You are on page 1of 71

**Consult States: CP**

The United States federal government should enter into a


process of prior and binding consultation with the 50
states and relevant territories and propose to [INSERT].
THe united states federal government will continuously
advocate the plan but will allow the states propose
specific changes to implementation. All state proposals
on implementation will be accepted.

1NC
States want prior binding implementation consultation
and cooperation from the USFG
Dunlop 5
Becky Norton, Vice President of External Relations at the Heritage foundation, specializing in Federalism,
environmental regulation, and property rights, Improve the Environment Leave it to the states and the people,
speech given 4/20/05, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Improve-Environment.cfm, accessed 6/28/09

What are some of the environmental challenges that we are looking at today and what do we see
happening in Washington D.C.? One of the good things is that the EPA has devolved more
authority to the states on environmental issues. They have recognized the fact that there is no
race to the bottom of the environmental barrel in the states. In every state, people want to
have clean air and clean water. So EPA has turned over increasing amounts of authority to
state officials. There is another side to the devolution coin, however. Oftentimes, EPA is simply
making state officials administrative agents of the federal government. The job of state
environmental officials is to look out for their own citizens, to improve the quality of the
environment for their particular state or locality. You dont want them to become the agent
of some other entity, which has a point of view with which they disagree. So there are two
sides to that coin of sending more responsibility to the states. We need to keep working to
make certain that Congress takes action to return not only more enforcement responsibility
but also more program authority.

Courts deferring to cooperative federalism and avoiding


preemptionplan engages in preemption but the
counterplan maintaining it
Barrington 2
Copyright (c) 2002 Whittier Law Review Whittier Law Review Summer, 2002 23 Whittier L. Rev. 1127
LENGTH: 25708 words NOTE AND COMMENT: PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS
OF AMERICA V. CONCANNON AND MAINE'S PRESCRIPTION DRUG REBATE STATUTE: A TWENTY-FIRST
CENTURY SOLUTION TO THE MEDICAID CRISIS NAME: Conrad J. Barrington* BIO: * Whittier Law
School, Class of 2003.

The court began its analysis by stating that courts are traditionally reluctant to exercise
federal preemption of a state law, and that such action is to be considered "strong
medicine." n283 In passing, the court also mentioned that this is even more true when the
federal program is one of "cooperative federalism," where " "coordinated state and federal
efforts exist within a complementary ... framework.' " n284 Though the court delved no
further into the idea of "cooperative federalism," the United States Supreme Court case of New
York Department of Social Services v. Dublino n285 offers interesting parallels to the
Concannon case. In Dublino, a group of public assistance recipients filed suit against New
York's welfare department, challenging the constitutionality of a New York Social Welfare
Law under the Supremacy Clause. n286 The plaintiffs claimed that the federal law
(encompassed within the work incentive program provisions of the 1967 amendments to the
Social Security Act) preempted the New York statute. n287 Both statutes benefits provisions for
families with dependent children, provided that the parents were employable. n288 The New York
law, however, had more stringent work requirements than the federal law, providing the impetus
for the lawsuit. n289 [*1160] Under the terms of the federal law, states were given broad
discretion in dispersing their Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) resources. n290
As in the federal Medicaid program, the states were expected to set their own eligibility
requirements and to determine the different levels of benefits. n291 Despite this discretion

granted to the states, the plaintiffs argued that New York had nonetheless stepped beyond the
boundaries of the federal statute. n292 The Court held that in this sort of "cooperative
federalism" relationship between the state and federal government, the standard for a facial
challenge to a statute is a high one. n293 According to the Court, "Congress "has given the
States broad discretion' [under the AFDC program] ... and "(s)o long as the State's actions are not
in violation of any specific provision of the Constitution or the Social Security Act,' the courts
may not void them." n294 The Court also stated that "[it] has repeatedly refused to void state
statutory programs, absent congressional intent to pre-empt them." n295 It took special note of
the fact that New York's intentions were admirable, and that the state was attempting to
correct the major societal problems of rampant unemployment and need. n296 The Court
stated that "the problems confronting our society in these areas are severe, and state
governments, in cooperation with the Federal Government, must be allowed considerable
latitude in attempting their resolution." n297

U.S is competing for influence to shape Ukrainian federal


model- maintaining Cooperative federalism model key to
crowd out Russia.
Parlett 4/19
William Partlett. "JURIST - International Constitution-Making in Ukraine."JURIST - International ConstitutionMaking in Ukraine. Jurist, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://jurist.org/forum/2014/04/william-partlettconstitution-ukraine.php>. JURIST Guest Columnist William Partlett of Columbia University School of Law William
Partlett is an Associate-in-Law, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, and Lecturer at Columbia Law School. Dr. Partlett holds
a J.D. from Stanford Law School as well as a DPhil in Soviet History and MPhil in Russian and East European Studies
from the University of Oxford (where he was a Clarendon Scholar). Dr. Partlett draws on this cross-disciplinary
background to work in the field of comparative constitutional and criminal law.

The Ukrainian government's voluntary transfer of constitution-making decisions to the


international level in order to counter Russian pressure suggests a scenario of outsider
influence in constitution-making that lies somewhere between the imposed and supervised
models of the spectrum of outsider influence. In this scenario, constitutional bargaining takes
place at both the domestic and the international level. We are seeing this already. On March
30, after a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack
Obama, the US Secretary of State met with Russian Foreign Minister to find a "political
solution" to Ukraine. This political solution was primarily focused on discussions of Ukrainian
constitution-making, including the transfer of an American document that was a "response to the
Russian plan." More recently, in response to the capture of government buildings by pro-Russian
militias, Russia, Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States met and agreed to deescalate the process by supervising the "constitutional process." This shift to international
bargaining in Ukrainian constitution-making poses some dangers. In particular, it could lead the
outsiders to decide key issues without important domestic input. This could lead to a
dangerous disconnect between constitutional negotiations and actual events on the grounds.
Claims by pro-Russian groups that they will not recognize a recent deal between Russia and the
West suggest that this is a real danger. More importantly, the dangers of a disconnect between
international negotiations and domestic events could lead to key groups rejecting the final
Ukrainian Constitution outrightan outcome that could undermine the constitutionmaking process altogether. The internationalization of Ukrainian constitution-making also,
however, has some advantages. In particular, it could make it politically easier for the Ukrainian
government to compromise with Russia. On the issue of federalization this might be already
happening, as the US and Europe have pushed Ukraine to compromise with the Russians.
The Ukrainian Prime Minister has said that Ukraine "need[s] to immediately implement
constitutional reform and give people what rightfully belongs to them - power in the regions."
Ukrainian authorities have then described this de-centralization project not as a way to

compromise with Russia, but as a proposal that conforms with the European Charter of Local
Self Government. And this Charter accords with at least one of the Russian demands: It calls for
localities to have the ability to elect "councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected
by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal, universal suffrage." While the devil will be in the
details of Ukrainian federalization, there does seem to be some room for negotiation on this point.

Nation State disintegration happening cooperative


federalism key to prevent escalation.
Rieth 4/16
Peter Strzelecki Rieth. "Ukraine: A Case for Federalism - The Imaginative Conservative." The Imaginative
Conservative. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/04/politicalremedies-for-ukraine.html>.

As to the nationalist fear that Federalism means national disintegration: this is not true.
Federalism would only mean national disintegration if the Ukrainian government in Kiev
continued to demonstrate to the world that it is incompetent and incapable of governing. If
the Kiev government cannot govern, if Ukraine is indeed so splintered and barbaric as to be
incapable of self-government, if we continue to see Ukrainians on the streets beating one
another, Ukrainian members of parliament beating one another, oligarchs vying for power
and attempting to suck Europe, Russia and America into a wider conflict to serve their own
interests, then I humbly submit that perhaps Federalism would offer the only peaceful
resolution of the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine which is possible . Then, Kiev and Lvov
can vote to return to Poland (and thus the EU) while Eastern and Southern cities can vote to
return to Russia. If there are true Ukrainian patriots in the country committed to peaceful
existence rather than brawling in the streets, they can have they own nation state as well. So
long as people vote in a peaceful election, so long as order and liberty are respected, why is
territorial integrity a priority? Why not make peace and freedom a priority instead? It is another
matter altogether whether Europe and Russia can even manage to absorb such a fractured country
and calm its nascent violent factions. Of course, no matter what the political remedy
undertaken, none will work unless there is a concerted effort by Russia, America and
Europe to deflate the crisis for the common good, rather than escalate it by playing Ukrainians
off of one another, inciting faction and violence and pursuing narrow policies which serve narrow
and short term interests. To my mind, this is the present policy of the West: they work towards
the easy task of inciting revolution and then naively hope another election will miraculously
resolve the problems they created. Russia, by proposing Federalism for Ukraine, is making a
serious attempt at a settlement. President Putin has demonstrated himself to be extremely well
educated and predictable as a Statesman. We would assume an American President would
know enough about the benefits of Federalism to at least consider it and perhaps
recommend it to the Ukrainian revolutionaries who now reach out to American taxpayers
for billions of dollars. Then again, we would assume President Obama would understand the
recent history of Kosovo, or have advisors who understood it. Ignorance, it seems, is the prelude
to crisis and war. Alas, the XX century seems to continue. When Isaac Asimov said that the XXI
century would be guided by one ideano more XXth centuries! he was apparently engaging in
wishful thinking. Time will tell.

Ukraine war causes extinction


Baum 3/7/14
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-baum/best-and-worst-case-scena_b_4915315.html

Seth Baum is Executive Director of the think tank Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. He recently
completed a Ph.D. in Geography at Pennsylvania State University and a Post-Doctoral
Fellowship with the Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions.
Based in New York City, Baum's research covers a variety of topics including ethics, economics,
climate change, nuclear war, and life in the universe.
No one yet knows how the Ukraine crisis will play out. Indeed, the whole story is a lesson in the
perils of prediction. Already we have a classic: "Putin's Bluff? U.S. Spies Say Russia Won't
Invade Ukraine," published February 27, just as Russian troops were entering Crimea. But
considering the best and worst cases highlights some important opportunities to make the most of
the situation. Here's the short version: The best case scenario has the Ukraine crisis being
resolved diplomatically through increased Russia-Europe cooperation, which would be a big
step towards world peace . The worst case scenario has the crisis escalating into nuclear war
between the U nited S tates and Russia, causing human extinction. Let's start with the worst
case scenario, nuclear war involving the American and Russian arsenals. How bad would that be?
Put it this way: Recent analysis finds that a "limited" India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill two
billion people via agricultural declines from nuclear winter. This "limited" war involves just 100
nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia combine to possess about 16,700 nuclear weapons.
Humanity may not survive the aftermath of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war. It seems rather unlikely
that the U.S. and Russia would end up in nuclear war over Ukraine. Sure, they have opposing
positions, but neither side has anywhere near enough at stake to justify such extraordinary
measures. Instead, it seems a lot more likely that the whole crisis will get resolved with a
minimum of deaths. However, the story has already taken some surprising plot twists. We
cannot rule out the possibility of it ending in direct nuclear war. A nuclear war could also
occur inadvertently, i.e. when a false alarm is misinterpreted as real, and nuclear weapons are
launched in what is believed to be a counterattack. There have been several alarmingly close calls
of inadvertent U.S.-Russia nuclear war over the years. Perhaps the most relevant is the 1995
Norwegian rocket incident. A rocket carrying scientific equipment was launched off northern
Norway. Russia detected the rocket on its radar and interpreted it as a nuclear attack. Its own
nuclear forces were put on alert and Boris Yeltsin was presented the question of whether to launch
Russia's nuclear weapons in response. Fortunately, Yeltsin and the Russian General Staff
apparently sensed it was a false alarm and declined to launch. Still, the disturbing lesson from this
incident is that nuclear war could begin even during periods of calm. With the Ukraine crisis,
the situation today is not calm. It is even more tense than last year , when the United States
was considering military intervention in Syria.

**Gen

Consult = Cooperative Federalism


Consulting and deferring to states on implementation
leads to cooperative federalism
Fischman, 05.
Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington. NYU Environmental Law Research Journal, Cooperative
Federalism and Natural Resources Law, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=824385
Cooperative federalism describes an arrangement under which a national government induces
coordination from subordinate jurisdictions, such as states and tribes, through incentives rather than
requirements. In environmental law, cooperative federalism highlights the divide
between pollution control and resource management. This article examines the divide from
both sides. Even though almost all of the environmental law commentary on cooperative federalism focuses
exclusively on the pollution control side, the basic elements of cooperative federalism can be combined in a
wider variety of forms than are recognized by most pollution control programs or scholarship. This article
reviews the ways in which resource management law has brokered the state-federal relationship to
expand the otherwise cramped spectrum of arrangements that might fairly be called cooperative
federalism. The narrow, pollution control model entails the fostering of state administrative programs
that can receive authorization to tailor and implement federal standards. Natural resources law
demonstrates three broader categories of cooperative federalism: place-based collaboration,
state favoritism in federal process, and federal deference to state process .

Consulting K2 Solvency
Consulting The States key to Cooperative Federalism.
Nash 5/30
Jonathan R. Nash. "Keeping Cooperation in Cooperative Federalism."TheHill. N.p., 30 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014.
<http://g.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/207683-keeping-cooperation-in-cooperative-federalism>.
Nash is professor of law at Emory University School of Law. He specializes in the study of courts and judges, federal
courts and federal jurisdiction, legislation and regulation, and environmental law

Some regulatory regimes are "cooperative federalism" regimes, under which the federal and
state governments work together to achieve federal regulatory goals. Cooperative federalism
regimes offer two substantial benefits: They improve federal-state relations by empowering
states to act under federal law, and they allow society to reap the benefit of state innovation
instead of having one federal law preempt the field. In short, cooperative federalism regimes
are invaluable when they work well. Yet, in a part of the opinion that hasn't garnered much
attention, the Supreme Court's April decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer
City Generation sheds light on a design flaw in the statute that most prominently features
cooperative federalism the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act may be structured,
counterintuitively and unhelpfully, to discourage state participation. The Clean Air Act divides
responsibility for implementation between the federal and state governments. In general, the
federal government sets goals (both through statute and regulation), and the states are free
to choose a regulatory approach so long as those goals are attained. If a state fails to submit a
state implementation plan (SIP) that is designed to meet those goals, then the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) can call for appropriate amendments, and if such amendments
do not materialize after a two-year period institute its own federal implementation plan
(FIP). The FIP option displaces state freedom of choice, and arises only where the state fails to
fulfill its obligations on its own within the two-year period. One application of cooperative
federalism under the Clean Air Act is the implementation of the act's "good neighbor provision,"
under which "upwind" states that are producers of pollution are required to develop SIPs that
protect "downwind" states from that pollution. In the years leading up to Homer, the EPA had
found upwind states' SIPs inadequate, only to have the courts reject the EPA's proposed
interpretation of the good neighbor provision. Then, in 2011, the EPA promulgated a new
regulatory approach and simultaneously issued FIPs to implement that approach. The upwind
states argued and Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent agreed that it was unfair for the EPA
to issue a FIP at the very same time that it announced its revised interpretation of the
relevant statute. Shouldn't the state be given an opportunity to comply with the newly
announced federal interpretation before a FIP is issued? However, Justice Ruth Ginsburg's
opinion for the court flatly held that EPA was within its rights. One might think that the EPA
correctly assessed that the upwind states in the Homer case had had a long time to come into
compliance with the Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision, and the years of recalcitrance
balanced the loss of a final opportunity to do what the act directed. However, the Supreme Court's
holding goes beyond that: Since more than two years had elapsed since the original finding
that the upwind states' SIPs were inadequate, the EPA was obligated to issue FIPs. After
Homer, then, it seems that the Clean Air Act affords the EPA no discretion to give states that have
acted in good faith a window within which to comply with a newly announced federal standard
when the original finding that the states were out of compliance is more than two years old. This
makes little sense. While it seems logical to give the federal government the leeway not to
provide a window for state compliance with a new standard where the federal government
adjudges that a state has not acted in good faith, it nevertheless seems that the federal
government should have the leeway to provide such a window where a state has acted in

