A2 Federalism – Non Unique

A2 Federalism – Non Unique

Recent immigration ruling tilts federal over states

Even more gratifying is the court’s reinforcement of an obvious principle: The federal government has the responsibility for setting immigration policy, not the states. We do not need — and, thanks to this ruling, will not have — 50 sets of laws specifying who gets to live in this country and who doesn’t. The Arizona law sought to make it a state crime to fail to have proper immigration papers; in other words, failing to produce the right documents when asked could have subjected a person not just to deportation but to criminal penalties. The court ruled that this was pre-empted by federal law, which imposes no such sanctions.

Decisions later this year – not the plan – are key federalism issues

The Wall Street Journal 12 (Jess Bravin, “Federal Power at Issue in Key Cases”, 6-24-12, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304458604577487044123497430.html)

The Supreme Court's decisions on the 2010 health-care overhaul and Arizona's tough anti-immigration law, due out this week, are likely to help set the confines of federal power for decades to come. Both are about defining that boundary with the states, a point of tension since the founding of the nation. Even this year's political campaign is raising the federalism issue as the parties debate the proper level of Washington spending and taxes at a time of high budget deficits. The core constitutional question to be settled this week is whether Congress has the power to require almost every American to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. In March arguments at the Supreme Court, the challengers' lawyer, Paul Clement, said he had no legal objection to such a requirement—as long as each of the 50 state legislatures enacted it.

A2 Federalism – No Link

Non unique link – federal government dominates transportation policy

Dilger 11, -Senior Specialist in American National Government (Robert Jay, “Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present”, 1-5-11, Congressional Research Service)

American federalism, which shapes the roles, responsibilities, and interactions among and between the federal government, the states, and local governments, is continuously evolving, adapting to changes in American society and American political institutions. The nature of federalism relationships in surface transportation policy has also evolved over time, with the federal government’s role becoming increasingly influential, especially since the Federal-Aid to Highway Act of 1956 which authorized the interstate highway system. In recent years, state and local government officials, through their public interest groups (especially the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) have lobbied for increased federal assistance for surface transportation grants and increased flexibility in the use of those funds. They contend that they are better able to identify surface transportation needs in their states than federal officials and are capable of administering federal grant funds with relatively minimal federal oversight. They also argue that states have a long history of learning from one another. In their view, providing states flexibility in the use of federal funds results in better surface transportation policy because it enables states to experiment with innovative solutions to surface transportation problems and then share their experiences with other states. Others argue that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible to promote the national interest in expanding national economic growth and protecting the environment. In their view, providing states increased flexibility in the use of federal funds diminishes the federal government’s ability to ensure that national needs are met. Still others have argued for a fundamental restructuring of federal and state government responsibilities in surface transportation policy, with some responsibilities devolved to states and others remaining with the federal government.

ARRA already sets up a system of transit grants that require state capitulation to federal requirements

Dilger 11, -Senior Specialist in American National Government (Robert Jay, “Federalism Issues in Surface Transportation Policy: Past and Present”, 1-5-11, Congressional Research Service)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5, signed by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009), included $27.5 billion for highway, bridge and road projects, $8.4 billion for mass transit and $8.6 billion for discretionary grants to states to help fund capital costs associated with intercity rail services, with an emphasis on developing high-speed rail services. As a condition for the receipt of funding for these programs, the law includes a state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) requirement that requires the Governor of each state to certify to the Secretary of Transportation that, “the State will maintain its effort with regard to State funding for the types of projects that are funded by the appropriation. As part of this certification, the Governor shall submit to the Secretary of Transportation a statement identifying the amount of funds the State planned to expend from State sources as of the date of enactment of this Act during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act through September 30, 2010, for the types of projects that are funded by the appropriation.”109 States are required to submit a report on their activities not later than 90 days after the act’s enactment and an updated report not later than 180 days, one year, two years, and three years after enactment. States that are unable to maintain the level of effort will be prohibited by the Secretary of Transportation from receiving additional funds “pursuant to the redistribution of the limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs that occurs after August 1 for fiscal year 2011.”110

Court has checks on abuses of federalism in the context of mass transit and have held that federal involvement is legitimate since it improves transit

Blackmun 85 - Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994, author of Roe v. Wade, (Harold Andrew, Opinion of the Court, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0528_ZO.html)

In these cases, the status of public mass transit simply underscores the extent to which the structural protections of the Constitution insulate the States from federally imposed burdens. When Congress first subjected state mass transit systems to FLSA obligations in 1966, and when it expanded those obligations in 1974, it simultaneously provided extensive funding for state and local mass transit through UMTA. In the two decades since its enactment, UMTA has provided over $22 billion in mass transit aid to States and localities. [n19] In 1983 alone, UMTA funding amounted to $3.7 billion. [n20] As noted above, SAMTA and its immediate predecessor have received a substantial amount of UMTA funding, including over $12 million during SAMTA's first two fiscal years alone. In short, Congress has not simply placed a financial burden on the shoulders of States and localities that operate mass transit systems, but has provided substantial countervailing financial assistance as well, assistance that may leave individual mass transit systems better off than they would have been had Congress never intervened at all in the area. Congress' treatment of public mass transit reinforces our conviction that the national political process systematically protects States from the risk of having their functions in that area handicapped by Commerce Clause regulation. [n21]

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 0.91 Mb.

Share with your friends: