Federalism Neg

Miami Oxford Scholars 2008

Federalism Neg

Federalism DA

Federalism DA...........................................................1 ***UNIQUENESS ***UNIQUENESS*** *** .......................... ....................................... ....................2 .......2 States States In Power Now ............................ ......................................... .....................2 ........2 ***LINKS*** ***LINKS*** ........................... ......................................... ............................ ..................3 ....3 Links – Generic Generic Renewables/ Renewables/Alts Alts ......................... .............................3 ....3 Links – Cellulosic Ethanol.........................................4 Links – Cellulosic Ethanol.........................................5 Links – Cellulosic Ethanol.........................................6 Links - Electrici Electricity ty Generation Generation ........................... ...................................7 ........7 Links – GHGs............................... GHGs............................................ ........................... ................8 ..8 Links – RPS.................................... RPS................................................. ...........................9 ..............9 Links – Preemption..................................................10 Link Booster Booster - Jurisdictional Control ...................... ........... ........... 11 Federal-State Power Zero-Sum................................12 ***INTERNALS* ***INTERNALS*** ** ......................... ...................................... ......................13 .........13 US Federalism Federalism Modeled Modeled ......................... ...................................... .................13 ....13 US Federalism Federalism Modeled Modeled ......................... ...................................... .................14 ....14 ***Domestic ***Domestic Impacts*** Impacts*** .......................... ....................................... ..............15 .15 Tyranny Tyranny .......................... ........................................ ............................ ...........................15 .............15 Tyranny Tyranny .......................... ........................................ ............................ ...........................16 .............16 Tyranny Tyranny .......................... ........................................ ............................ ...........................17 .............17 Tyranny Tyranny Impacts Impacts .......................... ....................................... .......................... ...............18 ..18 ***Generic War Impacts*** ...................... ........... ...................... .............19 ..19 Fism Solves Global War..........................................19 Federalism Solves Globar War................................20 ***DEMOCRACY** ***DEMOCRACY***................ *............................. .......................... ...............21 ..21 Democracy Democracy – 1NC ........................... ......................................... ........................21 ..........21 US Model Key to Democracy..................................22 Fism Key to Democracy..........................................23 Federalism Federalism Key to Democracy Democracy .......................... ................................24 ......24 Fism Key to Democracy..........................................25 ***Self-D/Secessionism***....................................26 ***Self-D/Secessionism***....................................26 Fism Solves Self Determination ...................... ........... ................... ........26 26 Fism Solves Self Determination ...................... ........... ................... ........27 27 Fism Solves Self-Determination..............................28 Federalism Solves Self-Determination Self-Determination .................... ........... .........29 29 AT: “Federalism Accelerates Secessionism”........... Secessionism”........... 30 AT: “Federalism Accelerates Secessionism”........... Secessionism”........... 31 Secessionism Impact - Genocide.............................32 Secessionism Impacts - War....................................33 Secessionism Impact – Economy ...................... ........... .................34 ......34 Secessionism Impact – Turns Solvency...................35

***INDIA***............. ***INDIA***........................... ........................... ........................... ..................36 ....36 India 1NC ........................... ......................................... ............................ .......................36 .........36 India 1NC ........................... ......................................... ............................ .......................37 .........37 India Decentralizing Now........................................38 Indian Indian Fism Key to Econ....................................... Econ.........................................39 ..39 Indian Fism Solves Ethnic Conflict.........................40 Indian Fism Solves Ethnic Conflict.........................41 Indian Fism Solves Ethnic Conflict.........................42 Indian Fism Solves India-Pakistan War...................43 ***RUSSIA***................... ***RUSSIA***................................. ........................... ......................44 .........44 Russia Russia Models Models US ............................ .......................................... .......................44 .........44 Russian Federalism Impact Module ...................... ........... .............45 ..45 Russian Fism Key to Economy................................46 Russian Fism Solves Civil War ...................... ........... .................... .........47 47 Russian Federalism Solves Democracy...................48 Russian Democracy Impact ...................... ........... ....................... ...............49 ...49 Russian Fism Solves Nationalism ....................... ............ ...............50 ....50 Nationalism Impact..................................................51 Russian Fism Solves Nuclear Leakage/Terrorism...52 Russian Federalism Solves Prolif ...................... .......... .................53 .....53 Russian Fism Fism Solves Solves Ethnic Genocide .................... ........... .........54 54 AT: Russian Fism Impossible..................................55 ***2NC ANSWERS ANSWERS TO AFF ARGS*** ...............56 ...............56 AT: Federalism => Disintegration...........................56 AT: States States Hurt Rights .......................... ........................................ ..................57 ....57 AT: “States Are Racist”...........................................58 ***AFF ANSWERS***.................. ANSWERS***............................... ........................59 ...........59 N/U – California Emissions.....................................59 N/U – Centralization Now - Environment...............60 N/U – Centralization Centralization Now Now – Environment Environment ..............61 .......... ....61 N/U – Centralization Now.......................................62 NU – Centralization Already Modeled....................63 Fism Bad – Externalities..........................................64

1

The world's largest digital library

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
















File Title

***UNIQUENESS***

States In Power Now ( _ ) Balance of Power has shifted towards the states Linhorst in 02

Donald M. Linhorst, PhD, assistant professor, School of Social Service, Saint Louis University Federalism and social justice: implication implication for social 2002 p. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7 http://web.ebscohost.com /ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=107&sid=9ccf &hid=107&sid=9ccfe626-7294-49f0-8abae626-7294-49f0-8aba6fc3b7f3ea65%40sessionmgr109

Federalism is a system of government that divides p ower between two or more levels of government. During the current conservative political climate in the United States, power has shifted increasingly from the federal government to states, a move that has implications for the achievement of social justice. Consequently, it is now necessary for social workers to engage in political activity at the state and local levels, in addition to the federal level, to promote social justice. Implications for social work policy practice, research, and education for advancing social justice within the federal system of government are explored. As we enter the 21st century, the current conservative political environment of the United States is likely to continue and possibly become more entrenched. One outgrowth of this movement is increased responsibility placed on state and local governments for social programs. The dismantling or underfunding of many federal social programs and the devolution of more social programs to states have serious implications for social justice.
















