federalism as a

bulwark against Trumpian abuses. Their chances of succeeding in this
endeavor, however, are likely to be greater if they can form a coalition with
at least some like-minded conservatives and libertarians. A cross-ideological
case for federalism is more likely to prevail in court challenges to Trump
policies (which are likely to be heard a Supreme Court with a conservative
majority), and more likely to succeed in the political arena as well.
If Trump attempts to implement the populist/nationalist agenda he
campaigned on, there might be more opportunities for such alliances than in
the past. In addition to drawing opposition on the left, the Trumpist agenda
on constitutional and other issues also includes many elements inimical to
libertarians and a good many constitutional conservatives – myself most
definitely included. Many of us have been arguing for tighter enforcement of
constitutional limits on federal power for many years, and would welcome
greater cross-ideological cooperation on that front.
A good many liberals are understandably hesitant to commit to enforceable
limits on the scope of federal power because of a fear that doing so might
inhibit federal efforts to protect racial, ethnic, and other minorities against
state and local oppression. But even very robust federal antidiscrimination
efforts do not require virtually unlimited federal power to regulate anything
that might have some effect on the economy, or nearly unconstrained federal
authority to use conditional grants to pressure states and localities to do
their bidding. Principled liberals can favor broad federal authority to protect
minority groups under the Fourteenth Amendment, while simultaneously
enforcing tighter limits on Washington’s power in other areas. We can
make federalism a bulwark against national government oppression without
returning to the bad old days when “states rights” was a shield for slavery
and segregation.
As the Trump agenda suggests, federal power that has few or no constraints
across the board can actually be a menace to minority groups. Other
things equal, oppressive federal policies may actually be even more
dangerous than comparable state and local ones. Federal policies affect
more people, and are more difficult to escape by “voting with your feet” in
favor of more tolerant jurisdictions.
It would be naive to expect left and right to reach a complete consensus on
constitutional federalism anytime soon. There are still many obstacles to
cross-ideological cooperation on these issues. Some liberals will continue to
support nearly unconstrained federal power. All too many on the right will
back Trump’s policies even when they go against their previous
commitments on constitutional issues. And, obviously, there will be
continued disagreements over interpretative methodology, such as the
longstanding conflict between originalism and living constitutionalism
(though the former has attracted some new left-wing support in recent
years).
But, in the wake of Trump, perhaps there can at least be broader agreement
that there should be serious, judicially enforceable limits on federal
power to coerce state governments (whether directly or through conditional
grants), and on federal authority to regulate private activities that are not
closely connected to interstate commerce. These, after all, are exactly the
tools that a Trump-led GOP could potentially use to break the resistance of
dissenting state and local governments. They can also be used to harm
immigrants and other minorities in a wide variety of ways, and to stifle
liberal state policies, such as marijuana legalization.
More generally, recent political history has shown that neither Democrats
nor Republicans can expect to achieve uncontested long-term control of the
federal government anytime soon. Both sides have to reckon with the
likelihood that the other will be in power a substantial proportion of the
time. In an age of growing polarization and partisan hatred, both left and
right have much to fear anytime Congress and the presidency falls under the
control of the other – even if the president in question is not a dangerous
demagogue like Trump.
Stronger enforcement of constitutional limits on federal authority cannot
fully solve these problems. But by limiting the power available to the ruling
party in Washington, it can curb some of the worst potential depredations of
each party, and reduce the extent to which each must fear the other. That
objective ought to be attractive to a wide range of people who may not
otherwise agree on much else. Perhaps, together, we can help make
American federalism great again.
Federalism enables the states to constrain

conservative Trump policies.
So, as a result of the federalism doctrine created by conservative justices,
President Trump and the GOP-dominated Congress don’t have many sticks
with which to bludgeon uncooperative states and cities. Their best bet for
getting things done mostly involves carrots. This creates a heavy incentive
for moderation and compromise. If Trump and his allies want to enact
national policy, they must build a national consensus. At the very least, they
will need to compromise enough to make their policies palatable to the
other side. Just ask the Obama Administration, which had to grant red states
waivers and other incentives to persuade them to expand health-care
coverage.
To be sure, uncooperative federalism will not always result in a progressive
victory. If President Trump spends enough political capital, he’ll surely win
some of his battles against blue cities and states. But he cannot win the war.
The federal government doesn’t have the resources to carry out all of the
new Congress’s proposals. Spending time and money to crack down on
marijuana, for example, takes resources away from fights over immigration
or climate change.
The federal government cannot hire its own cops or teachers or put its own
bureaucrats at every desk. Even if Trump doesn’t have to make nice with
Democrats on the Hill, he’ll need the support of America’s progressive
enclaves to actually get things done. A federal program that doesn’t affect
California, New York, and Illinois—to say nothing of Houston, Atlanta, and
Phoenix—won’t touch a huge portion of America. If progressive leaders hold
their ground, they can shield their constituents from the policies they most
oppose and maybe even force the new Administration to seek compromise.
Minimum Wage
Federalism key to minimum wage and challenging trump’s
policies in progressive states
Lane 3/15 Charles Lane, Charles Lane is a Post editorial writer
specializing in economic and fiscal policy, a weekly columnist, and a
contributor to the PostPartisan blog., 3-15-2017, "Liberals Are Learning To
Love States’ Rights," Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/liberals-are-learning-to-love-
states-rights/2017/03/15/c40044e6-098c-11e7-93dc-
00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.d4f8993b88d9
States’ rights is making a comeback, but this time it’s progressives, not
slaveholders or white supremacists, raising the cry.
There’s an independence movement in California — the frustrated giant that provided Hillary Clinton’s
popular-vote margin of 3 million in November. In a New Republic manifesto, Kevin Baker goes beyond
“Calexit” to advocate a quasi-secessionist “Bluexit” for all 20 states that Clinton carried. Dismayed by the
Democrats’ loss of the federal government, gloomy at the prospect of more such defeats to come and —
in Baker’s case — embittered by red states’ dependence on federal funds disproportionately supplied by
blue-state taxpayers, some lefties have concluded that if you can’t lick ’em, leave ’em. Or take ’em to
court, as blue-state attorneys general are doing to the Trump administration on immigration, in a mirror
image of their red-state counterparts’ lawsuits against President Barack Obama on the same issue.
Obviously, a national breakup along state lines is not going to happen, and would make our predicament
the liberal rediscovery of states as
worse if it did. Still, stripped of its loopier manifestations,
sovereign policymaking entities could be a positive development. Heretofore,
federalism has been a right-wing cause, whose malignant forms trace their pedigree to John C. Calhoun
and Secessionism 1.0.
Now, a left-right convergence might sustain benign forms of
federalism — based on the understanding that policy should, whenever appropriate, be made close to
the people who will actually live under it. Constitutional rights, especially those protected by the Bill of
Rights and the Civil War amendments, must be federally enforced without variation. Ditto for the
execution of national functions such as immigration, defense and monetary policies. Beyond that ,
is it
vital that all economic and social policies be identical from Massachusetts to
Texas? Or is there some benefit in state-by-state experimentation and even a
certain amount of competition? The United States could not, indeed, survive half-slave and
half-free. We certainly could survive if our states’ social models were half-red and half-blue — or one-third
red, one-third blue, one-third purple. We might even flourish. Many would be surprised how close we
already are to such a devolution. Policy waivers are available to states that wish to depart from provisions
of national education and health legislation — Obamacare included. The New Deal’s great innovation, the
minimum wage, sets a national floor under hourly pay but has long since ceased to function as a national
standard.
In the nearly 10 years since Congress last adjusted it, multiple states
and localities have enacted their own laws. Now 29 states with 63 percent of
the U.S. population have minimums higher, often much higher, than the
federal $7.25 per hour. Twenty-eight states also have right-to-work laws,
barring mandatory union dues, but no less a progressive man of labor than Andy Stern,
former president of the Service Employees International Union, thinks more
decentralization of federal labor law might help unions escape their
seemingly terminal decline. In a recent National Affairs essay, Stern and free-market
think-tanker Eli Lehrer called for state waivers under the National Labor
Relations Act, so as to enable “experimentation with new business models
that could, in turn, vastly increase the number of people involved in labor
unions as well as unions’ own success as business enterprises.” Health care and
education are two crucial, and expensive, areas in which the states and the federal government have
been involved with each other for so long that it may be impossible ever to disentangle them. Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-Tenn.) advocated a “grand swap” in which the federal government would pay for Medicaid
entirely while states would take sole responsibility for schools. Seems a tempting deal for progressives
interested in national “single-payer” health care for the poor. If nothing else, Alexander’s idea would
clarify lines of accountability .
Clarification might in fact be the greatest benefit of
federalism. Part of what aggrieves both the left and the right about the
status quo is complex cost-shifting between Washington and the states , which
renders government at all levels less transparent. If you doubt it, read Baker’s scornful threat to
withdraw blue-state taxpayers’ support for federal disaster-relief aid to the hurricane-prone Gulf states,
as payback for voting for Trump. Ours is an era of troubled continental confederations. The Soviet Union
failed because it never should have existed, and never would have, but for the ruthless imperial control
The European Union
that Communists in Moscow exercised over its component peoples.
decays because it has just enough power to infringe annoyingly on its
constituent nations’ sovereignty, but not enough truly to unite them. America’s
federalist constitution, by contrast, offers ways of channeling debates away from Washington — where
the stakes are winner-take-all but the processes are deadlocked — into potentially more fluid and
productive state channels. Neither Blue America nor Red America really wants to break up. We just need
to give each other some space.
Minimum Wage has shown good signs in early usage, key

to reducing nationwide poverty
Heather Boushey 2016, Heather Boushey is the executive director and
chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and the
author of “Finding Time: The Economics of Work-Life Conflicts.", 9-29-2016,
"Benefits of Minimum-Wage Increases Seem Too Good to Be True, But
They're Not," New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/09/29/poverty-prosperity-and-
the-minimum-wage/benefits-of-minimum-wage-increases-seem-too-good-to-
be-true-but-theyre-not
Some ideas sound too good to be true. Some argue that one of those ideas is :
If you want higher
incomes and less poverty, then you pay workers higher wages. This logic is
leading policymakers around the country to increase their local minimum
wage. The last increase to the federal minimum wage was when it rose to $7.25 in 2009, which also
coincides with the end of the Great Recession in June of 2009. Since 2009, 28 states and the
District of Columbia as well as 43 cities and localities have raised their
minimum wage. The evidence isn't conclusive, but we have to seriously consider that
raising the minimum wage has done more good than harm. Advocates for
increasing the minimum wage argue that it will improve people’s earnings
and make it easier for them to support their families. Some even point to the
very good economic news earlier this month — U.S. Census Bureau data show
that for 2015, median household income rose 5.2 percent, up to around
$56,500, the largest single-year increase since record-keeping began in
1967. Incomes rose across the board: For young people and in households
headed by middle-aged adults and older people, and for African-American
families, white families, Latino families and Asian American families. We also
learned that 3.5 million Americans rose above the poverty line last year.
Given that so many places have raised their minimum wage, this is proof at
the very least that policies to increase the minimum wage happened
alongside real income gains at the national level. An economist’s caution, however, is
that correlation is not causation, meaning that just because the two things happened along a time line
that makes sense, it doesn’t mean that one caused the other. There continues to be debate over whether
policies such as raising the minimum wage actually raise incomes because higher wages may be offset by
employers using less employee time, so that incomes don’t actually rise in the end. While the weight of
the empirical evidence points to the conclusion that there have been little or no employment effects from
minimum wage increases around the nation, some argue that it hampers employment for some groups or
What the recent upticks in income and decline
that the “Fight for $15” is a step too far.
in poverty tell us is that we have to seriously consider that raising the
minimum wage has done more good than harm. When we combine the
income data with the fact that we continue to be amid the longest job-
creating recovery since the end of World War II — when the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics first began tabulating this data — it’s hard to argue that
improving the lives of workers is a bad thing.
2NC — Immigration (Moral Impact)
Trump’s immigration order is immoral — it threatens
millions of children.
Cervantes and Walker 17 — Wendy Cervantes, Senior Policy
Analyst at the Center for Law & Social Policy (CLASP), the Vice President of
Immigration and Child Rights for First Focus and the Director of the Center
for the Children of Immigrants, holds an M.A. in Latin American Studies and
Political Science from the University of New Mexico and a B.A. in
Communications from the University of Southern California, and Christina
Walker, Policy Analyst, Child Care and Early Education at CLASP, 2017
(“Five Reasons Trump’s Immigration Orders Harm Children,” Center For
Law & Social Policy, April, Available Online at
http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/publication-1/Five-Reasons-
Immigration-Enforcement-Orders-Harm-Children.pdf, Accessed 07-06-2017,
Lil_Arj)
Research shows that harsh immigration enforcement policies have
consistently undermined the health, economic security, and overall
wellbeing of children in immigrant families.1
Earlier this year, the Trump Administration issued two executive orders that
drastically expand the intensity and scope of federal immigration
enforcement activities in the United States. These orders include policy
changes that will have damaging consequences for children living in mixed-
status immigrant families, the vast majority of whom are U.S. citizens, as
well as unaccompanied children seeking protection here. 2
One order on immigration enforcement activities within the United States
prioritizes more immigrants—including parents—for deportation, triples the
number of immigration agents, and calls for increased collaboration
between federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law
enforcement agencies to detain undocumented immigrants. 3
Similarly, another order, which is focused on immigration enforcement along
the U.S. southern border, calls for significant expansion of immigration
detention capacity. It also makes policy changes that would return migrants
—including women and children seeking asylum—back into harm’s way and
strip children of critical protections.4 Ultimately, these costly and misguided
policies pose a significant threat to millions of children whose wellbeing
and long-term development is directly linked to the parent-child
relationship, external stress factors, and family economic security.
Several provisions in these orders are likely to face legal challenges, while
others would require additional funding to be fully implemented. Therefore,
these policies should not be considered final or unalterable. However, it is
clear that these orders—even those that have not been fully implemented—
are already negatively affecting immigrant communities, creating a climate
of fear, and endangering children’s safety and wellbeing. This fact sheet
highlights key consequences for children and families.
Specifically, Trump’s immigration enforcement orders:
1. Tear families apart,
2. Harm children’s short- and long-term mental health,
3. Undermine children’s economic security,
4. Threaten children’s access to education and basic needs, and

5. Endanger the lives of asylum-seeking children and families.
2NC — Immigration (Economy Impact)
Trump’s future immigration policies are immoral and
undermine economic growth.
Cervantes 17 — Wendy Cervantes, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center
for Law & Social Policy (CLASP), the Vice President of Immigration and
Child Rights for First Focus and the Director of the Center for the Children
of Immigrants, holds an M.A. in Latin American Studies and Political Science
from the University of New Mexico and a B.A. in Communications from the
University of Southern California, 2017 (“Why President Trump’s Leaked
Immigration Order Is a Threat to Us All,” Washington Monthly, March 8th,
Available Online at http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/08/why-
president-trumps-leaked-immigration-order-is-a-threat-to-us-all/, Accessed
07-06-2017, Lil_Arj)
In his first address to Congress, President Donald Trump boasted about his
recent executive orders and promised to continue to push an immigration
agenda that will prove deeply harmful and divisive.
So far, the president’s immigration orders have had or threatened to have
dire consequences for citizens and non-citizens alike—from tearing families
apart to creating a climate of fear within whole communities. A leaked
executive order threatens to undercut basic lifelines for low-income
immigrant families, and could have serious long-term implications for us all,
regardless of immigration status. As proposed, the executive order would
deny admission to anyone deemed likely to receive a wide range of income-
based supports that low-wage workers and their families, native-born as well
as foreign-born, rely on in tough times. This proposal is not only inhumane,
it is grossly unfair to millions of taxpaying Lawful Permanent Residents who
would be denied benefits.
For nearly a century, U.S immigration law has used the “public charge” test
to ensure that newcomers do not end up relying on the government for their
“subsistence” or basic survival, such as using public cash assistance—like
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program—as their
primary source of support. But it has never been used to completely exclude
people who will be working their way up from low-wage jobs. In fact, that is
the traditional story of immigrants in America. Trump’s proposal, however,
would drastically reverse longstanding guidelines for who would be excluded
from the country.
The proposal, for example, could make someone inadmissible to the United
States if the Department of Homeland Security determines that she may at
some point in the future attempt to access public nutrition assistance or
health care. It would also punish permanent residents with deportation if
they use these same types of programs within the first five years of entering
the United States, a severe consequence only currently used in extremely
rare circumstances.
In another blow to immigrant families struggling to make ends meet, the
draft order would expand the list of “federal means-tested benefits” that
permanent residents are barred from using during their first five years in
the country, potentially cutting them off from a much broader range of
federal income-based programs regardless of the circumstances. Similarly,
the order would prohibit taxpaying immigrant parents who lack a Social
Security number from claiming the federal Child Tax Credit, a proven tool
for combating child poverty that has long had bipartisan support.
The order’s objective to penalize immigrants with limited financial means—
both those who aspire to enter the country and those who have recently
arrived—threatens family unity in two ways. First, it would make it nearly
impossible for low-income immigrants to reunite with loved ones through a
family-based visa, a process that can already take several years and one that
the president suggested should be replaced by a merit-based system.
Second, it would put immigrant parents in the impossible position of
allowing their children to go hungry or to risk deportation simply by
applying for federal assistance.
It’s important to note that many of the draft order’s provisions would need
to be ironed out in a regulatory process, and it remains unclear which
means-tested programs would ultimately be included. In addition, some
proposed provisions would require congressional approval. Without doubt,
however, the issuance of the order would create immediate fear and
confusion among immigrant families and the people and programs that serve
them. Indeed, most concerning is the chilling effect this proposal would
have, by deterring immigrants from seeking potentially lifesaving services
for themselves or their children. Already state program administrators and
health clinic workers are reporting that some parents are withdrawing their
citizen children from critical programs simply because of the uncertainty
created by this order and the fear of repercussions.
Lessons from the past serve as a caution against such overly restrictive
proposals. After the passage of the 1996 immigration and welfare reform
laws, which denied certain benefits to recently arrived Lawful Permanent
Residents, research shows that participation of immigrants and their
families in public benefit programs dropped sharply, compromising the
health and well-being of low-income immigrants as well as their citizen
children. And contrary to the president’s claim that immigrants strain public
resources, a recent analysis shows that low-income immigrant households
remain much less likely to participate in safety net programs like TANF or
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—even though they
are eligible—than households headed by people born in the United States.
In response to the extreme hardship caused by the 1996 restrictions,
subsequent legislation restored eligibility for children and other vulnerable
populations. For example, nutrition assistance under SNAP was later
reinstated for qualified children (without a five-year bar), and states now
have the option to provide federally funded health care to lawfully residing
children and pregnant women regardless of how long they have been in the
country—an option that more than half of the states have opted to include in
their policies. These improvements reflect the common-sense principle that
communities are better off when all babies and children have access to basic
health care and nutrition.
Thus, the president’s proposed order represents a step backward, virtually
pulling the entire safety net out from under taxpaying immigrant families.
Ultimately millions of children, 88 percent of whom are U.S. born
citizens, would suffer the most severe consequences. Access to
preventative health care and nutrition helps improve childhood outcomes,
which extends to better education and employment outcomes in adulthood.
Similarly, the proposal’s restriction on access to the Child Tax Credit would
directly harm 4.1 million U.S. citizen children living with at least one
unauthorized parent, putting them at greater risk of falling into poverty.
Finally, it’s important to recognize that immigrants of all financial means
significantly contribute to our nation’s economy, and they and their
children are vital to our country’s future prosperity. In fact, children of
immigrants represent one quarter of our increasingly diverse U.S.
child population, and therefore will make up a critical segment of the
future American workforce. Preventing these kids from having their most
fundamental needs met and driving them further into poverty will only serve
to undermine our economic prospects for generations to come.
Weak growth causes nuclear war---turns every impact

Kemp 10 – Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at
The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special
assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for
Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff,
Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India,
China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first
scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic
situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan
suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global
economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels
plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states,
which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social
welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest : and nurtures different radical
groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal
stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.”
Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and
its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large
number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan
increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan,
expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear
proliferation in the Middle East , with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt
joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the
potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear
terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states
may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market,
with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions
can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s
population.
2NC — Marijuana (Racism Impact)
Marijuana laws are racist — uneven enforcement.
Levy-Pounds 13 — Nekima Levy-Pounds, Associate Professor of Law
and Director of the Community Justice Project at the University of St.
Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis), 2013 (“Going Up In Smoke: The
Impacts Of The Drug War On Young Black Men,” Albany Government Law
Review (6 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 563), Available Online to Subscribing
Institutions via Lexis-Nexis, Accessed 07-07-2017, Lil_Arj)
[*576] One of the most compelling arguments raised in support of legalizing
marijuana has been advanced by various state chapters of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). n58 Prior to
the historic vote in Colorado, the president of the Colorado chapter of the
NAACP, Alice Huffman, strongly supported the legalization of marijuana due
to civil rights issues connected to enforcement laws. n59 Indeed, although
African Americans comprise 4% of the population in Colorado, they
represent 22% of those who are arrested for violating marijuana laws. n60
Sadly, this issue does not only affect African American men in Colorado.
Uneven enforcement of marijuana laws is a problem across the nation.
Recent studies indicate that African American men on a national level are
routinely pulled over by law enforcement, harassed, arrested, and
charged with low-level drug offenses, with marijuana being one of the
primary factors. n61 [*577] Concerns about the racially biased
application n62 of marijuana enforcement laws against African Americans
played a major role in NAACP chapters in other parts of the country making
a decision to advocate for the legalization of marijuana. n63
Racism is a d-rule.
Memmi 99 — Albert Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the
University of Paris, 1999 (Racism, Published by the University of Minnesota
Press, ISBN 0816631654, p. 163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission,
without remission, probably never achieved.
Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease
and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must
not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it
merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other
people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to
the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to
accept the persistence of the dark [end page 163] history in which we still
largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim
(and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?).
Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the
dominated; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human
condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in
question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from
animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist
challenge.
However, it remains true that one's moral conduct only emerges from a
choice; one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always
debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly
speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the
establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This
is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a
legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the
other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical
point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is "the
truly capital sin."22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity's
spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or
strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested
commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests
the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an
interest in [end page 164] banishing injustice, because injustice engenders
violence and death.
Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong
enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one
is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be
reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death.
It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with
respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt,"
which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were
a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an
ethical and a practical appeal--indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it
might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical
and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands
the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this
contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and
destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in
peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
2NC — Marijuana (Constitution Impact)
Laws prohibiting use of marijuana are
unconstitutional.
Carcieri 11 — Martin D. Carcieri, Associate Professor of Political
Science, San Francisco State University, earned a J.D. from the University of
California, Hastings and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa
Barbara, 2011 (“Obama, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Drug War,”
Akron Law Review (44 Akron L. Rev. 303), Available Online to Subscribing
Institutions via Lexis-Nexis, Accessed 07-07-2017, Lil_Arj)
I. INTRODUCTION
If Obama is reelected, however, the situation transforms. Since the Twenty-
second Amendment bars him from a third term, n12 and his future would be
quite secure, he would be free to speak the truth on this issue, which
includes the following: beyond its economic n13 and social n14 costs, [*306]
marijuana prohibition burdens a range of constitutional interests, including
those arising under the First, n15 Fourth, n16 Fifth, n17 Sixth, n18 [*307]
Eighth, n19 Tenth, n20 and Fifteenth n21 Amendments. n22 As a
constitutional lawyer, further, the President knows that these problems may
be but symptoms of an underlying constitutional infirmity, one rooted
primarily in the Fourteenth Amendment. This article is written to help clarify
the full range of understanding Obama would bring to a second term.
Specifically, I defend two related, contested theses.
My core thesis, to which this article is primarily devoted, is a jurisprudential
claim: contrary to state and lower federal court rulings, marijuana
prohibition is subject to strict judicial scrutiny under leading [*308] relevant
U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. n23 I support this thesis primarily by
showing that under the Fourteenth Amendment, bodily autonomy--i.e., the
control over the borders and contents of one's body burdened by laws like
marijuana prohibition--is a fundamental right, and that the Court has thus
established a presumption in its favor, especially for adults in the home. I
then reinforce this thesis with three further arguments: (1) marijuana
prohibition violates "justice as regularity," n24 (2) marijuana prohibition
satisfies the "suspect class" trigger of strict scrutiny, n25 and (3) bodily
autonomy is closely analogous to the fundamental right of free speech. In
sum, I argue that all roads of constitutional analysis lead to strict scrutiny of
marijuana prohibition.
The Constitution is a moral decision rule. Ends-based

disads can’t outweigh.
Bayer 11 — Peter Brandon Bayer, Lawyering Process Professor at the
William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, former
Assistant Professor and Director of the Legal Research, Analysis, and
Writing Program at St. Thomas University School of Law, holds an LL.M.
from Harvard Law School, a J.D. from New York University School of Law,
and an M.A. in Sociology from New York University, 2011 (“Sacrifice and
Sacred Honor: Why the Constitution is a ‘Suicide Pact’,” William & Mary Bill
of Rights Journal (20 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 287), December, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Introduction
To be a true constitution, that which a society calls its constitution must
enforce values so imperative, so fundamental, that the constitution
comprises not only a way to live but more profoundly, a reason to die.
Customarily through, for example, military service, individual citizens or
groups of citizens may be required to risk their lives to preserve their
constitution and the nation over which it presides. However, a true
constitution rightfully demands that the entire constitutional order —the
whole society regulated by that constitution—risk its own demise rather
than betray the essential precepts that the constitution embodies. Only
principles of such magnitude warrant inclusion in the supreme document of
a particular people. n1 [*290]
Simply believing that a particular constitution is worth dying for, however, is
not enough. To be a legitimate constitution—to actually be worthy of such
communal sacrifice—the given constitution must be moral; that is, both
designed to enforce and actually capable of enforcing the abiding moral
duties that demarcate legitimate from illegitimate governments.
Pursuant to the character of true and legitimate constitutions, the
Constitution of the United States defines who we are, what we are and,
most importantly, why we are. Our Constitution purports to set the
governing minima without which no society may be legitimate. Accordingly,
and quite deliberately, while a legal document, the Constitution is a
profoundly moral thesis as well. It could not be otherwise because the
Constitution's overarching endeavor is enforced morality, specifically
"fundamental fairness" via due process of law n2 which, as Justice Felix
Frankfurter aptly enthused, is "ultimate decency in a civilized society . . . ."
n3 America's validation stems from the morality of the Constitution and how
steadfastly we maintain it. n4
In contravention of our constitutional duty is the long-standing chestnut: the
Constitution is not a suicide pact. n5 Of course, no one would argue that the
Constitution is literally a "suicide pact," meaning the Constitution requires
those governed thereunder to kill themselves. n6 Nor would reasonable
theorists claim it to be a suicide pact [*291] "in the sense that the
Constitution was meant to fail." n7 Rather, commentators apply the not a
suicide pact metaphor to support the Constitution of necessity , the premise
that if circumstances raise significant jeopardy and lesser measures appear
unavailing, government may do virtually anything—abridge or suspend any
liberty—both to preserve the nation and to ensure the well-being of its
institutions. n8
Several critics challenge that theory's empirical bases arguing, for example,
that the definition of "necessity" is overinclusive. n9 Critics further argue
that the Constitution of necessity betrays pivotal American principles of law,
rights, dignity and separation of powers. n10 However, criticism usually
stops well short of accepting the Constitution as a metaphorical "suicide
pact," averring instead that necessity is the ultimate "compelling state
interest," overpowering liberty if the exigency is dire enough. n11
I join the very few n12 who respond that, even if limited to situations of
actual imminent danger to the very continuation of American society,
necessity as the Constitution's "first principle" defies the Constitution's true
moral nucleus that explains and justifies our nation: due process of law.
While many articles challenge the Constitution of necessity as anathema to
the inherent nature of American government, n13 such arguments alone
cannot explain why, under sufficiently urgent circumstances, we ought not to
abandon all constitutional liberty if that is what it takes, for however long it
takes, with the earnest intent to restore liberty the very moment the danger
has passed. n14 [*292]
Accordingly, this Article proposes a deeper grounding to explain why the
Constitution is a suicide pact. Specifically, morality, the very fabric of the
Constitution, forbids us from abandoning our basic moral-societal precept of
due process, even when faithful abidance is extraordinarily dangerous.
We must understand that more than simple liberty is essential to our
constitutional government. Rather, we must appreciate that government
ensures liberty as integral to its unalterable duty to be moral. Liberty is not
an end in itself, but a means; preserving morality is the end, the absolute
goal of government. Thus, in a unique figurative sense, the Constitution
must be a suicide pact, for as the prominent ethicist Immanuel Kant nobly
appreciated regarding morality's overarching context, "Let justice be done
even if the world should perish." n15
The proof takes several steps. Part I undertakes a thorough review of
deontology, the philosophy arguing—correctly, I believe—that morality is
transcendent, a set of a priori principles discernable through reason.
Morality, then, does not care what the possible outcomes of a particular
moral problem may be. n16 Pursuant to deontological philosophy, the
"sacrifice," to which the title of this Article refers, is the duty to abide by
morality no matter what the cost. n17
Thereafter, Part II argues that this Nation's originators were deontologists
who declared in the Nation's founding document that government is
legitimate only insofar as it safeguards morality derived from "the Laws of
Nature and Nature's God," manifested as "unalienable Rights that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." n18 For the
preservation of those moral principles, the Founders pledged their "Lives,"
"Fortunes," and "sacred Honor," n19 meaning that it is the duty of all
Americans—their "sacred Honor"—to sacrifice, if necessary, their lives and
property to defend legitimate government. We thus discover an interesting,
informative and useful provenance linking the sacrifices attendant to
deontological morality with the birth of the United States. n20
The Founders understood that their appreciation of, and dedication to,
morality was incomplete—a confession analysts find apt as evinced by the
presence of slavery, [*293] along with several other strikingly unethical
political and pragmatic arrangements surrounding both the Declaration and
its later legal iteration, the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders expected
future generations to enrich the moral bases of America, including
repudiating ideas and practices that the Founders themselves accepted. n21
Part III asserts that the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant, as contemporarily
understood, presents the improved moral philosophy hoped for by the
Founders. Written shortly after the American Revolution, Kant's theory of
dignity explains why obeying morality is more important than life itself;
n22 a principle applicable not only to persons and groups, but also to
nations and societies. Kantian ethics, therefore, explicate that the highest
principle is not survival but, rather, moral rectitude.
Kant's ideas should control the understanding of the Constitution , most
particularly the commands of due process of law, as Part IV explains.
Although never explicitly cited as authority, Kant's dignity principle informs
modern due process jurisprudence, which is sensible because the
Constitution was drafted to enforce the moral quest commemorated in the
Declaration. The comfortable application of Kantian ethics to constitutional
due process demonstrates that, in the singular sense described above, the
Constitution should be, must be and is a suicide pact.
2NC — Climate Impact
Trump’s climate agenda is an existential risk.
Podesta 17 — John Podesta, Founder and a Board Member of the Center
for American Progress and most recently was the chairman of the 2016
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, he previously served as chief of staff
to President Bill Clinton and counselor to President Barack Obama, a visiting
professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, 2017 (“Battling
Climate Change in the Time of Trump,” Center for American Progress,
March 21st, Available Online at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/03/21/428812/
battling-climate-change-time-trump/, Accessed 07-05-2017, Lil_Arj)
Rampage against environmental laws
Make no mistake, though, the Trump administration presents an existential

threat to the entire planet. Leadership on the state and local level may be
able to bridge the gap at the federal level, but only for a period of time. The
administration appears to be on a rampage against environmental laws that
protect clean air, water, and our way of life. Since taking office, President
Trump has signed more than seven executive orders, presidential
memorandums, and bills prioritize giveaways to the fossil fuel industry. That
number is expected to jump even higher in the coming days with an
anticipated executive action aimed at undoing the Clean Power Plan, lifting a
coal moratorium on public lands, throwing out consideration of climate
change in federal decision-making, and making it easier to release the
potent global warming pollutant, methane. The list of polluting actions,
however, also includes eliminating a prohibition on bribery by oil companies,
cutting limits on dumping of toxic mine waste in streams, and trying to make
the United States more dependent on Canadian tar sands.
There’s an unquestionable scientific consensus about

warming.
Nuccitelli 16 — Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Writer for the Guardian,
Environmental Scientist at Tetra Tech—a private environmental consulting
firm, holds an M.A. in Physics from the University of California-Davis and a
B.A. in Astrophysics from the University of California-Berkeley, 2016 (“It’s
settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global
warming,” Climate Consensus – The 97%—a Guardian blog about climate
change, April 13th, Available Online at
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-
cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-
caused-global-warming, Accessed 07-15-2016)
There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused
global warming.
Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies — including Naomi
Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J.
Stuart Carlton, John Cook, myself, and six of our colleagues — have co-
authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all.
The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s
somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are
responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97%
consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the

higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
[Graphic Omitted]
Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or
capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the
conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is
true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate
scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:
Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a
gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including
policy support.
That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have
engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the
expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly
underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.”
Only 12% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.
[Video Omitted]
Consensus misrepresentations
Our latest paper was written in response to a critique published by Richard
Tol in Environmental Research Letters, commenting on the 2013 paper
published in the same journal by John Cook, myself, and colleagues finding a
97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed
literature.
Tol argues that when considering results from previous consensus studies,
the Cook 97% figure is an outlier, which he claims is much higher than most
other climate consensus estimates. He makes this argument by looking at
sub-samples from previous surveys. For example, Doran’s 2009 study broke
down the survey data by profession – the consensus was 47% among
economic geologists, 64% among meteorologists, 82% among all Earth
scientists, and 97% among publishing climate scientists. The lower the
climate expertise in each group, the lower the consensus.
[Graph Omitted]
Like several of these consensus surveys, Doran cast a wide net and included
responses from many non-experts, but among the experts, the consensus is
consistently between 90% and 100%. However, by including the non-expert
samples, it’s possible to find low “consensus” values.
The flaw in this approach is especially clear when we consider the most
ridiculous sub-sample included in Tol’s critique: Verheggen’s 2015 study
included a grouping of predominantly non-experts who were “unconvinced”
by human-caused global warming, among whom the consensus was 7%. The
only surprising thing about this number is that more than zero of those
“unconvinced” by human-caused global warming agree that humans are the
main cause of global warming. In his paper, Tol included this 7%
“unconvinced,” non-expert sub-sample as a data point in his argument that
the 97% consensus result is unusually high.
By breaking out all of these sub-samples of non-experts, the critique thus
misrepresented a number of previous consensus studies in an effort to paint
our 97% result as an outlier. The authors of those misrepresented studies
were not impressed with this approach, denouncing the misrepresentations
of their work in no uncertain terms.
We subsequently collaborated with those authors in this newly-published
scholarly response, bringing together an all-star lineup of climate
consensus experts. The following quote from the paper sums up our
feelings about the critique’s treatment of our research:
Tol’s (2016) conflation of unrepresentative non-expert sub-samples
and samples of climate experts is a misrepresentation of the results of
previous studies, including those published by a number of coauthors
of this paper.
Consensus on consensus
In our paper, we show that including non-experts is the only way to argue
for a consensus below 90–100%. The greater the climate expertise among
those included in the survey sample, the higher the consensus on human-
caused global warming. Similarly, if you want to know if you need open heart
surgery, you’ll get much more consistent answers (higher consensus) if you
only ask cardiologists than if you also survey podiatrists, neurologists,
and dentists.
That’s because, as we all know, expertise matters. It’s easy to manufacture
a smaller non-expert “consensus” number and argue that it contradicts the
97% figure. As our new paper shows, when you ask the climate experts, the
consensus on human-caused global warming is between 90% and 100%, with
several studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
There’s some variation in the percentage, depending on exactly how the
survey is done and how the question is worded, but ultimately it’s still true
that there’s a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on
human-caused global warming. In fact, even Richard Tol has agreed:
The consensus is of course in the high nineties.
Is the consensus 97% or 99.9%?
In fact, some believe our 97% consensus estimate was too low. These claims
are usually based on an analysis done by James Powell, and the difference
simply boils down to how “consensus” is defined. Powell evaluated the
percentage of papers that don’t explicitly reject human-caused global
warming in their abstracts. That includes 99.83% of papers published
between 1991 and 2012, and 99.96% of papers published in 2013.
In short, 97% of peer-reviewed climate research that states a position on
human-caused warming endorses the consensus, and about 99.9% of the
total climate research doesn’t explicitly reject human-caused global
warming. Our two analyses simply answer different questions. The
percentage of experts and their research that endorse the theory is a better
description of “consensus.” However, Powell’s analysis is useful in showing
how few peer-reviewed scientific papers explicitly reject human-caused
global warming.
In any case, there’s really no question that humans are the driving force
causing global warming. The experts are almost universally convinced
because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Denying the consensus by
misrepresenting the research won’t change that reality.
With all of the consensus authors teaming up to show the 90–100% expert
consensus on human-caused global warming, and most finding 97%
consensus among publishing climate scientists, this paper should be the
final word on the subject.
2NC — States Model Liberal Policy
Liberal states set a national agenda and level out
inequity — spillover is real.
Spillovers
Even when the Trump Administration repeals a statute or rescinds a
regulation, leaving no law to enforce, states and cities can often make law
themselves. As they do so, they can take advantage of another powerful
weapon in the federalist toolkit: the “spillover.”
When one state regulates, it often affects its neighbors. When Texas insisted
that its textbooks question evolution, for instance, its market power ensured
that textbooks used in blue states did the same. When Virginia made it easy
to buy a gun, guns flooded into New York City despite its rigorous firearms
prohibitions. When West Virginia failed to regulate pollution, toxic clouds
floated over Ohio.
Spillovers, like federalism, aren’t just the tools of conservative governments.
Economists would call spillovers an “externality,” and externalities can be
positive or negative depending on your point of view. Just as there are
spillovers conservatives cheer, there are some spillovers for progressives to
celebrate as well.
Consider car emissions. Even if the Trump Administration were to lower
environmental standards to protect gas-guzzling cars, it wouldn’t matter.
Why? Because California has set higher emissions standards than the federal
government. No company wants to give up on the California market. As a
result, all cars, whether sold in San Francisco or Texarkana, meet
California’s high standards.
California is an unusual state. It is the biggest in the nation, with almost 40
million residents. Were it a country, it would be the sixth-largest economy in
the world. Its economic significance means that it can enact sweeping
nationwide regulation even though it nominally regulates only itself.
Democrats have won a super-majority in both houses of the California
legislature, and its governor, Jerry Brown, seems to be spoiling for the fight
against Trump. The state is more than capable of sending some more
spillovers other states’ ways.
Like uncooperative federalism, spillovers are a form of agenda-setting—
they force debate on issues Washington might want to avoid. But they are
also a tool for encouraging compromise. If left to their own devices,
politicians in red and blue states will rarely negotiate with their colleagues
on the other side. But when a liberal policy spills over to a conservative state
(or vice-versa), the other half of the country is impossible to ignore.
Politicians must reach out across state or party lines to fix the problem.
Spillovers thus force politicking, negotiation, and moderation. They force
politicians to do their jobs, in other words.
The possibility of progressive spillovers answers another progressive
objection to federalism. Liberals are often concerned that federalism leaves
too many people behind. They worry that those who are most in need of
government action are unaided by blue-state policies. But sometimes that
worry is misguided. If New York regulates lead in toys, children
everywhere will be safer because of spillovers. If Illinois increases its
minimum wage, that may pressure businesses to raise salaries nationwide.
Federalism enables states to fuel national change

from the bottom up.
Winning the War of Ideas
As mentioned, many think of federalism as a means of entrenching the worst
aspects of our politics. But it can also be a tool to change our politics for the
better. Many of the best progressive ideas were born in cities and states,
and social movements have long used state and local governments as testing
grounds for their ideas.
The most remarkable example in recent years has been the same-sex
marriage movement. LGBT advocates realized that nationwide marriage
equality would be a heavy lift. So instead they started local—first in Hawaii,
then in Massachusetts, then in San Francisco. Some early state and local
battles were lost, but same-sex marriage proponents used those fights as
staging grounds for organizing and debate. This process built popular
acceptance of same-sex marriage and explains why the Supreme Court’s
nationwide ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges—a decision that would surely have
caused intense controversy before states started to act—was greeted
enthusiastically by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
Many crown jewels of the national progressive agenda are similarly the
product of progressive federalism. The Affordable Care Act, for example, has
its origins in Massachusetts, where it was enacted by then-governor Mitt
Romney. A regional initiative of ten northeastern states laid the groundwork
for the Clean Power Plan. If the next Democratic presidential nominee
pushes for universal pre-kindergarten, he or she can look to states and cities
for support: Places as different as Oklahoma and New York City have
successfully implemented the policy.
If progressives want to take a lesson from the conservative handbook, they
will have to consider which parts of the equality project—reforming
immigration, policing, sentencing, to give just a few examples—they can
directly advance. They should remember the crucial lessons of the same-sex
marriage movement: In the United States, change generally comes from the
bottom, not from the top. And they should remember that working through
state and local institutions to enact progressive ideas is just as important
as opposing whatever comes out of Washington. Social movements need
pragmatic insiders, forging compromise from within, not just principled
outsiders putting pressure from without.
Finally, states and cities should remember that they have the power to set
the agenda. In the Obama years, red states took full advantage of their
power to shape the national conversation. They enacted tough abortion
limitations that forced that issue to the front of the political agenda. They
sought to reframe the same-sex marriage debate into one about bakers and
florists by enacting expansive religious freedom legislation. And they
liberalized gun regulations at a time when the national consensus seemed
poised to shift the other way.
These states understood that action can grab headlines and shape debate in
a way that protest alone simply cannot. If blue states and cities wish to
follow suit, they should take early lessons from Jerry Brown and Michael
Bloomberg. The former made headlines in December by boldly claiming that
California would launch its own satellites if the federal government
abandoned its climate research. The latter drew attention to environmental
issues by pledging that progressive cities would seek to join the Paris
climate agreement if the Trump Administration withdraws. These sorts of
bold pronouncements are not mere bluster. Rather, they’re essential for
keeping important issues in the news and for denying President Trump sole
control of the political agenda.
We don’t mean to suggest that federalism is a cure-all for either
progressives or conservatives. During the next four years, many of the
President’s actions will be hard to counter. Heavily indebted cities and states
may find fighting the federal government is too expensive. And local
politicians will always have to devote time and resources to addressing local
concerns.
But progressives would be foolish to treat cities and states as nothing more
than enclaves sheltered from national policies they don’t like. They can use
all the tools we’ve suggested to encourage moderation and reshape the
national conversation. Federalism is for everyone, and it’s time that liberals
took notice.
AT: “Fair-weather Federalism Fails”
Coalitions with fair-weather federalists are key to
incremental progress.
Harvard University, 2016 ("Federalism as insurance," The Washington Post,
December 20th, Available Online at
conspiracy/wp/2016/12/20/federalism-as-insurance/?
utm_term=.a43be5e90a65, Accessed 07-09-2017, Lil_Arj)
Like Hills, I am also very critical of “fair weather federalists” who support
constitutional limits on federal power only when it is politically convenient to
do so. Sadly, as he notes, this kind of behavior is all too common on both left
and right. I too wish that there were more consistent supporters of enforcing
tight limits on federal power. In that happy scenario, we might all be better
off than we are now, and it would be easier to resist overreach by Democrats
and Republicans alike.
But fair weather federalists’ situational opposition to federal overreach has
greater value than Hills suggests. Intellectually, the validity of an argument
does not depend on the motives, sincerity, or consistency of those who
advance it. In my view, many of the federalism objections to Trump’s likely
policies are valid regardless of whether the people making these arguments
are being consistent with their own previous views.
Fair weather friends of federalism can also often be valuable allies

for more consistent ones. Efforts to enforce constitutional limits on
government power almost always involve a coalition of principled advocates
and people who only care about the issue when their own ox is the one being
gored. For example, many of the most important Supreme Court decisions
protecting freedom of speech involved the rights of communists, Nazis, and
others whose own commitment to free speech was dubious at best.
As Lord Acton famously put it, “[a]t all times sincere friends of freedom have
been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed
by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from
their own.” The same is true of constitutional federalism. Where it prevails,
it is usually by virtue of similar coalitions of convenience. In the same
passage, Acton also warned that “this association [with situational allies],
which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to
opponents just grounds of opposition.” Fair enough. But, often, the risk is
worth taking, especially when the alternative is near-certain defeat. By
allying with fair weather federalists of the left in some cases and their right-
wing counterparts in others, consistent federalists can gradually make
important incremental progress.
Moreover, situational coalitions can sometimes lead to a more permanent
consensus. So it proved over time on issues such as freedom of speech and
religion, where groups that started out seeking to protect only their own
rights gradually came to accept more general principle that government
power in these areas should be strictly limited. In recent years, both liberals
and conservatives have learned the painful lesson that they are unlikely to
achieve secure, long-term dominance over the federal government anytime
soon. Both should realize that they are likely to need a federalism insurance
policy in the future. That might make some of them more willing to pay their
dues than they were previously.
Be that as it may, sincere advocates of federalism, like Acton’s “sincere
friends of liberty,” must be willing to make situational coalitions to
further their goals. I argued for enforcing tight constitutional limits on
federal power under both Bush and Obama. Today, I am doing it yet again in
the face of Trump’s likely policies. And I’m happy to work with anyone who
will join me in that cause, regardless of where they might have stood in the
past.
Fair-weather federalism is inevitable due to political

