Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WHAM States Federalism
WHAM States Federalism
AT: Perm
1. The perm still links to Federalism. Any energy policy management at the federal level
would collapse global federalism and lead to war.
2. The perm would force preemption – it’s impossible for the plan and CP to exist
Robert K. Huffman, lawyer, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, VP at MidAmerican Holdings,Winter 2008, “Climate
Change and the States,” Sustainable Development Journal,
http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/2008/winter08.pdf?rd=1
The best case for federal preemption would arise if the federal government instituted a similar cap-and-
trade system or other form of comprehensive carbon emissions regulation. Any program that created a
nationwide price for carbon would likely be interpreted as directly conflicting with state programs; in
the alternative, courts would probably hold that federal efforts occupy the field of GHG regulation. But
lacking such a program, as is currently the case, it is difficult to see any way in which a state-organized cap-
and-trade program could be preempted under the Supremacy Clause. Some congressional leaders are
advocating for express preemption in any future comprehensive cap-and-trade bill. The Dingell-Boucher
white paper,68 which discusses the role of federal, state, and local governments in efforts to reduce GHG
emissions, makes the case for express preemption. “[O]nce a national, economy-wide cap-and-trade
program is adopted, State or regional cap-and-trade programs may interfere with the efficient
functioning of the Federal cap-and-trade program[.]”69 As a result, “Chairman Dingell has made it very
clear that he believes that motor vehicle greenhouse gas standards should be set by the Federal Government,
not by State governments[.]”70 In addition, the analysis finds that compliance costs and overall system
costs (including regulatory overhead) are likely to be higher in any duplicative system of federal and
state/regional regulation.71 While the current version of the Lieberman-Warner bill actually encourages and
provides incentives for states to take actions above and beyond the federal cap-and-trade program,72 there is
a possibility that an express preemption clause could be part of any final bill.
3. Prefer the Counterplan alone – State programs are a prerequisite to federal action – they
provide a template.
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
The federal government in the Bush era has done little to tackle our most pressing environmental problem —
climate change. Yet there is one bright side amid Washington’s inaction: Many states have been stepping
into the void and adopting comprehensive climate change policies that can be a model for the coming
federal legislation to slow global warming. The leadership of states such as California, Arizona,
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida is crucial not only because it provides a template for federal climate
legislation that will no doubt be adopted under the next presidential administration. State action is also
vital because among the top 75 emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide, half are U.S. states.
AT: No Uniformity
1. No Link - This argument doesn’t make any sense. The counterplan fiats that all 50 states
have a uniform mandate to _____________________________________________________.
( ) Rabe also says the states are more motivated and gets businesses to invest
Erin Kelly, 3/25/07 Gannett News Service “States Work Together to Reduce Global Warming” USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-25-states-greenhouse_N.htm OZ
Congress' inability so far to pass legislation is what is spurring states to act on their own, said Barry
Rabe, an expert on state and local global warming initiatives at the University of Michigan. Many states are
motivated in part by their desire to create new economic development opportunities, the professor said.
"They believe that the use of traditional fossil fuels is going to be phased out eventually and they want
to invest in new technologies and get ahead of what they see coming in the future," Rabe said. Others, like
liberal Vermont and its conservative neighbor, New Hampshire, fear the devastation that climate change
could bring to their maple sugar industry and ski resorts. "Every state has its own reason for taking
action," Rabe said. "In some cases, the states are clearly trying to prod the federal government into
taking action." They're beginning to get some help from some of the utility companies that have
traditionally fought federal global warming regulations. Faced with a patchwork of laws that vary
from state to state, utilities such as Duke Energy Corp. announced this year that they would support a
nationwide carbon cap and trade system that allows power plants with high emissions to buy credits
from low-emission plants. "Some companies are saying that it might be better to get on with it now
rather than face all this uncertainty," Rabe said.
States are capable and will work together – all they need is the go ahead
Erin Kelly, 3/25/07 Gannett News Service “States Work Together to Reduce Global Warming” USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-25-states-greenhouse_N.htm OZ
WASHINGTON — As more and more states band together to fight global warming, their efforts are
moving beyond mere symbolism and becoming big enough to make a real dent in the problem, analysts
and environmental groups say. More than half of the nation's 50 states — including populous California,
Texas and New York — have joined together in regional coalitions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from power plants, boosting the use of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency.
Five states in the West and 10 in the Northeast that have banded together to fight climate change
account for 22% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Their efforts have the potential to cut America's
global warming emissions significantly, according to data from the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. At the same time, a dozen states are anxiously awaiting the outcome of a federal case in hopes
that they can proceed with laws they've already adopted to reduce emissions from cars, trucks and
SUVs. Another five states are poised to adopt clean car rules if the court rules in favor of the laws.
Together, those states represent nearly half the U.S. population, said the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"More and more, what the states are doing is environmentally significant," said Judi Greenwald of the
Pew Center.
SDI 2008 6
WHAM! States 2NC
2. Extend the 1NC Northrop and Sassoon 08 evidence explaining how state action is as
good, if not better, than federal action.
4. The affirmative leadership takeouts assume single state action and don’t assume the
world of the CP.
SDI 2008 7
WHAM! States 2NC
3. Prefer our evidence because it has EMPIRICAL proof that federal policies have
copied state policies.
4. This means we solve 100% of the case because we will do the plan – at a later date
Timothy J. Conlan, Robert L. Dudley and Joel F. Clark, 2004 George Mason University & Michigan State
University, “Taking on the World: The International Activities of American State Legislatures” Oxford Journals –
Publius: The journal of Federalism http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/183 OZ
State legislatures in the United States engage in a substantial amount of international activity. In the 2001-
2002 legislative sessions, some 886 bills and resolutions with significant international implications were
introduced. Approximately 306 of these were adopted. This level of international activity has increased
substantially since 1991, and the substantive focus has changed over time. In addition, about half of all state
legislatures received at least one foreign delegation and sent at least one delegation of members abroad in the last
session.
SDI 2008 8
WHAM! States 2NC
1. Extend Northrop and Sassoon- States can implement groundbreaking policies that
have global ramifications as it influences other countries policies
2. Nowhere in the 1AC did they read a card about how signing treaties are key to solve
for modeling. We solve for their I/L, to their modeling claim talks about how other
countries will copy successful programs within the United States- we solve for that.
It’s Empirically proven that states cooperate on climate change with other countries
Henrik Selin, an assistant professor in the Department of International Relations at Boston University, and Stacy D.
VanDeveer , an associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire February 3, 2007
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_leadership_in_northeast_North_America#New_England_governors_and_Ea
stern_Canadian_premiers
Regional cooperation among states in the Northeast includes two separate, but related and
overlapping, initiatives. First, a regional Climate Change Action Plan was signed by the governors of
six New England states and the premiers of five Eastern Canadian provinces in 2001. Second, RGGI,
initiated in 2003, seeks to establish a cap-and-trade scheme for CO2 emissions from power plants from
Maryland to Maine. New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers The collaborative effort by the
New England governors and the Eastern Canadian premiers includes all six New England states (Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) and five Eastern Canadian provinces
(Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Quebec). Under the
joint 2001 Climate Change Action Plan, participating states and provinces commit to reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 and to achieve 10 percent reductions below 1990 levels by 2020. The
plan calls for ultimate emissions reduction to levels that do not pose a threat to the global climate system.
According to an official estimate, achieving this goal would require a 75 to 85 percent reduction from 2001
emissions levels. The plan and its goals have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the region’s governors and
premiers since 2001, most recently in May of 2006.
SDI 2008 9
WHAM! States 2NC
3. Even if they win pre-empt it would still be a state-led action and thus avoid the
link to our net benefits.
SDI 2008 10
WHAM! States 2NC
AT: Rollback
1. Empirically Proven No Rollback—States formulated climate change policy for decades
Barry G. Rabe, University of Michigan, November 2002, Pew Center, “Greenhouse and Statehouse,”
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/states_greenhouse.pdf
States have been formulating climate change policy for more than a decade, although their efforts have
expanded and intensified in the past several years. In some cases, states have considered climate change
mitigation explicitly while in others it has been an incidental benefit. Reflective of the vast scope of activity
that generates greenhouse gases, state policies have been enacted that reduce these emissions in such
areas as promotion of renewable energy, air pollution control, agriculture and forestry, waste
management, transportation, and energy development, among others. In almost all cases, there have
been multiple drivers behind and multiple benefits from these state policies. In Texas, for example, the
desire for energy independence, economic development, and air pollution control drove the state to promote
renewable energy. Not all states have demonstrated interest in these initiatives and some legislatures have
taken steps to prevent state agencies from pursuing any efforts that are designed to reduce greenhouse gases.
Nonetheless, there has been a remarkable increase and diversification of state policies since the late
1990s, reflected in their current operation in every region of the country. Collectively, they constitute a
diverse set of policy innovations rich with lessons for the next generation of American climate change
policy.
6. State alternative energy programs won’t be struck down – they have to be found
discriminatory
Steven Ferrey, Law Prof @ Suffolk, March 2006, Electricity Journal, 19.2, “Renewable Orphans,” p.
sciencedirect
Because there is no clear bright line separating regulation that does and does not discriminate, and the judicial test and
standard applied by the court is so distinct between the two, the critical determination is the court’s initial conclusion
as to whether or not a regulation is discriminatory, and if so, whether such discrimination is based on point-of-origin
regu- lation.25 Even in the absence of a discriminatory intent, courts are able to outlaw Commerce Clause violations to
prevent the ‘‘Balkanization’’ of various states’ regulations. 26 S o, what is legal? A renewable portfolio standard alone
does not raise commerce clause
issues. A limitation on the in-state location of resources for inclusion in the portfolio could run afoul of the commerce
clause.27 As long as the state regulation does not discriminate on the basis of geography of energy supply, it will be
evaluated under the Pike balancing test. Incidental discrimination, in fact, against interstate commerce is not
impermissible if balanced by a compelling state interest and if accomplished in the minimally intrusive fashion
SDI 2008 11
WHAM! States 2NC
Yan Liang, editor for China View, 6/19/2008, Business Section, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-
06/19/content_8396232.htm
Mainly due to the housing market slump, California's economy will remain weak through the end of the
year and into 2009, according to a report published on Wednesday. Overall, California "will weather
the slowdown of economic growth based on its diversified economy, its Pacific Rim export orientation
and surging agricultural industry," said the report presented by the University of California in Los Angeles
(UCLA).But the Los Angeles area's strength in exports of goods and services will help counteract the
housing industry slump, the report said."Though you still hear talk of recession these days, it does not
appear that California will exhibit the kind of job loss that typically goes with a national recession,"
economist Jerry Nickelsburg of the UCLA Anderson Forecast wrote in the quarterly assessment.
Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, 6-30-2008, Los Angeles Times, “Brokaw needles Schwarzenegger
on spending, economy,” rks, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-arnold30-
2008jun30,0,595673.story
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, usually a darling of the national media, found himself being told by the host
of NBC's "Meet the Press" that if he ran a private company the way he has run the state, he might have
been fired by now. Tom Brokaw, who will be moderating the program through the presidential election, put
a series of confrontational questions to the governor in an interview taped in California and aired this
morning. When you ran for governor in 2003, you ran as a fiscal conservative who would change the system,
who would bring business-like techniques," Brokaw said. "Now, you are facing a $15-billion deficit here
in California. Unemployment is running at about 6.8%; you've got the worst housing crisis since the
Great Depression. If you were the CEO of a public company, the board would probably say, 'It is time
to go.' "
3. Their internal link card is ridiculous – it says California is important but it is not
reverse causal – no reason why California collapse would cause U.S. collapse
4. No link –Very little money would be spent because the nuclear power plants are
already built – just need a waste storage that’s our Hippel 08 inherency evidence
5. Even if we do increase taxes, they are actually key to the Californian Economy
Dave Johnson, Founder and principal author at Seeing the Forest and a member of the Neetroots Advisory
Council, 1/9/2008, NM, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/do-taxes-drive-the-
econom_b_80694.html
California's governor says the state is in a budget crisis. He says we need to cut the state's
spending "across-the-board," and the Republicans insist that tax increases and other alternatives are
off the table. The media largely seem to be going along with taking discussion of alternatives off
the table, and consequently Democrats are too intimidated to bring them up. Tax-cut proponents
say that increasing taxes on the wealthy "takes money out of the economy." I wonder where they
think the money goes? Do they think it just goes up into the air and disappears? They don't seem to --
or pretend not to -- understand that taxes come right back into the economy. It is taxes that pay the
salaries of teachers and police officers and that build and maintain our roads. Then that money
circulates from those teachers and construction workers to support our stores and movie theaters
and restaurants and to buy homes and cars.