File Title

***LINKS***

Links – Generic Renewables/Alts ( _ ) States are implementing major renewable initiatives that rival many international programs. Rabe - professor of public policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan – 1/2/ 2008 2008 (Barry G., “Second generation climate policies in the United States,” The Encyclopedia of Earth, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/ http://72.14.205.104/search ?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/article/Second_generati article/Second_generation_climate_poli on_climate_poli cies_in_the_United_States+RPS+has+become+very cies_in_the_United_Stat es+RPS+has+become+very+popular+with+state +popular+with+states&hl=en&ct=clnk& s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us cd=8&gl=us ) This familiar tale, however, fails to provide a complete picture of the evolving U.S. engagement in climate policy. Indeed, at the very time federal institutions continued to thrash about on this issue, major new initiatives were launched, with bipartisan support, in such diverse state capitals as Sacramento (Calif.), Carson City (Nev.), Santa Fe (N.M.), Austin (Tex.), Harrisburg (Penn.), Albany (N.Y.), and Hartford (Conn.). By the middle of the current decade, more than half of the U.S. states could be fairly characterized as actively involved in climate change policy, with one or more policies that promised to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Virtually all states were beginning to at least study the issue and explore very modest remedies. A growing number of these—such as California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York—were every bit as engaged on multiple policy fronts as counterparts in European capitals and far more active than all Canadian provinces except Manitoba. These programs are beginning to have some effect on stabilizing emissions from their jurisdictions. Indeed, many states are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and thus state programs offer considerable potential for reducing emissions. If the fifty states were to secede and become sovereign nations, thirteen would rank among the world’s top forty nations in emissions, led by Texas in seventh place ahead of the United Kingdom.

( _ ) State capacity has grown with active engagement in environmental protection. Rabe - professor of public policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan – 2008 1/2/ 2008 (Barry G., “Second generation climate policies in the United States,” The Encyclopedia of Earth, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/ http://72.14.205.104/search ?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/article/Second_generati article/Second_generation_climate_poli on_climate_poli cies_in_the_United_States+RPS+has+become+very cies_in_the_United_Stat es+RPS+has+become+very+popular+with+state +popular+with+states&hl=en&ct=clnk& s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us cd=8&gl=us ) Bottom-Up Policy Many accounts of U.S. public policy are written as if the United States operated as a unitary system, whereby all innovations and initiatives emanate from the federal government. A more nuanced view of U.S. federalism indicates that states have often served a far more expansive and visionary role. The potential for early and active state engagement on policy issues has intensified in recent decades, as the capacity of most state governments has grown markedly. This has led in many instances to dramatic increases in state revenue and expansion of state agencies with considerable oversight in all areas relevant to greenhouse gases, including environmental protection, energy, transportation, transportation, and natural resources. Even in areas with significant federal policy oversight, states have become increasingly active and, in some cases, fairly autonomous in interpretation, implementation, implementation, and innovation.
















File Title

Links – Cellulosic Ethanol ( _ )States are leading in cellulosic ce llulosic ethanol production. US Depeartment of Energy – 2/21/ 2007 2007 (“Cellulosic Ethanol Facilities Planned for Louisiana and Georgia,” US Department of Energy, http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/state_news_deta http://www.eere.energy.gov/sta tes/state_news_detail.cfm/news_id=10581/s il.cfm/news_id=10581/state=LA tate=LA ) Celunol's pilot facility follows in the path of the Bioethanol Pilot Plant, which opened at DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory back in 1994. Southern states may be taking the lead in cellulosic ethanol production, as efforts are underway in both Louisiana and Georgia to build the first large production facilities. In Jennings, Louisiana, Celunol Corporation broke ground on February 16th on a demonstration-scale demonstration-scale facility designed to produce 1.4 million gallons of ethanol per year from low-cost crops and sugarcane wastes. The company has also just completed a pilot-scale facility, facility, capable of producing 50,000 gallons of ethanol per year. Massachusetts-based Celunol holds exclusive rights to a technology developed by the University of Florida and has licensed the technology to a Japanese company that is currently producing ethanol from w ood waste in Osaka, Japan. Celunol's patented production process employs a combination of microorganisms and specialty enzymes to convert up to 95 percent of the available sugars in biomass feedstocks into fuel ethanol. Celunol expects construction on its Louisiana facility to be completed before the end of the year. See the press releases from Celunol and the Renewable Fuels Association. While Celunol is employing a biological process to convert biomass to ethanol, a Colorado-based company plans to produce ethanol from wood waste using gasification. Range Fuels, Inc. plans to build a facility in Georgia that will employ high temperatures to convert the biomass into "synthesis gas," which will be converted into ethanol in a separate step. Located in a rural area west of Savannah, Georgia, the facility is expected to create 70 new jobs. See the press releases from Range Fuels and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue.

( _ ) Michigan is developing cellulosic ethanol technologies. Energy Current- News Agency – 7/1/ 2008 2008 (“Michigan to host Mascoma's wood-based ethanol plant” Energy Current, http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=3&storyid=11543) LANSING, MICH.: Boston-based Mascoma Corp. intends intends to build its first commercial commercial scale wood-based ethanol plant in south of Sault Ste. Ste. Marie city in the Chippewa County of Michigan. Michigan. Mascoma will be eligible eligible for a US$15 million grant from the the state government that will will go to financing the new plant. The state government has also granted the biofuel producer a choice of two locations to site the new plant. Mascoma said Michigan was selected for its vast forest resources and agricultural materials. materials. Mascoma will work with Michigan State University (MSU) and Michigan Technology University (MTU) to develop and hone scientific processes that utilise Michigan feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol production. MSU will provide expertise in areas primarily relating to pretreatment technology for cellulosic ethanol production and assistance with renewable energy crops that can be utilised by the biorefinery. MTU will contribute its knowledge of sustainable forestry management practices and access to its automotive engineering laboratories for analysis of the biofuels produced at the site of the new plant. The new plant is also backed by Mascoma's alliance with natural resource company, JM Longyear.
