polarization — liberals should still embrace the tool.
Gerken 17 — Heather K. Gerken, J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale
Law School, former Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, holds a J.D.
from the University of Michigan Law School, 2017 ("Balkinization:
Federalism or Politics: A reponse to Rick Hills," Balkinization, January 2nd,
Available Online at https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/01/federalism-or-
politics-reponse-to-rick.html, Accessed 07-09-2017, Lil_Arj)
I’ve spent a long time arguing that federalism doesn’t have a political
valence, so it’s been nice to see “progressive federalism” and the
“nationalist school of federalism” getting some attention in the wake of the
election. While I’m glad to be in conversation with a new group of
academics, I’ve nonetheless found myself gravitating to the work of those
with whom I’ve been debating these issues for a long time. Two of them
have recently written quite thoughtful posts on this federalism revival – Rick
Hills and Ilya Somin. I’ll respond to Rick today and Ilya tomorrow.
As Rick correctly notes, it’s a political ritual for those who lose the
presidency to discover a love for federalism. Rick wonders, though, whether
progressives have paid their “federalism insurance premium.” He compares
federalism to “an insurance policy, protecting the risk averse against loss of
national power” and insists that “the protection comes at a price: One must
pay the ‘premium’ of protecting subnational power when one controls the
national government, tolerating subnational experiments that one regards as
more Frankenstein than Brandeis.”
I think Rick is both right and wrong. He’s surely right that those who
control national power can be more or less tolerant of disagreement. I just
don’t think this phenomenon has much to do with federalism. A handful of
people – including Rick and myself – are committed to the notion that states
and localities play a useful role in a well-functioning democracy (though I
take a nationalist’s view as to what constitutes a well-functioning
democracy). Rick and I also agree that federalism and localism allow for a
distinctively American variant of a loyal opposition. But as Rick himself
observes, most people – including most politicians – are fair-weather
federalists. Issues, not institutional commitments, drive debates.
That’s why I don’t think it matters that much whether one side or the other
has paid up its “federalism insurance premium.” Even if progressives learn
to love federalism, I don’t think blue states will be more likely to win
concessions from a conservative federal government. Nor do I think that
conservatives – who have often allied themselves with federalism – will
hesitate to impose national mandates where they can. This isn’t a knock on
conservatives; progressives would behave in exactly the same fashion were
the tables turned.
Rick’s core point, though, is right – we should worry about a give-and-take
between liberals and conservatives. It’s just that the give-and-take has more
to do with politics than institutions. Put differently, it’s not federalism that
matters here, but pluralism. And a pluralist system only flourishes when
both sides are willing to live and let live. Rick writes of the need to
“tolerat[e] subnational experiments that one regards as more Frankenstein
than Brandeis,” but the real problem is the underlying assumption that one’s
opponent is closer to Frankenstein rather than to Brandeis. Maybe
skepticism of one’s political foes depends on debates over decentralization,
but I suspect it has a great deal more to do with the forces that political
scientists have identified as the sources of polarization.
Federalism, after all, is just one of many institutional and legal strategies we
use to instantiate pluralist politics. As Rick notes in the close of his post,
“through the exercise of self-control across different political regimes, each
Party can slowly confer on institutional arrangements a permanence
(sentimentalists would even say "sanctity") that survives change of regimes,
sending a signal to their opponents that their self-control will be
reciprocated when the tables are turned.” That includes not just federalism
and the filibuster (Rick’s example), but a range of institutional practices.
Unfortunately, we’re seeing lots of evidence these days that our “pluralism
premiums” are not paid up; federalism is just part of that story.
Progressives would point to the efforts of North Carolina’s GOP-controlled
legislature to disempower their newly elected Democratic governor and the
Senate’s refusal to grant Merrick Garland a hearing. Conservatives would
point to the efforts of the Obama administration post-election efforts to
protect his environmental policies from reversal or the blue states and cities
promising to resist the new administration’s policies before Trump has even
set foot in the White House. Perhaps the best proof of pluralism’s decline is
the fact that I have to provide separate lists to make my case, precisely
because conservatives and liberals agree on so little these days. We are all
watching the same story unfold during Obama’s last days in office, but we
have completely different views of whether Trump is violating “sacred”
norms . . . or Obama is. Is Obama merely “cement[ing]his legacy” or
“putting up policy roadblocks”?
In sum, federalism is like pretty much everything else in a well-functioning
democracy; while it can help politics works, it also depends on politics to
work. Needless to say, reciprocity and trust are hard to build but easy to
dismantle in a system like our own. I take it that is Rick’s core concern, and
on that point we agree entirely.
AT: “Rights Turn”
Federalism protects minority rights by harnessing
local power.
More importantly, what we have today is not your father’s federalism. The
federalism that haunts our history looks quite different from the form of
local power that prevails now. Federalism of old involved states’ rights, a
trump card to protect instances of local oppression. Today’s federalism
involves a muscular national government that makes policy in virtually every
area that was once relegated to state and local governments. The states’
rights trump card has all but disappeared , which means that the national
government can protect racial minorities and dissenters when it needs to
while allowing local forms of power to flourish.
It would be foolish to insist that every state and local policy must be
progressive for progressives to favor federalism. Decentralization will
produce policies that progressives adore, and it will produce policies that
they loathe. The same, of course, is true of a national system. Progressives
have to make their case to the American people, just like everyone else. The
point here is that progressives can fight for their causes in our current
system, and they can win. Gone are the days of policy-making enclaves
shielded from national power. If progressives are simply looking for
guaranteed wins, it’s not decentralization that they should worry about—it’s
democracy.
Moreover, progressives tend to overstate the problem of parochialism. When
progressives talk about democracy, they celebrate the idiosyncratic
dissenter, the nobility of resistance, the glory of getting things wrong, and
the wild patchwork of views that make up the polity. When progressives turn
to governance, however, they crave administrative efficiency, worry about
local incompetence, and have a strong impulse to quash local rebellion. We
join de Tocqueville in celebrating the eccentric charms of local democracy,
but our tastes in bureaucracy run with Weber: impersonal, rationalized, and
hierarchical. It should come as no surprise that de Tocqueville’s democracy
fails to produce Weber’s bureaucracy. But rather than spending all of our
time worrying about that failure, maybe we should acknowledge the fact
that decentralization offers so many benefits that progressive nationalists
can value.
Progressive nationalists have long worried that decentralized power
needlessly fractures the national, exercising a centrifugal force on the polity.
But ours is a system where local power can turn outsiders into insiders,
integrating them into a political system and enabling them to protect
themselves. It is one where the energy of outliers can serve as a catalyst for
the center, allowing them to tee up issues for national debate. It is, in short,
a form of federalism that progressive nationalists can celebrate.
Progressives were right to worry about federalism in the past. They are
wrong to worry about it now. Minority rule and minority rights are tools
for achieving the same ends. Both can help further equality and nurture
dissent. Progressives have long endorsed the nationalist case for national
power. Now is the time to acknowledge the nationalist case for local power.
Federalism is essential for minorities to fight

discrimination by enabling minority rule. Rights are
not enough.
Progressives are deeply skeptical of federalism, and with good reason.
States’ rights have been invoked to defend some of the most despicable
institutions in American history, most notably slavery and Jim Crow. Many
think “federalism” is just a code word for letting racists be racist.
Progressives also associate federalism—and its less prominent companion,
localism, which simply means decentralization within a state—with
parochialism and the suppression of dissent. They thus look to national
power, particularly the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to protect racial
minorities and dissenters from threats posed at the local level.
But it is a mistake to equate federalism’s past with its future. State and
local governments have become sites of empowerment for racial minorities
and dissenters, the groups that progressives believe have the most to fear
from decentralization. In fact, racial minorities and dissenters can wield
more electoral power at the local level than they do at the national. And
while minorities cannot dictate policy outcomes at the national level, they
can rule at the state and local level. Racial minorities and dissenters are
using that electoral muscle to protect themselves from marginalization and
promote their own agendas.
Progressives have long looked to the realm of rights to shield racial
minorities and dissenters from unfriendly majorities. Iconic measures like
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting
Rights Act all offer rights-based protections for minorities. But reliance on
rights requires that racial minorities and dissenters look to the courts to
shield them from the majority. If rights are the only protections afforded to
racial minorities and dissenters, we risk treating both groups merely as what
Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan calls “objects of judicial solicitude
rather than efficacious political actors in their own right.”
Minority rule, by contrast, allows racial minorities and dissenters to act as
efficacious political actors, just as members of the majority do. Think, for
example, about where groups we would normally call a “minority” now
actually constitute a majority: a mostly African-American city like Atlanta, a
city such as San Francisco where the majority favors same-sex marriage, or
a state like California or Texas where Latinos will soon be in the majority. In
each of those cases, minority rule—where national minorities constitute
local majorities—allows minorities to protect themselves rather than look to
courts as their source of solace. It empowers racial minorities and dissenters
not by shielding them from the majority, but by turning them into one.
Why should we care? We should care because the success of our democracy
depends on two projects. The first is integration—ensuring that our fractious
polity remains a polity. The second is dialogue—ensuring a healthy amount
of debate and disagreement within our democracy. We have made progress
on both fronts, but there is a great deal more work to do. Our social,
political, and economic life still reflects racial divides. Our political system is
immobilized; the issues that matter to everyday citizens are stuck in the
frozen political tundra we call Washington. We have long looked to deeply
rooted rights as tools for promoting equality and protecting dissent. But
everyday politics can be just as important for pursuing these goals. We
should look to minority rule, not just minority rights, as we build a better
democracy.
An emphasis on minority rule isn’t intended to denigrate the importance of
minority rights. It is simply to insist that while rights are a necessary
condition for equality, they may not be a sufficient one. Too often we
assume in the context of race that rights alone will suffice, as if the path to
equality moves straight from civic inclusion to full integration . We miss the
possibility that there is an intermediary stage: empowerment . Such a
strategy would be impossible without the hard-won battles of the civil rights
movement. But it’s possible to believe in, even revere, the work of that
movement and still wonder whether rights, standing alone, will bring us to
full equality. Civic inclusion was the hardest fight. But it turns out that
discrimination is a protean monster and more resistant to change than one
might think. We may require new, even unexpected tools to combat
discrimination before we reach genuine integration.
Similarly, while the First Amendment has long been thought of as part of the
bedrock of our democracy, it does not represent the only tool for furthering
dialogue and nurturing dissent. Decentralization gives political outliers one
of the most important powers a dissenter can enjoy—the power to force the
majority to engage. It thus helps generate the deliberative froth needed to
prevent national politics from becoming ossified or frozen by political elites
uninterested in debating the hard questions that matter most to everyday
voters.
Even if states are imperfect, governance at the local level