good faith and realistically could not guess what standard the federal government would in
the end promulgate. Cooperative federalism should reward cooperative behavior, not punish
it. Cooperative federalism regimes rest on governmental cooperation. States won't waste the
time to draft their own proposals if they expect the federal government to do what it wants in
the end anyway. That's to no one's benefit: States lose a little sovereignty, while we all lose out on
the benefits of state regulatory innovation. Cooperative federalism regimes should be designed to
foster cooperation, not discourage it. Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to remedy this
problem, and should consider the importance of fostering cooperation when it designs new
cooperative federalism regimes.

Consulting States are Key to Environmental Law


enforcement. Coop Federalism internal
Reisnger 2010
WILL REISINGER*, TRENT A. DOUGHERTY, and NOLAN MOSER. "ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT AND THE LIMITS OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM:
WILL COURTS ALLOW CITIZEN SUITS TO PICK UP THE SLACK?" Duke Law Publications (2010): n. pag. Http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1048&context=delpf. Web. 28 June 2014. Staff Attorney for the Ohio Environmental Council and Member of its Ohio Environmental Law Center. J.D., Ohio Northern
University; B.A., Emory & Henry College. ** Director of Legal Affairs for the Ohio Environmental Council and Director of the Ohio Environmental Law Center. J.D., Capital
University Law School; B.A., Ohio State University. *** Director of Clean Air & Energy Programs, the Ohio Environmental Council. J.D., Case Western Reserve University;
B.A., Austin College

As one senator has stated, without effective enforcement, environmental protection lacks
meaning, lacks truth, lacks reality.13 Indeed, environmental statutes are only effective to
the extent that they are enforced. Any standard set by statute or regulation, if not
enforced, acts merely as a recommendation. To facilitate the massive task of ensuring
compliance with environmental laws, Congress created a parallel enforcement regime
consisting of both agency and citizen enforcement.14 Congress hoped that citizen suits
would supplement government action at times when a lack of resources or political
considerations would prevent agencies from detecting violations or enforcing the law.15 In fact,
citizen suit provisions have been called sustenance to a starving agency16 and the
essential backbone of environmental regulation.17 Congress intended that
environmental laws would be enforced through a dual regime consisting of both
government and citizen enforcement.18 This part will explain these two components and the
theories supporting each, first by discussing the cooperative federalist approach to regulation
and enforcement, and later by examining the structure and purpose of citizen suit
provisions.

Cooperative federalism: Solves Funding


Combination creates the greatest possible growth and
profits
Stringer 11
(Scott, President of the Manhattan Borough organization, 2011, BANKING ON
THE FUTURE: A New Paradigm For Rebuilding Our Nations Infrastructure,
http://www.libertycontrol.net/uploads/mbpo/BOTFpaper.pdf///TS)
It is clear that the United States must begin a period of sustained
infrastructure investment in order to kick start the national economy,
maintain global competitiveness and keep existing infrastructure in good
working order. National, regional and state infrastructure banks can
afford the opportunity to achieve this goal in cooperation with private
sector partners. By leveraging the private sector with public funds,
infrastructure banks will allow for the greatest possible growth and
shared responsibility across private and public spheres. Profitability is
also a critical factor that can be successfully realized.