File Title

Links – Cellulosic Ethanol ( _ )Oklahoma is working on cellulosic ethanol projects. Associated Press- 6/17/ 2008 2008 (“Farming for cellulosic ethanol gets started” MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25121471/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25121471/ )) GUYMON, Okla. - Work has started on the planting of a 1,000-acre switchgrass field in the Oklahoma Panhandle that researchers plan to use in the production of cellulosic ethanol. The field is being touted as the world's largest for switchgrass, a drought-resistant perennial plant that grows even on marginal lands. Scientists at the Noble Foundation in Ardmore are overseeing the project and hope that switchgrass proves to be a viable substitute for corn in ethanol production. Hitch Enterprises, a Panhandle-based company, began planting the field earlier this month. Smaller fields of switchgrass also will be planted in central Oklahoma near Chickasha and Maysville. Rising food costs recently resulted in a pushback against renewable fields," said D avid Fleischaker, the state's energy secretary. "However, cellulosic ethanol from sources like switchgrass and sorghum are noncompetitive with food sources for animals and humans." The crop from the field will be cut and sent to a new biorefinery that will be built by Abengoa Bioenergy of Hugoton, Kan., just across the state line from Guymon. The biorefinery should be ready for use by 2010. The Noble Foundation is working with the Oklahoma Bioenergy Center, the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University on the switchgrass project.

( _ ) Georgia is leading in the cellulosic ethanol revolution. Bello – Staff writer – 6/18/ 2008 2008 (Marisol, “Midwest, move over: Ga. joins the ethanol gold rush,” USAToday, http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/200 http://www.usatoday.com/ printedition/news/20070823/a_ethanol23.art.htm 70823/a_ethanol23.art.htm)) With its 25 million acres of forest second only to Oregon, Georgia is setting itself up to lead the ethanol revolution. The state not only wants to produce and sell corn ethanol, which until recently has been confined to Midwestern corn-growing states, it wants to lead the way for cellulosic ethanol, which is made from organic matter such as trees, plants, peanut shells and sugar cane. Amid concerns over high oil prices and the environmental impact of fossil fuels, Georgia is among a handful of states outside the Corn Belt that are joining the gold rush for ethanol, an alcohol fuel that many hope can lessen the country's dependency on gasoline. Backed by federal subsidies for producing and selling ethanol, the states are adding their own incentives to attract ethanol producers and convince retailers to install pumps selling the alternative fuel.

( _ ) States are starting to develop their own cellulosic ethanol plants. Bello – Staff writer – 6/18/ 2008 2008 (Marisol, “Midwest, move over: Ga. joins the ethanol gold rush,” USAToday, http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/200 http://www.usatoday.com/ printedition/news/20070823/a_ethanol23.art.htm 70823/a_ethanol23.art.htm)) New York offers a 15-cents-per-gallon tax credit for producers of biofuels, including E85, after they produce their first 40,000 gallons. Georgia has tax credits for equipment and expedites permits and other paperwork. Next year, South Carolina will return to drivers the first $300 they spend on E85. The number of gas stations offering E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline usable in engines modified for it, has almost tripled in the past two years to 1,200. The market, though, is still less than 1% of the nation's 170,000 gas stations. Colorado has 29 stations with E85 pumps and expects to see another 21 open by the end of the year. New York just opened two retail E85 pumps. South Carolina, with 37, has the most outside the Midwest. Several states — including Texas,
















File Title

Links – Cellulosic Ethanol ( _ ) Georgia is leading in ethanol production. Bello – Staff writer – 6/18/ 2008 2008 (Marisol, “Midwest, move over: Ga. joins the ethanol gold rush,” USAToday, http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/200 http://www.usatoday.com/ printedition/news/20070823/a_ethanol23.art.htm 70823/a_ethanol23.art.htm)) Last year, the USA produced almost 6 billion gallons of ethanol, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Construction of 77 more plants is expected to double production by next year, says Bob Dinneen, the association's president. Georgia wants to lead the pack. It is launching a dizzying number of projects to eventually help the state produce about a quarter of the fuel used by its residents, says Jill Stuckey, the director of alternative fuels. Before Hurricane Katrina hit two years ago and threatened Georgia's oil pipelines and gas supplies, Stuckey was a bit like the Maytag repairman; there wasn't much buzz around her work. After Katrina, K atrina, "Suddenly I was popular," she says. Stuckey traverses the state for locations to entice biofuel companies, which make fuel derived from organic matter, to invest in Georgia. One of her big catches is Range Fuels, a Colorado company that plans to open a plant next year in southern Georgia that will make 20 million gallons of ethanol a year using the state's vast timber inventory. Right now, Georgia has only one ethanol producer, in Baconton, where Wind Gap Farms has been churning out about 500,000 gallons a year for two decades. E thanol is a byproduct of its primary business, drying yeast from beer waste that it sells to make pet food.

( _ ) States Fund Cellulosic Ethanol Walsh, Staff Reporter 6/27/ 08 08, p. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080627/COL06/806270405/1081 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20080627/COL06/806270405/1081 (Tom, “State races to be 1st big wood ethanol maker”, Detroit Free Press) As corn prices soar and the food-versus-fuel debate over corn-based ethanol rages on, the State of Michigan and Mascoma Corp. of Boston are finalizing details of a deal to create the world's first commercial-scale plant to make millions millions of gallons of cellulosic cellulosic ethanol from from wood chips. chips. Today in Lansing, Lansing, Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Mascoma CEO Bruce Jamerson are to spell spell out key details and partners in in the project. Mascoma has homed in on two possible sites in the Upper Peninsula's Chippewa County, near the former Kincheloe Air Force Base, south of Sault Ste. Marie. The State of Michigan will provide provide $15 million from the 21st Century Jobs Fund to support the project, which eventually will entail investment of $250 million or more by Mascoma and its partners. The Mascoma project will be the first first of what Granholm hopes will be as many many as 10 "Centers of Energy Excellence," special zones where the state works with universities to help finance commercialization of new energy technologies. Michigan State University and Michigan Technological University are partnering with Mascoma. Tax credits also will be offered to attract supply chain partners to cluster around projects like Mascoma's in the UP. J.M. Longyear, a Marquette-based firm firm that owns more than 65,000 acres of forest forest land in the UP, has signed on as a joint venture partner in in to the project. General Motors Corp. and Marathon Marathon Oil have made equity investments in Mascoma, along with K hosla Ventures, a major Silicon Valley venture capital firm specializing in green technology. technology. "Michigan, for us, is becoming becoming one of the power alleys" in biofuels development, said Jamerson, Mascoma's president and CEO and a University of Michigan graduate. The UP's vast tracts of sustainable forest land, plus equity stakes in Mascoma taken by GM and Marathon, ensure that resources and expertise in fuel distribution and vehicle design design are available. Mascoma currently has a small pilot plant starting up in Rome, N.Y., and a larger demonstration demonstration plant planned in Tennessee. Tennessee. Mascoma officials officials said they hope to be producing ethanol in big quantities for distribution in the Midwest by late 2010 or early 2011. Fifty to 100 high-paying jobs will be created at the plant and laboratory on the manufacturing site; another 200 to 300 jobs are expected in cutting and preparing the wood feedstock and another 150 to 200 jobs in transportation.


















File Title

Links - Electricity Generation ( _ ) States have jurisdiction over electricity generation subsidies in the status quo Ferry in 06 (Steven Ferry, March 2006, law professor, Electricity Journal, p. 122) More than a dozen states have established renewable energy subsidy programs funded by system benefit charges that over this decade should raise approximately $3.4 billion . Between 1998 and 2012, approximately $3.5 billion will be collected by the original 14 states with renewable energy funds. More than half the amount collected – at least $135 million per year – comes from just California. The funding levels range from $0.07/MWh in Wisconsin up to almost $0.6/MWh in Massachusetts. The funds are disbursed as either investments, grants, other subsidies, or R&D grants by the funding agency. Most only provide assistance to new projects , and not existing renewable projects. projects. Normalizing all incentives incentives to a five-year production production incentive equivalent utilizing a 10 percent discount rate, states have subsidized large-scale renewable energy subsidies. The subsidy projects in a range of 0.1–7¢/kWh.7 Wind power has been a major beneficiary of these subsidies. level in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island ranges from 0.59 to 1.95¢/kWh for wind and hydroelectric projects, and from 0.11 to 0.57¢/kWh for landfill gas projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission suggested that states have jurisdiction to implement the charge .

( _ ) States have dominated in electricity regulations, building bipartisan coalitions for action. Rabe - professor of public policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan – 2008 1/2/ 2008 (Barry G., “Second generation climate policies in the United States,” The Encyclopedia of Earth, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/ http://72.14.205.104/search ?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/article/Second_generati article/Second_generation_climate_poli on_climate_poli cies_in_the_United_States+RPS+has+become+very cies_in_the_United_Stat es+RPS+has+become+very+popular+with+state +popular+with+states&hl=en&ct=clnk& s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us cd=8&gl=us ) Extending such resources and powers into the realm of climate change is a fairly incremental step in some instances, such as electricity regulation, where state governments have been dominant for decades. But the burgeoning state role must be seen as not merely an extension of existing authority but rather a new movement of sorts driven by a set of factors distinct to the issue of climate change. These factors have proven increasingly influential in a wide range of jurisdictions, overcoming inherent opposition opposition and building generally broad and bipartisan coalitions for action. In some jurisdictions, this dynamic has advanced so far that one of the greatest conflicts in climate policy innovation is determining which political leaders get to “claim credit” for taking early steps. The following factors appear to be pivotal drivers behind action in numerous states.


















File Title

Links – GHGs ( _ ) States have implemented policies po licies to regulate greenhouse gases. Rabe - professor of public policy at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan – 1/2/ 2008 2008 (Barry G., “Second generation climate policies in the United States,” The Encyclopedia of Earth, http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/ http://72.14.205.104/search ?q=cache:N3Tuqu2xHdEJ:www.eoearth.org/article/Second_generati article/Second_generation_climate_poli on_climate_poli cies_in_the_United_States+RPS+has+become+very cies_in_the_United_Stat es+RPS+has+become+very+popular+with+state +popular+with+states&hl=en&ct=clnk& s&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us cd=8&gl=us Continuing Proliferation Perhaps the most evident trend in state policy engagement on climate change is that the number of states involved as well as aggregate number and range of policies continues to expand on a monthly basis. As of mid-2006, this trend showed no signs of slowing; it may in fact be accelerating. More than half of the states have enacted at least one piece of climate legislation or passed at least one executive order that sets formal requirements for reducing greenhouse gases; 18 states have passed multiple laws designed to achieve such reductions. Forty-seven have completed greenhouse gas inventories and 22 have set forth “action plans” to guide future policy. In six cases, states have formally established statewide commitments to reduce production of greenhouse gases over future years and decades, linked to policies designed to attain these reduction pledges. Renewable energy, discussed further below, has b een a particularly popular area of engagement, with 22 states enacting so-called “renewable portfolio standards” (RPS) that mandate a formal increase in the amount of electricity distributed in a state that must be generated from renewable sources. Fifteen states have established their own version of carbon taxes, through so-called “social benefit charges” that allocate their revenues to renewable energy development or energy efficiency projects. In transportation, 10 states have agreed to follow California in establishing the world’s first carbon dioxide emissions standards for vehicles and 12 states are engaged in some form of capping carbon emissions from electrical utilities.


