empowers minorities.
from the University of Michigan Law School, 2010(“Foreword: Federalism
All the Way Down,” Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, January
1st 2010, Available online at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4835&context=fss_papers, Accessed 7-21-17)
Localism as a Double-Edged Sword. - Once we move federalism all the way
down, it becomes clear that localism is a double-edged sword. The benefits
of minority control can extend not just to Southern racists, but to blacks and
Latinos. And yet we continue to look with suspicion upon institutions where
racial minorities dominate. Federalism thinks about states as sites of
political integration precisely because they allow national minorities to rule.
So why don't we think of cities or juries or school committees as sites of
racial integration precisely because they allow racial minorities to rule?
Such an account requires us to move not just past sovereignty, but past
history, rejecting the assumption that federalism's future can only reproduce
its past. That move depends on two premises. First, while rights are a
necessary condition for equality, they may not be a sufficient one. Too often
we assume that rights alone will suffice, as if the path to equality moves
straight from civic inclusion to full integration. We thus miss the possibility
that there is an intermediary stage: empowerment. An empowerment
strategy would be fruitless if times had not changed, of course, and civil
rights enforcement played a crucial role in bringing about that change. The
question, though, is where we go from here. It should be possible to believe in, even revere, the work of
the civil rights movement and still wonder whether a rights strategy, standing alone, will bring us to full
equality. Civic inclusion was the hardest fight. But it turns out discrimination is a protean monster and
more resistant to change than one might think. We may require new, even unexpected tools to combat
discrimination before we reach genuine integration. Second, this is not your
father's federalism. To restate the obvious, my arguments are premised on
the notion that it is perfectly acceptable for the national majority to play the
Supremacy Clause card whenever it sees fit. While this is not a complete
answer, for the reasons discussed below,185 at the very least the absence of
sovereignty substantially mitigates the potential costs associated with local
power.
Federalism empowers minorities at the local level to move
towards material equality.
from the University of Michigan Law School, 2010(“Foreword: Federalism
All the Way Down,” Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, January
1st 2010, Available online at
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4835&context=fss_papers, Accessed 7-21-17)
(a) The Hidden Costs of Diversity. - It's hard to miss the appeal of the
diversity paradigm. It offers a deeply intuitive vision of fairness. We laud
diversity on the ground that racial minorities offer a distinctive view or
experience and thus ought to be included in democratic decisonmaking.
Those who favor the "politics of recognition" thus wax eloquent on the
dignity associated with voice and participation.18 6 Given its many virtues,
you might wonder why anyone would quarrel with the notion that
democratic bodies should "look like America." But the oddity of this theory
for "empowering" racial minorities is that it relentlessly reproduces the
same inequalities in governance that racial minorities experience elsewhere.
You can see, then, the relevance of federalism, which depends on, even
glories in, the notion that national minorities constitute local majorities. And
while sovereignty has been invoked to defend Jim Crow, federalism itself has
always been understood to be about minority rule, not homogenous
enclaves.' 87 But, as I said, racial minorities are not the sort of minorities
that typically rule at the state level. As a result, we lack a constitutional
vocabulary for talking about the benefits associated with minority-dominated
governance when racial minorities rule.
(b) Federalism-All-the-Way-Down and the Fourteenth Amendment. - If we can
build a theory about minority-dominated governance at the state level, we
can orient that theory around racial minorities' governing at the local level.
Let me offer a partial sketch here to show how federalism-all-the-way-down
might connect with sizeable chunks of the literature on racial empowerment,
equality, and integration. Equality, of course, is a fiendishly complex and
deeply contested idea. In legal circles, some endorse a colorblindness
approach; others favor antisubordination. But the two camps routinely
borrow from one another, and their adherents can be frustratingly vague
about the relationship between means and ends.188 Rather than parse the
debates on what, precisely, equality means, here I'll offer a rough-and ready
working definition for these purposes. Most accounts of equality assume that
racial minorities should be "integrated" into the nation's economic, political,
and civic life, by which scholars mean that racial minorities should enjoy
roughly the same material advantages as whites enjoy, be able to participate
fully in governance without the handicap of racial stereotypes or
discrimination, and feel as much a part of the polity as whites do. Just as
many think that the Reconstruction Amendments further these long-term
goals, so too we can imagine federalism-all-the-way-down promoting these
ends.
AT: “Too Much State Power”
Federalism allows local experimentation while
maintaining some federal influence.
224)
States have the power, and often the will, to meet the needs of citizens in
progressive ways. They have shown that repeatedly in recent years. There is
nothing intrinsic to federalism that justifies progressive opposition to giving
states leeway to do more. There is much in federalism that should excite
anyone seeking the variety, experimentation, and learning that states can
bring to finding solutions to national problems. Progressive federalism seeks
to harness this potential state contribution to our national democracy
without retreating from civil rights and a national affirmative state . It
seeks to reform current preemption doctrine to invite constructive
experiment, to bring state government financing in line with other
contemporary federalisms, and, by means of current technology and
technique, to update and give content to the metaphor of states as
“laboratories for democracy.” Progressive federalism does not propose
handing all government over to states. It does propose making more policy
in the state capitals we all memorized in grade school—Juneau and Pierre,
Helena and Frankfort, Albany and Topeka, Lincoln and Lansing, Sacramento
and Springfield—and less in the K Street suites of Jack Abramoff and his
kind, or in secret Executive Office Building meetings with Big Oil, Big
Pharma, and their ilk, which we have latterly come to know all too well.
Who can seriously object to that?
AT: “Charles and Fuentes-Rohwert”
Their author concludes that the “federal” VRA was
effective, progressive federalism.
Charles and Fuentes-Rohwert 15 — Guy-Uriel E. Charles,
Charles S. Rhyne Professor of Law Senior Associate Dean for Faculty &
Research at Duke Law School, the founding director of the Duke Law Center
on Law, Race and Politics, previously was the Russell M. and Elizabeth M.
Bennett Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School,
received his JD from the University of Michigan Law School and clerked for
The Honorable Damon J. Keith of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, and Luis Fuentes-Rohwert, Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice
Faculty Fellow at Maurer School of Law at Indiana University, earned a
LL.M. from Georgetown University School of Law, a Ph.D., J.D. and B.A. from
the University of Michigan, 2015 (“Race, Federalism, and Voting Rights,”
The University of Chicago Legal Forum (2015 U. Chi. Legal F. 113), Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via Hein Online, Accessed 06-26-2017, p.
151, Lil_Arj)
Relatedly, if federalism is thought to further decentralization-and
decentralization is thought to enhance liberty and self-government-it is not
clear why the VRA is not viewed as an ally of the federalism project. In the
context of voting, the Voting Rights Act is the implementation of
decentralization. Sections 2, 4, and 5 of the VRA compelled devolution of
power, under the right circumstances, to local entities. The VRA created
majority-minority districts, which assured that voters of color constituted a
majority of voters in a least some electoral jurisdictions. The VRA operated
at the county-level, the school board level, the commission level, and the city
council level, inter alia. It forced political elites at the state level to consult
with sub-state political elites. It empowered local minorities. Admittedly,
the local minorities empowered by the VRA were racial minorities, but they
were minorities nonetheless. It is hard to conceive of a structural scheme
that empowered local minorities, in this case racial minorities, more than
the VRA.
The puzzling question is, why is the VRA is not viewed as federalism-
reinforcing? Why is it that when we think of states' rights, we do not think of
the large majority of citizens of color within those states? Even more
intriguingly, what will happen to states' rights when it unequivocally means
minority empowerment? Our aim in this Part was to put those questions
squarely on the table.
[Note to debaters: VRA — Voting Rights Act of 1965]
AT: “No Federal Marijuana Enforcement”
Trump will enforce federal marijuana laws — Sessions
and Spicer.
Wilson 17 — Reid Wilson, accomplished journalist at The Hill, former
chief political correspondent for The Morning Consult, George Washington
University graduate, 2017 (“Confusion mounts over Trump administration’s
stance on marijuana,” The Hill, February 28th, Available Online at
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/321639-confusion-mounts-over-
trump-administrations-stance-on-marijuana, Accessed 07-05-2017)
The Trump administration is signaling a crackdown on federal drug laws,
leaving apprehensive top officials in states that have legalized recreational
marijuana searching for answers.
Senior Trump administration members have hinted in recent days that they
plan to more strictly enforce drug laws, a reversal from the Obama
administration, which largely tolerated legal marijuana industries in states
where voters had given the go-ahead.
“I’m dubious about marijuana. I’m not sure we’re going to be a better,
healthier nation if we have marijuana sold at every corner grocery store,”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told state attorneys general on Tuesday.
Sessions also urged local law enforcement officials to take a tougher
stance against cartels importing drugs across the southern border.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said last week he believed the
administration would push “greater enforcement” of federal drug laws,
under which marijuana is still a banned substance .
AT: “Good Moral Character Clauses”
Trump threatens to undermines the effectiveness of
racial-justice based marijuana legalization — State
resistance would solve.
Bender 17 — Steven W. Bender, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for
Research and Faculty Development at the Seattle University School of Law,
2017 (“The Colors of Cannabis: Reflections on the Racial Justice Implications
of California’s Proposition 64,” UC Davis Law Review Online (50 UC Davis L.
Rev. Online 11), March 9th, Available Online at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2929749, Accessed 07-
07-2017, Lil_Arj)
The other more ominous threat to minority entrepreneurship arrived in the
same moment as the legalization of recreational marijuana in California —
the election of Donald Trump. Currently operating under a truce of sorts
with legalization states in the form of the so-called Cole memo,51 the federal
government could return at any time to its prior approach in California and
other states of raiding (medical) marijuana operations lawful under local
law.52 My printed article addressed the reluctance of minorities, already
subject to undue scrutiny by law enforcement officials, to enter a high-
profile market that is not fully legal.53 With the election of an individual who
made so many racially disparaging and polarizing remarks against Latinos
and other minorities, and the specter of cabinet appointments such as
proposed Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who staunchly opposes legal
marijuana and would likely undo the hands-off policies of the Cole memo,
racial minorities have much to fear. Would they voluntarily enter the newly
minted legalized California market at the same moment that federal
enforcement seems more likely than ever in the modern history of legalized
recreational marijuana?
CONCLUSION
Advocates of racial justice need to buckle up for the coming years as federal
enforcement looms over any advances that Proposition 64 delivered. Apart
from this federal omnipresence, the California decriminalization experience
suggests that racial justice does not always accompany a de-escalation of
the drug war. Rather, racial justice must be a conscious influence in the
design and ongoing implementation of drug reforms and, even then,
advocates for racial justice cannot expect the system to reform completely,
quickly, or even willingly. California will serve as the largest U.S. laboratory
of [End Page 22] marijuana legalization for adults, and its racial justice
effects bear watching in the years to come.
As I argued elsewhere,54 having been the first venue where derogatory
racial stereotypes resonated and resulted in the criminality of marijuana
use, states are best suited to undo the damage of that criminalization . As
laboratories of social justice, the states in the coming presidential regime
must take the lead in sensible drug policies that prioritize treatment and
education over criminal sanctions. Although the trend toward legalization
has flaws in fully confronting and redressing racial injustices in the War on
Drugs, Proposition 64 is a hopeful sign that legalization measures are
moving toward recognition of the racial implications of policies that
have caused more societal harm in the last century than the drug itself.
Trump Agenda
Progressive federalism is the basis for resistance to
Trump’s agenda.
Chemerinsky 17 — Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, Distinguished
Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at
the University of California-Irvine School of Law, Fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, former Alston & Bird Professor of Law and
Political Science at Duke University, holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School,
2017 (“Embracing Federalism,” Take Care—a scholarly legal blog, March
16th, Available Online at https://takecareblog.com/blog/embracing-
federalism, Accessed 06-14-2017)
It is time for progressives to embrace federalism and to use Supreme Court
precedents protecting states’ rights to fight against Trump administration
policies. Throughout American history, “states’ rights” have been used by
conservatives to oppose progressive change. In the early 19th century,
those opposing abolition of slavery did so in the name of states’ rights. In
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Supreme Court struck down
many progressive federal laws, including the first federal statute restricting
the use of child labor, on federalism grounds. In the 1950s and 1960s,
Southerners opposed desegregation by invoking states’ rights. In more
recent decades, the Supreme Court, in a series of ideologically split 5-4
decisions, used federalism to strike down desirable federal laws, including
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, the Brady Handgun Control
Act, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
But now, with the Trump administration taking far right positions on almost
every issue, state and local governments are a key hope. For example,
President Donald Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary
cities” is coercion of local governments that violates principles of federalism
long advocated by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.
A great deal of confusion exists over what it means for a city to declare itself
to be a “sanctuary.” It does not mean that a city will conceal or shelter
undocumented immigrants from detection. Instead, when a city says that it
is a “sanctuary,” it means that the city will not be an arm of federal
immigration authorities. For example, a sanctuary city will not investigate,
arrest, or detain individuals on the basis of immigration status. Rather, the
city will provide services to all, regardless of immigration status, and
generally will not turn over undocumented individuals to federal
immigration authorities.
There are compelling reasons for cities to adopt such policies. Victims of
crime and witnesses to crime will not come forward to the police if they fear
deportation. Public health officials worry that sick people, including those
with communicable diseases, will not go for treatment if they fear that it
could lead to their deportation. Of course, their untreated communicable
diseases can spread to all of us. Education officials worry that parents will
not send their children to school if they think it might lead to deportation.
Educating children, whether documented or undocumented, is a moral
obligation and obviously essential for society.
Nonetheless, President Trump issued an executive order on January 25,
2017, which threatens sanctuary cities with loss of federal funds. But this
violates the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that it is
unconstitutional for Congress to commandeer state and local governments
and force them to administer federal mandates.
For example, in United States v. Printz, in 1997, the Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional a provision of the federal Brady Handgun Control Act that
required that state and local governments do background checks before
issuing permits for firearms. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, said
that such coercion violated principles of federalism and the Tenth
Amendment.
Nor may Congress do this by putting strings on grants to state and local
governments. The Supreme Court has said that such strings are
constitutional only if the conditions are clearly stated, relate to the purpose
of the program, and are not unduly coercive. None of these requirements
are met by the Trump Executive Order. No federal statute conditions
federal funds on cities denying themselves sanctuary status. And most
federal grants to local governments have nothing to do with immigration.
But most of all, the Trump Executive Order is impermissibly coercive. In
2012, in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the
Supreme Court, 7-2, declared unconstitutional the Medicaid provisions of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provided that if a
state accepted federal Medicaid funds, it had to provide coverage for those
within 133% of the federal poverty level. The federal government paid 100%
of these costs until 2019 and 90% thereafter. The Court, in an opinion by
Chief Justice Roberts, declared this unconstitutional as impermissibly
coercing state governments in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The Court
referred to this as like “a gun to the head” of the states and as “dragooning”
them. The Trump Executive Order does exactly the same thing.
The federal government can use its agencies and agents to enforce federal
immigration law however it chooses. But it cannot turn local governments
into enforcement arms of the federal government. That is exactly what the
Trump Executive Order does.
This is just one of many examples where principles of federalism must be