Binding Consult k/t Cooperative Federalism


Cooperative federalism requires geniune power sharing
with the states
Scheiber 2k
MacMillan Reference, Cooperative Federalism
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eamc_02/eamc_02_00628.html
Numerous analysts who celebrate these developments as signifying that old-style FEDERALISM is
"dead," displaced by "intergovernmental relations," argue that the tension, pretensions at autonomy,
and the notion of separateness of responsibilities that characterized governance in the pre-New Deal
periods of constitutional development no longer form part of the reality of the federal system. Some
scholars argue that relative power distribution is no longer a relevant issue. Forgotten is the
elementary notion that "sharing" does not necessarily mean equality. Characteristically, in the
modern grant-in-aid programs, the national government has not only raised and distributed the
revenues, it has also designed the programs and established the goals, quite apart from overseeing
administration.

Cooperative federalism requires binding consultation


between the federal government and states
Lawton & Burns 96
1996 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology Albany Law Journal of Science &
Technology 1996 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 71 LENGTH: 9326 words SYMPOSIUM: THE
STATE ROLE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION: Models of Cooperative
Federalism for Telecommunications NAME: Raymond W. Lawton * and Bob Burns *
Associate Director and Senior Institute Attorney at The National Regulatory Research Institute,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
The third model of federalism is cooperative federalism. Under this model,
costs, policies, and powers are shared by state and federal levels of
government. n48 Education and highways are two areas where cooperative
federalism can be seen. At least one author has identified three common attributes of
cooperative efforts: shared costs, shared administration, and shared blame. n49 The
important point is that intergovernmental relations occur between
parties that either have common goals or interests, or have
otherwise agreed to cooperate. It is important to recognize that
coordination and intergovernmental cooperation do not just happen.
No state official can force a federal agency to do something; both
parties have to agree to act. Dual federalism, in some sense, never "goes
away" because each level of government is sovereign. Even for nominally preempted
areas, the transaction costs of federal enforcement may be high enough that
the federal government often finds it prudent to be cooperative rather than
purely preemptive.

Dual Federalism Fails


Dual federalism failsincreases bureacracy and bankrupts
states
Mount, 09.
Steve. The U.S. Constitution Online. Constitutional Topic: Federalism
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.html
Some advocate a return to an emphasis on dual federalism as a returning of power to a
government closer to the people, and hence under better popular control . There are many problems
with this, however, as many states found in the Reagan era. President Reagan was a strong
advocate of states rights, and wanted to return many of the powers taken up by the federal
government to the states. But in many cases, this created more bureaucracy, as each of the 50 states
had to establish offices to administer programs the federal government handed over. Worse, the
transition was often unfunded, meaning that the costs of the programs were shifted to the states, but
federal taxes were not reduced accordingly, leading to a higher tax burden on the people as states
raised taxes to fund the programs. Worse, when federal taxes were cut, federal aid to the states that
did exist was cut as well. But despite the appeal of cooperative federalism, there is an on-going

appeal to a degree of dual federalism. The failure of President Bill Clinton's national health care
initiatives is a perfect example of an area of politics that the people feel is best held more closely,
in spite of some of the benefits of a national system.

Land Use Consult


Consulting over land use and environmental issues key
solves case better and prevents expensive duplication
Fischman, 05.
Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington. NYU Environmental Law Research Journal, Cooperative
Federalism and Natural Resources Law, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=82438
Conversely, natural resources law can benefit from adaptation of the narrow, pollution control model
of the cooperative federalism. This article applies some of those tools to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and discusses recent developments that modify my previous work in this area. There is an acute need
in the ESA program for federal coordination with state and local jurisdictions because land use is such
an important determinant of habitat quality for biodiversity. Federal certification of local programs
for the purpose of meeting national standards can spur more effective grass roots conservation while
eliminating awkward duplication. However, the problem of inadequate inducements highlights important
limitations. In particular, experimentation with narrow cooperative federalism through ESA's 4(d) rules
modifying strict prohibitions on adverse habitat modification illustrates a kind of Gresham's Law of
regulatory choice: lax standards drive stringent standards out of circulation.