File Title

Links – RPS ( _ ) RPS has become the most popular state level policy to support renewable energy. Clean Energy States Alliance – 8/12/ 2005 2005 (Northeast RPS Compliance Markets: An Examination of Opportunities to Advance REC Trading,” Clean Energy States Alliance, policy.rutgers.edu/ceeep/ policy.rutgers.edu/ceeep//images/Northeast /images/Northeast%20RPS%20Compliance%20 %20RPS%20Compliance%20Mark Mark ets%2010-12-05.pdf) Renewable Portfolio Standards have become the most popular state- level policy to support renewable energy in the United States. Of all of the state- level policies, the RPS is proving to be the most important in stimulating large amounts of renewable energy additions. Massachusetts Massachusetts was one of the first states to enact an RPS, in 1997, but Connecticut has the distinction of having one of the earliest effective dates for any RPS, January 1, 2000. In the northeastern United States of America, nine states and the District of Columbia currently have RPS policies, and nine of these recognize the trading of RECs as a compliance mechanism. The states are Connecticut, Washington D.C., Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Vermont currently does not have an RPS, but the General Assembly recently passed a bill that directs the Public Service Board to implement an RPS in 2013 if certain conditions are not met, concerning the load growth in the state and the voluntary acquisition by Vermont utilities of renewable energy sufficient to cover the growth in load from the period of 2005 to 2012. Within the northeast, there are three Independent System Operators (ISOs) that facilitate open access of the electric transmission system, administer a robust energy market, and ensure the reliability of the nation's power grid. The ISOs do not develop or enforce any renewable portfolio standards upon their participants, but ISOs are w ell suited for tracking the trade of RECs, as they operate regional market settlement systems that perform billing and settlements for their respective wholesale electricity markets and have the capacity to track the deliverability of electricity. The northern-most ISO is ISO-New England (ISO-NE), which oversees the competitive wholesale electricity electricity market in the regional power grid created by the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) that now includes more than 350 separate generating plants and more than 8,000 miles of transmission lines. Of the northeastern RPS states, four are served by ISO-NE – Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Directly to the west of and adjacent to ISO-NE, is NYISO, which serves all of New York State. New York is among the northeastern RPS states, although it does not recognize REC trading as a compliance vehicle. To the south of NYISO is PJM Interconnection (PJM), which operates the largest competitive wholesale electricity market in the world. PJM coordinates the movement of electricity as far south as North Carolina and as far west as Illinois. This ISO serves four of the northeastern RPS states and Washington D.C., which also has an RPS, – Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.


















File Title

Links – Preemption ( _ ) Federal pre-emption of state issues undermines federalism Young in 04 (Ernest Young, law professor, Texas, Texas Law Review, N ovember, 2004, p. 32) Second, limiting preemption seeks to address certain process defects that may render the national political process less protective of state autonomy . Professor Hoke has argued that the sort of concentrated interest groups that often seek preemption of state regulation have certain organizational advantages at the federal level that offset state representation. More fundamentally, fundamentally, I have already emphasized the extent to which widespread preemption threatens the state autonomy necessary to maintain a viable system of political checks on central power. Limits on preemption thus thus address problems that undermine the self-enforcing self-enforcing character of the system .


















File Title

Link Booster - Jurisdictional Control ( _ ) Federal energy energ y requirements supplant state jurisdictional control Ferrey in 04

(Steven Ferrey, law professor Suffolk, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 2004, p. 403)

States can segment the market to promote renewable energy. FERC expressly acknowledged a state's ability to promulgate regulations favoring particular generation technologies over others, in holding that a "state may choose to require a utility to construct generation capacity of a preferred technology or to purchase power from the supplier of a particular type of resource." FERC suggests that the mechanism to do this may be for "a state [to] account for environmental costs of all fuel sources including an all source determination of avoided cost." This provides a means, as long as the price paid is not more than the general market or administratively administratively set price. While states may not violate federal law, they retain jurisdiction to structure the resource composition of the power supply market .

( _ ) Supplanting state actions erodes erod es federalism J-104-31, 7-11, p. 11) Lack in 95 (James Lack, Senator ’95, New York, Serial No. J-104-31, Every year Congress considers bills , federal agencies consider rules, and international agencies consider cases that would supplant state statutory or common law. Adverse decisions may result not only in nullifying state laws and court decisions, but also in narrowing the range of issues that legislatures may address. The threat is the steady, incremental, year-by-year erosion of the jurisdiction of state legislatures .




















File Title

Federal-State Power Zero-Sum ( _ ) Federal exercise of power reduces state power Yoo in 97

(John Yoo, law professor, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW LAW REVIEW, v. 70,1997, p. 1352)

It is important to note that Justice Kennedy did not differentiate differentiate between laws that regulated states qua states and those that regulated private parties in areas that might be thought to lie within state power. Following Chief Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion , Justice Kennedy's concurrence treated the exercise of any federal power as a diminution of the power of the states and hence a reduction of state sovereignty .

(_ ) Any expansion of federal power undermines state power Bybee in 2k

(Jay S. Bybee, Professor of Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2000, HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC PUBLIC POLICY, Spring, p. 557)

Although the context for Tenth Amendment litigation has involved disputes between states and the federal government, residual state authority also inures to the benefit of "the people." In any contest between Congress and the states, a decision that favors expanded federal powers necessarily disfavors the states and the people. When Justice Souter wrote in Alden that "the commerce power is no longer thought to be circumscribed," he meant, implicitly, that the people have reserved no powers over commerce or anything affecting it.