used by progressives. In the area of environmental law, it will be crucial
for state governments to adopt stricter pollution control laws in the face of
the dismantling of federal environmental protections. Just last week, Scott
Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, once more denied
any link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It is clear
that he and the Trump administration will gut federal environmental
regulations. But there long has been a principle that states can have stricter
environmental laws, so long as Congress does not explicitly preempt this.
Another important area concerns decriminalization of marijuana. A

number of states, including California, have repealed laws that make it a
crime to possess small amounts of this drug. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
has expressed opposition to these laws. But Congress cannot force state
governments to enact or enforce laws. A state does not need to have any
law prohibiting marijuana, or can have one with exceptions for possession
for medical use or for small amounts. To be sure, the federal government
can enforce its own drug laws however it wants, but it cannot compel state
governments to do so.
States, of course, will vary enormously in their policies. But that, too,
is what federalism and states’ rights are about. Progressives should not
be hesitant to use conservative decisions to achieve desirable results. We
will need all the tools we can find to fight over the next four years.
Resisting Trump’s agenda is essential to lower the risk of

multiple existential threats.
Baum 16 — Seth Baum, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Global
Catastrophic Risk Institute, Affiliate Researcher at the Center for Research
on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University, and Affiliate Scholar at
the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and a Research Scientist
at Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, earned a Ph.D. in Geography from
Pennsylvania State University, an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from
Northeastern University, and a B.S. in Optics and a B.S. in Applied
Mathematics from the University of Rochester, 2016 (“What Trump means
for global catastrophic risk,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, December 9th,
Available Online at http://thebulletin.org/what-trump-means-global-
catastrophic-risk10266, Accessed 07-09-2017, Lil_Arj)
In 1987, Donald Trump said he had an aggressive plan for the United States
to partner with the Soviet Union on nuclear non-proliferation. He was
motivated by, among other things, an encounter with Libyan dictator
Muammar Qaddafi’s former pilot, who convinced him that at least some
world leaders are too unstable to ever be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Now, 30 years later, Trump—following a presidential campaign marked by
impulsive, combative behavior—seems poised to become one of those
unstable world leaders.
Global catastrophic risks are those that threaten the survival of human
civilization. Of all the implications a Trump presidency has for global
catastrophic risk—and there are many—the prospect of him ordering the
launch of the massive US nuclear arsenal is by far the most worrisome. In
the United States, the president has sole authority to launch atomic
weapons. As Bruce Blair recently argued in Politico, Trump’s tendency
toward erratic behavior, combined with a mix of difficult geopolitical
challenges ahead, mean the probability of a nuclear launch order will be
unusually high.
If Trump orders an unwarranted launch, then the only thing that could stop
it would be disobedience by launch personnel—though even this might not
suffice, since the president could simply replace them. Such disobedience
has precedent, most notably in Vasili Arkhipov, the Soviet submarine officer
who refused to authorize a nuclear launch during the Cuban Missile Crisis;
Stanislav Petrov, the Soviet officer who refused to relay a warning (which
turned out to be a false alarm) of incoming US missiles; and James
Schlesinger, the US defense secretary under President Richard Nixon, who
reportedly told Pentagon aides to check with him first if Nixon began talking
about launching nuclear weapons. Both Arkhipov and Petrov are now
celebrated as heroes for saving the world. Perhaps Schlesinger should be
too, though his story has been questioned. US personnel involved in nuclear
weapons operations should take note of these tales and reflect on how they
might act in a nuclear crisis.
Risks and opportunities abroad. Aside from planning to either persuade or
disobey the president, the only way to avoid nuclear war is to try to avoid
the sorts of crises that can prompt nuclear launch. China and Russia, which
both have large arsenals of long-range nuclear weapons and tense
relationships with the United States, are the primary candidates for a
nuclear conflagration with Washington. Already, Trump has increased
tensions with China by taking a phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai
Ing-wen. China-Taiwan relations are very fragile, and this sort of disruption
could lead to a war that would drag in the United States.
Meanwhile, Trump’s presidency could create some interesting opportunities
to improve US relations with Russia. The United States has long been too
dismissive of Moscow’s very legitimate security concerns regarding NATO
expansion, missile defense, and other encroachments. In stark defiance of
US political convention, Trump speaks fondly of Russian President Vladimir
Putin, an authoritarian leader, and expresses little interest in supporting
NATO allies. The authoritarianism is a problem, but Trump’s unconventional
friendliness nonetheless offers a valuable opportunity to rethink US-Russia
relations for the better.
On the other hand, conciliatory overtures toward Russia could backfire.
Without US pressure, Russia could become aggressive, perhaps invading the
Baltic states. Russia might gamble that NATO wouldn’t fight back, but if it
was wrong, such an invasion could lead to nuclear war. Additionally, Trump’s
pro-Russia stance could mean that Putin would no longer be able to use anti-
Americanism to shore up domestic support, which could lead to a dangerous
political crisis. If Putin fears a loss of power, he could turn to more
aggressive military action in hopes of bolstering his support. And if he were
to lose power, particularly in a coup, there is no telling what would happen
to one of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. The best approach for the
United States is to rethink Russia-US relations while avoiding the sorts of
military and political crises that could escalate to nuclear war.
The war at home. Trump has been accused many times of authoritarian
tendencies, not least due to his praise for Putin. He also frequently defies
democratic norms and institutions, for instance by encouraging violence
against opposition protesters during his presidential campaign, and now via
his business holdings, which create a real prospect he may violate the
Constitution’s rule against accepting foreign bribes. Already, there are signs
that Trump is profiting from his newfound political position, for example
with an end to project delays on a Trump Tower in Buenos Aires. The US
Constitution explicitly forbids the president from receiving foreign gifts,
known as “emoluments.”
What if, under President Trump, the US government itself becomes
authoritarian? Such an outcome might seem unfathomable, and to be sure,
achieving authoritarian control would not be as easy for Trump as starting a
nuclear war. It would require compliance from a much larger portion of
government personnel and the public—compliance that cannot be taken for
granted. Already, government officials are discussing how best to resist
illegal and unethical moves from the inside, and citizens are circulating
expert advice on how to thwart creeping authoritarianism.
But the president-elect will take office at a time in which support for
democracy may be declining in the United States and other Western
countries, as measured by survey data. And polling shows that his
supporters were more likely to have authoritarian inclinations than
supporters of other Republican or Democratic primary candidates.
Moreover, his supporters cheered some of his clearly authoritarian
suggestions, like creating a registry for Muslims and implying that through
force of his own personality, he would achieve results where normal elected
officials fail.
An authoritarian US government would be a devastating force. In theory,
dictatorships can be benevolent, but throughout history, they have been
responsible for some of the largest human tragedies, with tens of millions
dying due to their own governments in the Stalinist Soviet Union, Nazi
Germany, and Maoist China. Thanks to the miracles of modern technology,
an authoritarian United States could wield overwhelming military and
intelligence capabilities to even more disastrous effect.
Return to an old world order. Trump has suggested he might pull the U nited
States back from the post-World War II international order it helped build
and appears to favor a pre-World War II isolationist mercantilism that would
have the United States look out for its unenlightened self-interest and
nothing more. This would mean retreating from alliances and attempts to
promote democracy abroad, and an embrace of economic protectionism at
home.
Such a retreat from globalization would have important implications for
catastrophic risk. The post-World War II international system has proved
remarkably stable and peaceful. Returning to the pre-World War II system
risks putting the world on course for another major war, this time with
deadlier weapons. International cooperation is also essential for addressing
global issues like climate change, infectious disease outbreaks, arms control,
and the safe management of emerging technologies.
On the other hand, the globalized economy can be fragile. Shocks in one
place can cascade around the world, and a bad enough shock could collapse
the whole system, leaving behind few communities that are able to support
themselves. Globalization can also bring dangerous concentrations of wealth
and power. Nevertheless, complete rejection of globalization would be a
dangerous mistake.
Playing with climate dangers. Climate change will not wipe out human
populations as quickly as a nuclear bomb would, but it is wreaking slow-
motion havoc that could ultimately be just as devastating. Trump has been
all over the map on the subject, variously supporting action to reduce
emissions and calling global warming a hoax. On December 5th he met with
environmental activist and former vice president Al Gore, giving some cause
for hope, but later the same week said he would appoint Oklahoma Attorney
General Scott Pruitt, who denies the science of climate change, to lead the
Environmental Protection Agency. Trump’s energy plan calls for energy
independence with development of both fossil fuels and renewables, as well
as less environmental regulation. If his energy policy puts more greenhouse
gas into the atmosphere—as it may by increasing fossil fuel consumption—it
will increase global catastrophic risk.
For all global catastrophic risks, it is important to remember that the US
president is hardly the only important actor. Trump’s election shifts the
landscape of risks and opportunities, but does not change the fact that each
of us can help keep humanity safe. His election also offers an important
reminder that outlier events sometimes happen. Just because election-
winning politicians have been of a particular mold in the past, doesn’t mean
the same kind of leaders will continue to win. Likewise, just because we
have avoided global catastrophe so far doesn’t mean we will continue to do
so.
Populism
1NC
Federalism is key to resist populism

