Federalism DA Shell 1/2 US federalism strong now.
Nick Dranias, Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute, 3/24/2012, “We Should Accept the Supreme Court’s Invitation to Check and Balance Washington, D.C,” http://libertylawsite.org/2012/03/24/we-should-accept-the-supreme-courts-invitation-to-check-and-balance-washington-d-c/
Rarely does a unanimous Supreme Court announce a sea change in the balance of power between the states and the federal government. But nearly a year ago, on June 16, 2011, the Court did just that. In Bond v. United States, the Court effectively extended an invitation to strategic lawmaking and litigation under the Tenth Amendment. Constitutionalists should accept the Court’s invitation. The unanimous opinion penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy could signal the beginning of the end of the federal government’s inexorable expansion into areas the Tenth Amendment reserves exclusively to state and local government, such as local criminal law, health care and firearms regulation. With unusual clarity, the Court ruled our system of dual sovereignty denies “any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life.”It underscored that the primary reason for dividing power between the states and the federal government is to protect individual liberty; observing, “Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity . . . Federalism secures the freedom of the individual.”
Congress holding the line on transportation centralization now – it’s the test-case issue for federalism.
Daniel Horowitz, Deputy Political Director at The Madison Project, 3/21/2012, “A Real Solution to the Gridlock Over the Highway Bill,” http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/03/21/a-real-solution-to-the-gridlock-over-the-highway-bill/
With 50 states that are diverse in geography and population, Tom Grave’s devolution bill represents true federalism at work. If we can’t coalesce behind federalism in transportation issues, then what will we ever devolve to the states? Liberals want to maintain federal control over transportation spending to they can implement their social engineering, urban planning, and environmental regulations. It’s time for Republicans to block highway spending from being used as the conduit for the statist agenda.
Spills over – preventing federal power key to prevent collapse of federalism.
Jason A. Crook, J.D. Candidate, University of Mississippi, Fall 2008, “Toward a more “perfect” union,” University of Dayton Law Review, pp.77-78
To this end, it may be argued that the best form of government for the United States is that which it originally established-a federal system in which the national government has its enumerated powers and the states have their general ones; a system of government strong enough to meet external challenges yet flexible enough to support internal political diversity. As history has shown, the response to federal encroachment does not lie in secession or nullification but rather through the adjudication of state interests by the Supreme Court. The United States does not have to have a homogenous political culture if it does not want it, but the rising tide of federal power must be hemmed in now if that future is to be avoided. As historian and constitutional scholar Roscoe Ashley poignantly observed in 1913: Whether the effort made in the Federal State to maintain a balance between the national and commonwealth governments will prove to be futile, history will decide. If with the powerful aid given by the strong local spirit in America and a constitution of extreme rigidity, the United States cannot hold in check the forces of centralization, we may well come to the conclusion that Federalism is after all but a transitory phase in the development of centralized States with powerful central governments.
Federalism DA Shell 2/2 Effective US federalism is key to prevent global conflict.
David Bogen, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, December 2003, “Slaughter-House Five: Views of the Case,” Hastings Law Journal, p.397.
Finally, American federalism has been a model throughout the world for bringing together diverse peoples under a larger governmental structure. The utility of a national economic policy and a national foreign policy is apparent, but the tug of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds makes this difficult. The breakaway republic of Chechnya in Russia and the fear of separate status for Kurds in Turkey suggest the problems nations may have with significant internal groups with different interests. The lack of autonomy for Tibet gives the Republic of China on Taiwan pause about uniting with the Peoples Republic on the Mainland. If the warning of the anti-federalists comes true, that states cannot maintain their separate sovereignty under a national government, the United States will no longer be the beacon on the hill that gives hope for resolving this kind of international problem. A viable federalism is therefore important, not just for the internal purposes of maximizing popular satisfaction and fostering experimentation, but to demonstrate to a fractious world that dual sovereignty is a viable form of government.
That’s the biggest risk of global conflict.
Andreas Wimmer, professor of sociology at the University of California Los Angeles, 2004, “Introduction: Facing Ethnic Conflicts,” Facing Ethnic Conflicts, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/wimmer/FEC.intro.pdf
The end of the Cold War has brought about a major shift in policy thinking in Western capitals in at least three different ways: First, direct political and military intervention in developing countries now seemed to be a feasible option, since the risk of escalation into a full-scale world war, a threat ever-present as long the nuclear powers watched each other’s moves in every corner of the globe, now ceased to exist. Second, with the virtual defeat of the communist countermodel, Western political and economic doctrines became almost globally valid. Accordingly, Western governments felt responsible to help developing countries and especially the countries of the former Eastern bloc on their way to democracy, legal security, good governance, and market economy. Settling ethnic conflicts was important for achieving a politically stable environment conducive to these reforms. Third, the ethnonationalist wars, especially in the Balkans but also in Iraq, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, and elsewhere, triggered a flow of refugees to the West that greatly enhanced the consciousness of living in a unified, interrelated global system. The refugees thus helped to build up the political will for prevention, early action, intervention, and peacemaking and fostered a new discourse of responsibility and morality that complemented the more instrumental power-balance arguments of traditional foreign policy. Seen from a global point of view, the many small-scale wars spreading in the newly independent states of the East or in democratizing societies of the South had replaced the confrontation between East and West as the main threat to global peace and stability— before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon suddenly shifted the perception of threat, at least in the United States, rather dramatically and gave rise to a new doctrine of prevention and intervention driven by a “homeland security” agenda.
Disad turns the case – Federalist system key to effective transportation infrastructure.
Joshua D. Prok, J.D., University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Fall 2008, “Intelligent Transportation Systems: From Hometown Solutions to World Leadership,” Transportation Law Journal, pp.293-4
To acknowledge the pervasive reach of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology, both in the U.S. and abroad, this note explores ITS from many levels. Primarily, the federal legal framework calling for development and implementation of ITS at the regional level is described and illustrated. Then, choice of technology and technological adaptation are discussed as methods to alleviate privacy concerns implicated by ITS implementation both in the U.S. and the European Union. Next, challenges to ensuring broader interoperability are contemplated by comparing disputes over the use of transponder technology in the U.S. and the European Union. The discussion concludes with a discussion of the continuing future importance of ITS and the opportunity for the U.S. to lead in making energy efficiency a goal in global ITS development. At the outset, it should be noted that the states spur innovation within the federal framework of the U.S., "serving as laboratories for the development of new social, economic, and political ideas." The Supreme Court has repeatedly made this contention, recognizing that "state innovation is no judicial myth." This spirit of learning from local efforts prompted the exposure of the considerable ITS deployments in the author's home town of Parker, Colorado that follows.
Share with your friends: |