( _ ) Even if the plan doesn’t explicitly restrict state power, federal action in an area still discourages state action and autonomy




















File Title

***INTERNALS*** US Federalism Modeled ( _ ) US federalism and constitutionalism are globally modeled Mallat in 03 (Chilbi Mallat, Ph.D., University of London, CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Winter 2003, p. 9) Laurence Tribe, in Constitutional Choices, summarized what he calls the underlying political ideas of the American system into a list of six categories: representative republicanism , federalism, separation of powers, equality before the law, individual autonomy and procedural fairness. America has shared many of these traits with other democracies for a long time, but two constitutional features stand out on a world level as typically American -- federalism and the Supreme Court. The American people deserve credit for both inventions which brought new dimensions to democracy and the rule of law for the rest of the planet . Perhaps America does not know it, but the world has been a consistently better place wherever her two homegrown intellectual products have found anchor.

( _ ) US federalism model is accepted worldwide but it isn’t static – changes are recognized Tarr in 05

(G. Alan Tarr “United States of America” America” ” appearing in John Kincaid and G. Alan Tarr, editors Constituional Origins, structure and change in federal democracies” McGill Queen’s University Press, Montreal and Kingston: 2005 pg 382)

The United States of America is the world's oldest, continuing, modern federal democracy. Indeed, the framers of the United States Constitution are widely regarded as the inventor s of modern federalism, as distinct from ancient forms of federalism, especially confederalism. The US Constitution has been influential as a model of federal democracy, and key principles of the Constitution - such as federalism , the separation of powers, an




















File Title

US Federalism Modeled ( _ ) US federalism modeled globally globa lly Calabresi in 95

(Steven Calabresi, Assistant Prof – Northwestern U., 1995, Michigan Law Review, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752, p. lexis)

federalism has become the order of the day in an extraordinarily At the same time, U.S.-style constitutional federalism large number of very important countries, some of which once might have been thought of as pure nationstates. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have decentralized power by adopting constitutions that are significantly more federalist than the ones they replaced. Many other nations that had been influenced long ago by American federalism have chosen to retain and formalize their federal structures. Thus, the federalist constitutions of Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, for example, all are basically alive and well today. As one surveys the world in 1995, American-style federalism of some kind or another is everywhere triumphant, while the forces of nationalism, although still dangerous, seem to be contained or in retreat. The few remaining highly centralized democratic nation-states like Great Britain, France, and Italy all face serious secessionist or devolutionary crises. Other highly centralized nation-states , like China, also seem ripe for a federalist, as well as a democratic, change. Even many existing federal and confederal entities seem to face serious pressure to devolve power further than they have done so far : thus, Russia, Spain, Canada, and Belgium all have very serious devolutionary or secessionist movements of some kind. Indeed, secessionist pressure has been so great that some federal structures recently have collapsed under its weight, as has happened in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union. All of this still could be threatened, of course, by a resurgence of nationalism in Russia or elsewhere, but the long-term antinationalist trend seems fairly secure. There is no serious intellectual support for nationalism anywhere in the world today, whereas everywhere people seem interested in exploring new transnational and devolutionary federal forms. The democratic revolution that was launched in Philadelphia in 1776 has won, and now it seems that democrats everywhere join Madison in




















File Title

***DomesticImpacts***

Tyranny ( _ ) Federalism a key check on tyranny Robinson on 07

(Nick Robinson political editor editor of the BBC “ Akron Law Review” 2007, p lexis)

Second, federalism provides a check on the over-centralization of power. Federalism embraces a "conception of justice" that implies that a diffuse political ordering is both "necessary and desirable ." 175 provides a "double In Federalist 51, James Madison reassures reassures his readers that a federalist federalist [*681 ] republic provides security" against usurpations of power because power is not only divided between b etween the different branches of the federal government, but also between the federal and state governments. 176 Justice O'Connor picks up this theme in Gregory v. Ashcroft where she remarks that "just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." 177 As areas of traditional local local governance increasingly increasingly become objects of international concern there is an increased danger that localities will be weakened in their ability to act as a counterweight to federal and international power. Further , localities can play an active role in checking abuses of federal foreign policy in areas not traditionally associated with local governance.

( _ ) Federalism solves tyranny, protects rights Gardner in 03

(James Gardner, Professor of Law, State University of New York, GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, June 2003, p. 1007-8)

"The accumulation of all powers . . . in the same hands," wrote Madison "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." To protect liberty, then, power must be divided. Federalism serves this guiding principle of American constitutional design by parceling out government powers among different




















File Title

Tyranny ( _ ) Federalism is a key check against tyranny Young in 04

(Ernest Young, Law Professor, University of Texas, TEXAS LAW REVIEW, November 2004, pp. 59-60)

More fundamentally, our federalism has always been justified as a bulwark against tyranny . Madison extolled federalism as part of the "double security" that the new Constitution would provide for the people; just as the three branches of the central government were to check one another, the state governments would check the center. As L ynn Baker and I have discussed elsewhere, Madison's discussion in Federalist 46 emphasized worst case scenarios, in which w hich the states would have to oppose the national government militarily, and this emphasis has sometimes distracted critics of federalism from more prosaic - but also more relevant mechanisms by which which federalism protects protects liberty. Even in the Founding period, however, state autonomy buttressed individual liberty in other, other, less dramatic ways. States may oppose national policies policies not only militarily but politically, and in so doing they may serve as critical rallying points for more widespread administration of John popular opposition. Madison and Jefferson, out of national power during the Federalist administration Adams, worked through the Virginia and Kentucky legislatures to oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts. The states thus, as Professor Friedman puts it, "serve as an independent means of calling forth the voice of the people." More recently, "Some state and local governments have proven themselves formidable lobbyists and indefatigable litigants" on issues such as affirmative action, benefits for the disabled, and environmental policy

( _ ) Decentralized governmental structures maximize individual freedom Cross in 2k

(Dalton Cross, Law Professor, Texas, 2000 (HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY, Fall, p. 165)






















File Title

Tyranny ( _ ) Federalism preserves liberty by stopping the concentration of power Hastings Law Journal in 02 (January, pp. 439-40) I have a different perspective. Federalism is not a dysfunctional anachronism, a nostalgic symbol of a pre-industrial America. Rather, when properly viewed and applied, it is crucial to preservation of individual liberty and a valuable device d evice to preserve a healthy balance of power among governmental institutions. The institutional benefits of federalism are not simply preservation of state autonomy as a counter to federal power but also operate less directly to preserve the scheme of separated powers within the federal government.

( _ ) Federalism promotes diversity and stops tyranny Hastings Law Journal in 02 (January, pp. 439-40)






















File Title

Tyranny Impacts ( _ ) Protecting freedom is a priori – it cannot be sacrificed for anything Petro in 74 (Sylvester Petro, professor of law at Wake Forest, Spring 1974, Toledo Law Review, p. 480) However, one may still insist on echoing Ernest Hemingway – "I believe in o nly one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiratio n. Ask Solzhenstyn, Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit .

( _ ) Loss of freedom is worse than nuclear war






















File Title

***Generic War Impacts*** Fism Solves Global War ( _ ) US federalism is modeled worldwide, and solves global wars Calabresi in 95

(Steven Calabresi, Assistant Prof – Northwestern U., 1995, Michigan Law Review, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752, p. lexis)

First, the rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is a good thing, and it is the best and most important structural feature of the U.S. Constitutio n. Second, the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional federalism, notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. Third, the Supreme Court is institutionally competent to enforce constitutional federalism. Fourth, the Court is at least as qualified to act in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment area. And, fifth, the doctrine of stare decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any new, prospectively applicable Commerce Commerce Clause case law. The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash flash in the pan. Elite opinion holds that the future of American constitutional law will involve the continuing elaboration of the Court's national






















File Title

Federalism Solves Globar War ( _ ) Federalism solves global wars Ornstein in 92

(Norman Ornstein, resident scholar in social and political processes at American Enterprise Institute, Jan-Feb 1992, The American Enterprise, v3 n1 p20(5))

No word in political theory more consistently causes eyes to glaze over than “ federalism.” Yet no concept is more critical to solving many major political crises in the world right now. The former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Eastern and Western Europe, South Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, and Canada are suffering from problems that could be solved, if solutions are possible, by instituting creative forms of federalism. Federalism is not a sexy concept like “democracy” or “freedom”; it describes a more mundane mechanism that balances the need for a central and coordinating authority at the level of a nation-state with a degree of state and local autonomy, while also protecting minority interests, preserving ethnic and regional identification and sensibilities, and allowing as much self-government as possible. Federalism starts with governing structures put in place by formal, constitutional arrangements, but beyond that it is a






















File Title

***DEMOCRACY*** Democracy – 1NC ( _ ) Federalism is key to global democracy Wright in 97

(Robin Wright, a contributing correspondent of The Washington Quarterly, covers the patterns of democratization and other global issues for the Los Angeles Times, Washington Quarterly, Summer 1997, p ln)

The most dynamic political trend promoting democracy worldwide in the 1990s is devolution, the transfer of power beyond capitals and traditional elites in ways that are in turn redefining democracy's scope and application. It is now the frontline of democratization in Latin America, Central Europe, Africa, and Asia . The most radical experiment in Latin America is Bolivia's new "popular participation" program, which is devolving power and resources long concentrated in three urban centers to 311 municipalities. The project effectively expedites democracy. Towns and villages no longer have to appeal to regional or national authorities for everything from electricity to school desks. The goal is for communities to provide services and handle problems according to local needs and priorities as a check against the abuse of power at the national level. Before the transition to democracy began in the 1980s, Bolivia witnessed 189 coups in 162 years. For the first time, popular parti cipation has included the country's majorit y -- the 65 percent indigenous population that has long been excluded by
























File Title

US Model Key to Democracy ( _ ) Domestic federalism key to global democracy signal Broder in 01

(David S. Broder, The Washington Post, June 24, 2001 p ln)
























File Title

Fism Key to Democracy ( _ ) Enhances legitimacy of democracy Diamond 04

(Larry, Sr. Researcher @ hoover Institute, “Why Decentralize Power in A D emocracy?”,
























File Title

Federalism Key to Democracy ( _ ) Federalism increases responsiveness and accountability to citizen concerns, strengthening democracy
























File Title

Fism Key to Democracy ( _ ) Federalism increases participation in government, trains better leaders, and prevents corruption
























File Title

***Self-D/Secessionism***

Fism Solves Self Determination ( _ ) Federalism solves conflicts over self-determination Hawkes in 01

(David Hawkes, former Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Province of




















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































File Title

N/U – Centralization Now ( _ ) Federal pre-emption destroys state power now - the Supreme Court has pretty much made the worst balance possible, handicapping both states and the federal government Bayer – Attorney and comment author – 2005 (Jared, “RE-BALANCING STATE AND FEDERAL POWER: TOWARD A POLITICAL PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY IN THE UNITED STATES, American University Law Review) www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/53/bayer.pdf Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when a state statute directly conflicts with a federal statute.30 Federal law also preempts state law by implication when Congress intended to occupy a particular field of law.31 Congressional intent to o ccupy a field arises either from an express congressional statement or from the nature and scope of the federal enactment.32 Federal power to enact legislation and preempt further state action in a field of law causes a two-fold problem.33 First, Congress enacts uniform national solutions to differentiated local problems.34 Federal preemption limits the ability of the states to tailor unique solutions specific to the local sub-issues of these problems.35 It also prevents the states from revisiting ongoing problems that may arise as the issues underlying these problems evolve differently over time in distinct parts of the country.36 Second, in response to the expansion of federal legislative authority, the Supreme Court established new limits on federal authority, thereby preventing the federal government from addressing issues of national concern that the states cannot resolve effectively by themselves.37