SDI 2008 12
WHAM! States 2NC
Offense:
( ) Education – forces a USFG key warrant – key to finding the best policy option
Defense:
( ) Predictability – research pool proves that you should be ready to debate this – checks education cries
because it’s at heart of the topic
( ) Reciprocal – they get the USFG, we get the other US agent actor - the states. – kills their fairness whining
( ) Potential abuse not a voter – they can’t isolate in round abuse so don’t arrest us before we commit a crime
Err neg on theory – the affirmative speaks first and last and gets infinite prep time
SDI 2008 13
WHAM! States 2NC
States Solve
Climate Change Leadership must begin at the Local and State levels.
Franz Litz, Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute, June 2008, “Toward a constructive dialogue on
federal and state roles in U.S. climate change policy,” www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf MH
It is often said that climate change mitigation is a global problem. And indeed, the science of climate
change makes clear that mitigation at the global level is needed. A ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from
a power plant in the United States is the scientific equivalent of a ton emitted from a power plant in Australia.
To avoid increasing global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, therefore, emission reductions
must occur globally. This scientific reality compels an international solution. The sum of all significant
actions taken on climate change in the United States however, reflects another axiom: all politics are
local. Environmental action in the United States has historically started at the local and state levels, and
climate change action is no exception. And so while the science demands effective leadership at the global
level, politically effective leadership in the United States has begun at the local and state levels. In
considering how best to design an effective national climate change policy, it may be helpful to keep both the
scientific and political axioms in mind. While the science demands a global response, the politics may
favor movement at the ground level.
AT: Non-Unique
1. Extend the 1NC Scheppach 08 card – Federalism is on the brink due to a changing
administration and greater state roles in energy policy
2. The 1NC Scheppach card post-dates all of the aff’s card by ATLEAST 3 months
3. Federalism is high – states are winning court battles over rights
Ilya Somin, George Mason University - School of Law, 6-23-08, Northwestern University Law Review
Colloquy, Vol. 102, pp. 365-373, 2008, “A Floor, Not a Ceiling: Federalism and Remedies for Violations of
Constitutional Rights in Danforth V. Minnesota,” rks,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1150417
Few doubt that states can provide greater protection for individual rights under state
constitutions than is available under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal
Constitution. More difficult issues arise, however, when state courts seek to provide greater protection
than the Court requires for federal constitutional rights. Can state courts impose remedies for violations
of federal constitutional rights that are more generous than those required by the federal Supreme
Court? That is the issue raised by the Court's recent decision in Danforth v. Minnesota. By a 7-2
vote, the Court decided that state courts could indeed provide victims of constitutional rights
violations broader remedies than those mandated by federal Supreme Court decisions. I contend
that this outcome is correct, despite the seeming incongruity of allowing state courts to deviate from the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court should establish a floor
for remedies below which states cannot fall. But there is no reason for it to also mandate a ceiling. Part
I briefly describes the facts and background to Danforth. In Part II, I provide a doctrinal justification for
the Supreme Court's decision. It makes sense to allow state courts to provide more generous
remedies than those mandated by the federal courts in cases where restrictions on the scope of
remedies are not imposed by the Constitution itself, but are instead based on policy grounds. State
courts can legitimately conclude that these policy grounds are absent or outweighed by other
considerations within their state systems, even if they are compelling justifications for restricting the
scope of remedies available in federal courts. State courts are in a better position to weigh the
relevant tradeoffs in a state legal system than federal courts are. Part III explains the potential
policy advantages of allowing interstate diversity in remedies, most importantly inter-jurisdictional
competition and an increased ability to provide for diverse citizen preferences and local conditions
across different parts of the country. The optimal remedy for a constitutional rights violation in New
York may well be different from the optimal remedy for one that occurs in Mississippi.