Populism destroys human rights and democracy

The appeal of the populists has grown with mounting public discontent
over the status quo. In the West, many people feel left behind by
technological change, the global economy, and growing inequality. Horrific
incidents of terrorism generate apprehension and fear. Some are uneasy
with societies that have become more ethnically, religiously and racially
diverse. There is an increasing sense that governments and the elite ignore
public concerns.
In this cauldron of discontent, certain politicians are flourishing and even
gaining power by portraying rights as protecting only the terrorist suspect
or the asylum seeker at the expense of the safety, economic welfare, and
cultural preferences of the presumed majority. They scapegoat refugees,
immigrant communities, and minorities. Truth is a frequent casualty.
Nativism, xenophobia, racism, and Islamophobia are on the rise.
This dangerous trend threatens to reverse the accomplishments of the

modern human rights movement. In its early years, that movement was
preoccupied with the atrocities of World War II and the repression
associated with the Cold War. Having seen the evil that governments can do,
states adopted a series of human rights treaties to limit and deter future
abuse. Protecting these rights was understood as necessary for individuals
to live in dignity. Growing respect for rights laid the foundation for freer,
safer, and more prosperous societies.
But today, a growing number of people have come to see rights not as
protecting them from the state but as undermining governmental efforts to
defend them. In the United States and Europe, the perceived threat at the
top of the list is migration, where concerns about cultural identity, economic
opportunity, and terrorism intersect. Encouraged by populists, an
expanding segment of the public sees rights as protecting only these “other”
people, not themselves, and thus as dispensable. If the majority wants to
limit the rights of refugees, migrants, or minorities, the populists suggest, it
should be free to do so. That international treaties and institutions stand in
the way only intensifies this antipathy toward rights in a world where
nativism is often prized over globalism.
It is perhaps human nature that it is harder to identify with people who
differ from oneself, and easier to accept violation of their rights. People take
solace in the hazardous assumption that the selective enforcement of rights
is possible—that the rights of others can be compromised while their own
remain secure.
But rights by their nature do not admit an à la carte approach. You may not
like your neighbors, but if you sacrifice their rights today, you jeopardize
your own tomorrow, because ultimately rights are grounded on the
reciprocal duty to treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. To
violate the rights of some is to erode the edifice of rights that inevitably will
be needed by members of the presumed majority in whose name current
violations occur.
We forget at our peril the demagogues of yesteryear—the fascists,
communists, and their ilk who claimed privileged insight into the majority’s
interest but ended up crushing the individual. When populists treat rights as
an obstacle to their vision of the majority will, it is only a matter of time
before they turn on those who disagree with their agenda. The risk only
heightens when populists attack the independence of the judiciary for
upholding the rule of law—that is, for enforcing the limits on governmental
conduct that rights impose.
Such claims of unfettered majoritarianism, and the attacks on the checks
and balances that constrain governmental power, are perhaps the greatest
danger today to the future of democracy in the West.
Nuclear war
Burke-White 04—William W., Lecturer in Public and International
Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. at
Cambridge, “Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic
Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum.
Rts. J. 249, Lexis
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--
argument that the promotion of human rights should be given a more
prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation
between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity
to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to
U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts
of war may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action
overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War
period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own
citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To
the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records
decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by
human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since
1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling
indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A
central element of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of
peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation
discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful
new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human
rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights
would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes
the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as
presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy
prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling
benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic
human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to
prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through
the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the
particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation
on human rights issues.
2NC
Populism bad – uniqueness
Ideological polarization has reached catastrophic
proportions
French, 17 – senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the
National Review Institute, an attorney (concentrating his practice in
constitutional law and the law of armed conflict), and a veteran of Operation
Iraqi Freedom (David, “We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward
Divorce”, National Review, 8 June 2017,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448385/americans-left-right-liberal-
conservative-democrats-republicans-blue-red-states-cultural-segregate,
Accessed: 7/8/17)//SL
At an increasing rate, Americans separate themselves into culturally and

ideologically homogeneous enclaves.
Last week there were two telling incidents — one small, the other more
consequential — that spoke volumes about the state of our national life.
Let’s start small. Over in Seattle, in the midst of a debate over juvenile
justice, a city-council member invoked his “Republican friends” as a symbol
of the broad-based agreement that incarceration policies need to change.
One of his colleagues, Kshama Sawant, snapped back with the proud
declaration that she didn’t have any Republican friends. The crowd cheered.
Sure, it’s but one small incident, but consider something bigger. The state of
California is in the process of taking a series of political steps that are not
only cementing its status as a progressive enclave, it’s stumbling toward its
own foreign policy. After Donald Trump withdrew America from the Paris
climate agreement, California governor Jerry Brown rushed to fill the void.
California is touting its collaborations with China to combat global warming.
Here’s Brown, in reporting by the Sacramento Bee:
“It is a little bold to talk about the China–California partnership as though
we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Brown said of the
state, with nearly 40 million residents and the world’s sixth-largest economy.
“We’re a state of mind. I include Silicon Valley, I include the environmental
activism, the biotech industry, agriculture. This is a place of great
investment in innovation.”
Indeed, California has such a different view of the relationship between
citizen and state, it’s virtually seceding from the Constitution, overriding the
First Amendment time and again for the sake of “social justice.” And now its
legislature is even taking the first steps to implement a $400 billion single-
payer health plan — a plan so expensive and radical that even Governor
Brown is skeptical. The trends are clear. In the age of Trump, California is
determined to go its own way.
None of this is surprising. Our national political polarization is by now so

well established that the only real debate is over the nature of our cultural,
political, and religious conflict. Are we in the midst of a more or less
conventional culture war? Are we, as Dennis Prager and others argue,
fighting a kind of “cold” civil war? Or are we facing something else entirely?
I’d argue that we face “something else,” and that something else is more
akin to the beginning stages of a national divorce than it is to a civil war.
This contention rests fundamentally in two trends, one political and the
other far beyond politics. The combination of negative polarization and a
phenomenon that economist Tyler Cowen calls “matching” is leading to a
national separation so profound that Americans may not have the desire to
fight to stay together. Unless trends are reversed, red and blue may
ultimately bid each other adieu.
First, let’s deal with negative polarization. I’ve written about this before, but
it’s worth repeating. Americans tend to belong to their political “tribe” not
so much because they love its ideas but rather because they despise their
opponents. The Pew Research Center has been documenting this trend for
some time, and few of their (many) charts document the mutual hatred
better than this one:
That’s right, Republicans and Democrats have basically the same view of
each other — the only real difference is that Republicans view Democrats as
more immoral, while Democrats view Republicans as more dishonest. And
lest you think this is the way things have always been, look at the trend
lines. Partisan Americans like each other less and less:
These trends would be troubling enough, but combine them with “matching”
and you get a nation whose citizens increasingly lives separate lives — living
in separate locations, enjoying separate media, and holding separate
religious beliefs.
As Cowen relates in his important book, The Complacent Class, Americans
now have an extraordinary ability not just to meet, interact, and maintain
relationships with people of our own social and political class but also to
form extraordinarily precise and insulated subcultures. The Internet brings
all of human knowledge to our smartphones, but rather than using it as a
tool for outreach and understanding, we’re using it to find and live with
people just like us. In other words, we’re sorting
Populism bad – econ decline
Federalism is a tool for political resistance against
populism

Populism empirically causes economic decline

The rising tide of populism in the name of a perceived majority has
paralleled a new infatuation with strongman rule that was apparent
particularly prominently during the US presidential election campaign. If all
that matters are the declared interests of the majority, the thinking seems to
go, why not embrace the autocrat who shows no qualms about asserting his
“majoritarian” vision—self-serving as it may be—and subjugating those who
disagree.
But the populist-fueled passions of the moment tend to obscure the longer-
term dangers to a society of strongman rule. Putin, for instance, has
presided over a weakening Russian economy plagued by massive crony
corruption and a failure to diversify when oil prices were high, leaving it
vulnerable to the decline that followed. Fearful that popular discontent of
the sort seen on the streets of Moscow and several other large cities
beginning in 2011 might revive and spread, Putin has sought to preempt it,
introducing draconian restrictions on assembly and expression, setting out
new, unprecedented sanctions for online dissent, and crippling civil society
groups.
The Kremlin bolstered Putin’s autocracy and boosted his dwindling approval
ratings by mobilizing public nationalism in support of Russia’s occupation of
Crimea, which triggered European Union sanctions and only deepened
economic decline. In Syria, his military backing of Assad’s slaughter of
civilians, with Russian bombers joining in, made the lifting of those
sanctions, as a political matter, all the more remote. Until now, the Kremlin’s
skilled propagandists have tried to justify increasing economic hardship by
claiming the need to counter alleged efforts by the West to weaken Russia.
However, as the economy deteriorates further, it gets harder for Russian
apologists to sell that message to the Russian public.
China’s President Xi has embarked on a similar path of repression. China
enjoyed remarkable economic growth as earlier leaders freed the Chinese
people economically from the whims of Communist Party rule that had
brought the disastrous Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. But
economic liberalization was not accompanied by political reform, which was
left stillborn in the crushing of the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy
movement. Ensuing governments made economic decisions guided mostly by
the party’s desire to sustain growth at any cost in order to keep popular
discontent under wraps. Corruption flourished while social inequity soared
and the environment deteriorated.
Worried as well that popular discontent would rise as economic growth
slowed, Xi, too, has embarked on the most intense crackdown since the
Tiananmen era, leaving his government even less accountable. Despite
anointing himself with a lengthening list of leadership titles, this strongman
looks increasingly fearful, while not delivering on the Chinese people’s
demands for cleaner air, safer food, a just judicial system, and an
accountable government.
Similar tendencies have characterized other autocrats’ rule. The Bolivarian
revolution in Venezuela, initiated by the late President Hugo Chávez and
now stewarded by his successor, Nicolás Maduro, has become an economic
disaster for the worst-off segments of society whom it ostensibly serves.
Their reward has been hyperinflation, severe food and medicine shortages,
and a nation with the largest proven oil reserves on the planet reduced to
penury. The government has also launched military and police raids in
immigrant and low-income communities that led to widespread allegations
of abuse, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary deportations,
evictions, and destruction of homes.

DA - Federalism 100

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DA - Federalism 100

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federalism DA

Continuing with trump’s move is key to federalism

The plan decks federalism

This is just one of many examples where principles of federalism must be

Another important area concerns decriminalization of marijuana. A

Resisting Trump’s agenda is essential to lower the risk of

Federal education policy destroys federalism in unrelated

For instance, the federal government could compel states to continue

Federalism is key to solve global warming—only way to

We control magnitude—causes extinction

Trump and DeVos take action to give states more control

Trump Administration pushing for increased state power

In December 2015, Congress dramatically reversed the course of federal

The Trump administration has set a trend of state control

The current administration has vowed to leave education matters up

Trump is overturning federal education regulations now –

Trump often called for giving more discretion over

Public education will (and should) always be driven predominantly by local

Trump is on the verge of devolving education authority to

Trump administration is decreasing regulations now –

POSSIBLE ROLLBACK ON THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EQUITY AND

federal level, state education leaders remain firmly committed to state

latitude to determine their own education agendas, though also less

The Every Student Succeeds Act – it gave states flexibility

ESSA shifts the relationship between the federal

and state government in important ways. First, it allows states greater

waivers in the subsequent passage of ESSA fundamentally changed the

Second, they’re both republicans, and they have always

DeVos supports state control of education

Betsy DeVos has a history of supporting state control

No – brown was an entirely different decision – Miliken V

No – extend our 1NC Lawson evidence – it says that

First, extend our miller evidence – it says that Trump is

Second, extend our impact Uniqueness – even if there are

Second, extend our impact Uniqueness – even if there are

Third, prefer issue-specific evidence – education

Second, extend our impact Uniqueness – even if there are

NCLB wasn’t a major shift in federalism.

No Thumper – States are fighting back and winning now

Even if they aren’t winning, immigration is a federal

Dominic Holden 8/25 (Dominic Holden, Dominic Holden is a political

Here is their card, rehighlighted, saying trump fixes the

Mayer 3/20(Matt is the CEO of Opportunity Ohio and former senior

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to start pulling

U/Q—Trump’s XO ceding control of education to the states

Federalism is at a crucial turning point

Federalism isn’t static---it can flip based on education

Constraints on state legislatures would not be as problematic if the federal

Education policy is a matter of states’ rights---fed lead

State resistance to federal law sets a precedent

State led-policymaking is key to uphold the balance of

Constitution mandates no federal invention in education---

Federal education policy destroys federalism – causes

But it has caused an enormous compliance burden, dissipating dollars

Federal control of education is overreach and takes

Do the Common Core national curriculum-content

Common core suppresses state determination

Common core has empirically been classified as federal

Desegregation of schools needs local control – Federal

lunches uniquely disrupt federalism Federalism in Action 5/29/14

the Constitution does not

Federal management of school choice undermines

A panel of education policy experts agree the Trump administration appears