( _ ) Federal government controlling states now – unfunded mandates FoxNews – 2/17/ 2004 2004 (“States Rebelling Against No Child Left Behind,” Fox News) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111675,00.html The Republican-controlled Utah House voted 64-8 last week not to comply with any provisions for which the federal government has not supplied enough money. The bill, which now goes to the Senate, represents the strongest position yet taken by lawmakers around the country. Elsewhere, lawmakers have passed or introduced legislation or nonbinding resolutions challenging the 2002 law's tougher standards for student testing and teacher credentials. Many legislators are angry over what they see as a federal takeover of education that leaves states to pay the bill. "We gradually give up our state sovereignty when we accept our tax money back into the state with strings attached to it," said Republican state Rep. Margaret Dayton of Utah.
















File Title

NU – Centralization Already Modeled ( _ ) Centralized environmental regulation is already modeled overseas – Europe proves Faure and Johnston, Professor of Comparative and International Environmental Law, 3/ 08, p. http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&conte http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi ?article=1216&context=upenn/wps xt=upenn/wps (Michael and Jason, “The Law and Economics of Environmental Federalism: Europe and the United States Compared”, Penn Law)

To many people, American environmental regulation means federal environmental regulation. In turning to Congress rather than the states, environmentalists of the 1960s and 70s were simply reflecting the dominant view about federal-state relations that prevailed from 1945 until 1980: that any serious change in policy could only be effectuated by the federal government.8 In this preference for federal action, Environmentalism was but another form of Regulatory Centralism – the view that in any hierarchical governmental system, the regulatory ideal is to transfer as much authority as possible to the highest level of government. Environmentalists enjoyed unprecedented success. For those accustomed to legislative gridlock, it is worth recalling that within just a few years, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act,9 the Clean Air Amendments,10 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments,11 the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act,12 the Marine Mammal Protection Act,13 the Noise Control Act,14 the Coastal Zone Management Act,15 and t he Endangered Species Act of 1973.16 It is fair to say that twenty-first century

American environmental law is primarily federal. But this is not to say that all federal environmental regulatory schemes are the same. There is indeed significant variation among the various federal statutes, and variation too in the role that the courts have played in determining the way that environmental regulatory federalization has played out. Indeed, the role of the courts in American environmental federalization has been paradoxical: on the one hand, the courts have been an important forum for citizen participation in federalized American environmental governance; on the other hand, the courts have actively encouraged environmental federalization even at the expense of likely more effective state and local regulation. As in the US, in most European countries, the 1970s was a period during which many environmental laws were enacted.17 But at the level of the European Community, there was as yet no formal legal authority, or competence, to issue environmental regulatory regulatory measures. Eventually, however, the European Commission found the authority for environmental regulation in Articles 100 and 235 of the EEC Treaty.18 Article 100 allowed for European measures to harmonize national legislation in order to remove or prevent barriers for the internal market. Article 235 to the contrary was the (limited) legal basis for issuing legislation with a ‘pure’ environmental goal stating that if action by the community should prove necessary to obtain one of the objectives of the Community and the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers then The Council shall, acting unanimously, on a proposal from the Commission and after concerting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures. The ECJ broadly interpreted Article 235 in 1985, stating that that environmental protection is one of the Community’s essential objectives.19 However, only with the entry into force of the Single European Act in 1987 was the EEC Treaty revised to include provisions20 that specifically authorize the EC to promulgate environmental directives.21 Since then, the European authorities

have increasingly used the competences granted to them by these Articles to issue a great many directives with respect to environmental policy.
















File Title

Fism Bad – Externalities ( _ ) Federalism creates Fiscal Inequality Mueller in 2006

Dennis C. Mueller Prof. at University of Vienna “Federalism: A Constitutional Perspective” http://rdc1.net/class/PublicChoice/M http://rdc1.net/class/PublicChoice/Mueller-on-Federal ueller-on-Federalism.pdf ism.pdf

Fiscal Inequality If public goods are normal goods, then the quantity demanded of them increases with the income of the community. If the quantity demanded is determined by the median voter, then it increases with the income of this voter. Communities with high incomes will demand and presumably be supplied greater quantities of public goods than low-income communities. Such inequalities may be deemed unacceptable when they appear for public programs like education. That is, everyone in a nation may agree that every child should be able to obtain an education of a minimum quality. If some communities are too poor to provide such an education, a Pareto improvement may be forthcoming by transferring funds from members of 7 rich communities to the poorer communities so as to increase the capacity of the poorer communities to finance these minimum levels of public services.

( _ ) Federalism creates geographic externalities Mueller in 2006


B. Geographic Externalities The consumption or production activities of one community may have positive or negative external effects on another. If, for example, an upstream community dumps sewage into a river, it may adversely affect a downstream community. Such externalities can in general be resolved in a Pareto optimal fashion by Coasian bargaining between the communities. The downstream community offers the upstream community a bribe to reduce the amount of sewage dumped into the river. Intergovernmental grants are again required to achieve a Pareto optimal allocation of resources, but now they are between governments at a local or regional level, rather than from the central government to lower levels. Only in the case where the number of externalities across local communities became so large and complex as to make Coasian bargaining among communities prohibitively costly would intervention and grants from the central government become optimal.

( _ ) Federalism creates Migration Mueller in 2006


C. Migration Externalities When local governments offer different bundles of tax and expenditure combinations, individuals may respond to these differences by migrating to those communities, which provide the best match for their preferences. Such migration can improve allocative efficiency à la Tiebout (1956), and is thus an important justification for creating a federalist system, but it can also bring about certain externalities, which lead to Pareto inefficiencies. These externalities are of three types: crowding, fiscal capacity and redistributive externalities.

Federalism Neg

Recommend Documents