5. The aff’s non-unique cards are by the SAME Dinan 08. the author concludes that
the states have power, despite action against it.
SDI 2008 16
WHAM! States 2NC
B. Nuclear war.
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise
of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-
term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world
in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade
states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another
hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war
and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be
more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
SDI 2008 18
WHAM! States 2NC
AT: Secession ! T/
1. Cross apply the 1NC Calabresi impact. Excessive federal power causes conflict and
war.
2. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and has been for more than 200
years in the US, the impact should have happened as it is dated from 1999 for
Secession.
3. Their Kelly 99 card says that it doesn’t take account for political, theoretical,
economic, or social failures in its analysis. The war in Europe was caused by this,
not because federalism was there.
4. A. US leadership is preserved by the balance of federalism
Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, The States, and the
Federal Government, 1992.
The inexorably rising frequency and complexity of U.S. interaction with the rest of the world add to the
stress on federal decisionmaking processes and underline the need for making those processes simpler
and more effective. If the United States is to be an effective world leader, it cannot afford a
cumbersome national government overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the
states, and confusion over which level is in charge of specific domestic government functions. As the
world shrinks, international concerns will continue threatening to crowd out domestic policy on the
federal agenda. Paradoxically, however, effective domestic policy is now more crucial than ever
precisely because it is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs. Unless we have a strong
productive economy, a healthy, well-educated population, and a responsive democratic government,
we will not be among the major shapers of the future of this interdependent world. If the American
standard of living is falling behind that of other countries and its government structure is paralyzed, the
United States will find its credibility in world councils eroding. International considerations provide
additional rationale, if more were needed, for the United States to have a strong effective domestic
policy. One answer to this paradox is to rediscover the strengths of our federal system, the division
of labor between the states and the national government. Washington not only has too much to do,
it has taken on domestic responsibilities that would be handled better by the states. Revitalizing the
economy may depend on restoring a cleaner division of responsibility between the states and the
national government.
B. Nuclear war.
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise
of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-
term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world
in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade
states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another
hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war
and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be
more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
SDI 2008 19
WHAM! States 2NC
AT: Econ ! T/
1. Cross apply the 1NC Calabresi impact. Excessive federal power causes conflict and
war.
2. Empirically Denied – Since there is federalism now and has been for more than 200
years in the US, the impact should have happened as it is dated from 1999 for
Secession.
3. They have no impact to economic stability – they don’t say what is wrong with it.
4. A. US leadership is preserved by the balance of federalism
Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institution, Reviving the American Dream: The Economy, The States, and the
Federal Government, 1992.
The inexorably rising frequency and complexity of U.S. interaction with the rest of the world add to the
stress on federal decisionmaking processes and underline the need for making those processes simpler
and more effective. If the United States is to be an effective world leader, it cannot afford a
cumbersome national government overlapping responsibilities between the federal government and the
states, and confusion over which level is in charge of specific domestic government functions. As the
world shrinks, international concerns will continue threatening to crowd out domestic policy on the
federal agenda. Paradoxically, however, effective domestic policy is now more crucial than ever
precisely because it is essential to U.S. leadership in world affairs. Unless we have a strong
productive economy, a healthy, well-educated population, and a responsive democratic government,
we will not be among the major shapers of the future of this interdependent world. If the American
standard of living is falling behind that of other countries and its government structure is paralyzed, the
United States will find its credibility in world councils eroding. International considerations provide
additional rationale, if more were needed, for the United States to have a strong effective domestic
policy. One answer to this paradox is to rediscover the strengths of our federal system, the division
of labor between the states and the national government. Washington not only has too much to do,
it has taken on domestic responsibilities that would be handled better by the states. Revitalizing the
economy may depend on restoring a cleaner division of responsibility between the states and the
national government.
B. Nuclear war.
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global
rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and
vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises
leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more
receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a
better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of
regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the
rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war
and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more
conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system
SDI 2008 20
WHAM! States 2NC
1. Their evidence is from 2000, it doesn’t assume the current political climate in Russia
and its analysis is skewed because Russia was recovering from an economic recession.