High Speed Rail Affirmative
AT: States CP – Congress Rollback (2/2)
Download 0.54 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: States CP – Fed Oversight Key
- Feds key to economic and infrastructure revolution
AT: States CP – Congress Rollback (2/2)[CONTINUES] in Article VI of the Constitution that makes the federal law the "supreme law of the land." n174 Congress may preempt state legislation in three different ways, n175 and the executive branch of the government may trigger preemption while conducting foreign affairs. The first and most direct approach occurs when Congress chooses to insert language into a statute that directly and expressly preempts state laws concerning a specific area of regulation. n176 Another type of preemption may occur if Congress passes all-encompassing legislation that leaves no room for additional regulations, such that a court will find that the federal government exclusively occupies the field. n177 Lastly, preemption may take place when a conflict occurs between federal and state laws that makes it impossible to comply with both. n178 In such circumstances, the Supreme [*967] Court explains that the state laws "stand[] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." n179 Notwithstanding any type of congressional engagement, preemption may also occur in the context of foreign affairs by the executive branch. The Supreme Court explained that in the scope of traditional areas of foreign policy, a state must yield to the valid "exercise of the federal executive authority ... where ... there is evidence of clear conflict between the policies adopted by the two." n180 Accordingly, the state and local governments must enact laws with stronger requirements or apply them in a broader manner while not disturbing the existing federal legislation that was set as a base level to avoid the effects of the preemption doctrine. n181 Recognizing these possible threats, and in conformity with these requirements, many states enacted legislation to protect their economies and natural environments. n182 However, given the recent finding by the EPA that greenhouse gases pose an endangerment to the public health and welfare, n183 the EPA could effortlessly invoke the preemption doctrine through regulations that make state compliance an obstacle to complying federally, or by asserting the preemption doctrine through the Clean Air Act. As the lead agency in this area, the EPA could expand the endangerment finding very easily into many different aspects of industry and daily life. While unintended consequences will occur in other areas, the epicenter will start with the transportation sector because the original finding began with the emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles. Moreover, as Congress continues to evaluate the priority for creating a national "cap-and-trade" system for dealing [*968] with greenhouse gas emissions, n184 a countrywide mandate could easily force a different solution upon the states and supplant any system already in place through preemption. Any of the three preemption approaches in direct legislation would most likely withstand constitutional muster, but it could also allow an agency to occupy the entire field or create regulations that turn the state approaches into an obstacle to accomplishing the federal goal. AT: States CP – Fed Oversight KeyMulti-state implementation without the government fails – fights over priorities, no regulationBrian Kingsley Krumm, Harold A. Shertz Aware Winnder for Legal Writing, JD at University of Tennessee College of Law, “Notes: High Speed Ground Transportation Systems: A Future Component of America's Intermodal Network?,” Transportation Law Journal, 1994, 22 Transp. L. J. 309 The legislation also contemplates that two or more states might cooperate in establishing a high speed rail corridor. n81 From a national transportation planning perspective and in order to achieve the efficiency and effectiveness objectives of intermodalism, it would seem almost imperative that such joint ventures be pursued. However, from a very practical perspective, such collaboration, if not presenting an inherent conflict of interest, may prove difficult to manage. Federal transportation funds are not allocated to all states in a uniform fashion. In addition, individual states often must fund some projects over others based on such factors as technical merit, necessity, and political considerations. Unlike the state coordination necessary to implement the interstate highway system, the [*323] requirements to implement a high speed rail corridor would demand joint investment in such things as rolling stock and a long term partnership for operations and maintenance. Conflicts might arise, for example, if one state were forced to forgo the full investment and associated economic development benefits of the construction of an international airport in order to participate with an adjoining state on a HSGT project. Combining such a multi-state venture with private sector participation would, out of necessity, require some sort of coordinating and management organization. This would most certainly add complexities to the implementation process, since the management organization would most likely fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Feds key to economic and infrastructure revolutionMark Reutter, former editor of Railroad History and author of Making Steel: Sparrows Point and the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might, “Fast Track to the Future: A High-Speed Rail Agenda for America” Progressive Policy Institute, January 2010 Making HSR happen in the U.S. will take dedicated effort and smart decision-making in Washington. At present, old habits threaten the creation of a viable HSR program. The admin istration may commit federal funds to upgrade existing rights of way under the guise of “high er speed” rail, repeating the mistake that has made Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor a mishmash of good and poor track segments. The first milepost of the administration’s journey will come soon when the FRA and U.S. DOT announce the recipients of the $8 billion stimu lus funds. The administration needs to back its vision of rail passenger service – far different from the obsolete Amtrak model – with the boldness to make the necessary hard choices. An economic and infrastructure revolution – and the president’s own legacy – are at stake. “This is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future,” President Obama observed when introducing his plan for high-speed rail corridors last April. “It’s been happening for decades. The problem is it has been happen ing elsewhere, not here.”26 The president is right – HSR is no longer a pipe dream but an achievable goal. Now it’s up to the administra tion to seize the opportunity and bring Ameri can rail into the 21st century. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.54 Mb. Share with your friends:
|