Consult Solves Better Than Plan


Cooperative federalism solves
Schutze 09.
Professor of Law, Durham University. From Dual to Cooperative Federalism
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780199238583
This transition from dual to cooperative federalism is viewed as a positive development that will
benefit both levels of government - the European Union and the Member States - since the ideal of
structuring the law-making function according to the problem at hand is more flexible and efficient
than the idea of mutually exclusive spheres of power. The mechanism of common federal standards
supplemented by territorially differentiated national solutions best expresses the idea of unity in
diversity.

Allowing states to enforce federal law solves for diversity


of federal policies.
Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,
Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act, page 4.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
Starting most notably with the environmental protection statutes passed in the
1970s,11 federal regulatory programs increasingly have relied on state
agencies to implement federal law.12 In enacting such programs, Congress
opts for the benefits of diversity in regulatory policy within a federal
framework. Rather than preempting the authority of state agencies and
supplanting them with federal branch offices, cooperative federalism
programs invite state agencies to superintend federal law.

Consulting the states allows them to tailor federal policies


for a local fit.
Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,
Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
Cooperative federalism programs set forth some uniform federal standardsas embodied in the
statute, federal agency regulations, or bothbut leave state agencies with discretion to implement the
federal law, supplement it with more stringent standards,13 and, in some cases, receive an exemption
from federal requirements.14 This power allows states to experiment with different approaches and
tailor federal law to local conditions.15 When implementing a cooperative federalism statute, the
state agency often steps into the shoes of the federal agency and makes federal law.16 A state agency
thus may have greater authority when implementing the federal act than otherwise available under
state law.

Cooperative Federalism solves at a local level while


increasing competition and determining the best policy
option.
Weiser 01.

Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,


Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
Put simply, the cooperative federalism regulatory strategy makes sense where the benefits of allowing for
diversity in federal regulatory programs outweigh the benefits of demanding uniformity in all situations.21 Either by contemplating state variances from the minimum federal standards (e.g., environmental
regulation) or by encouraging state discretion in implementing federal law (e.g., the Telecom Act),
Congress often prefers cooperative federalism programs to unitary federal administration.22 In
particular, there are at least three related reasons why the federal government has decided to promote
diversity in federal regulatory regimes: (1) to allow states to tailor federal regulatory programs to
local conditions; (2) to promote competition within a federal regulatory framework; and (3) to
permit experimentation with different approaches that may assist in determining an optimal
regulatory strategy.

Cooperative federalism creates a race to the top.


Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,
Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
The argument that competition between states can produce optimal results rests upon at least four
decades of economic theory and empirical research. Although there are a number of important contexts
where competition between states can have negative results,32 a great deal of empirical research
appears to support the Tiebout hypothesis that allowing citizens and businesses to choose among
competing jurisdictions can help to maximize social welfare.33 That is, by adopting a flexible federal
regulatory regime, a cooperative federalism program allows for a degree of competition between the
states for residents, capital, and economic activity in an increasingly mobile society.34

States create a race to the top for a better policy option.


Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism,
and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
Through the process of interstate competition, other states and the federal government may move to
adopt preferable approaches.48 In this sense, a federal regulatory agency, like the Supreme Court, can
benefit from percolation of different approaches before ultimately settling upon a single approach
or delineating the scope of acceptable approaches.

CoopFederalism K2: Port Dredging


States cant manage without federal coordination

Corless 12- Campaign Director, Transportation for America, former California


director and national campaign manager for the Surface Transportation Policy
Project (James, May 23, Local Voters Need a Partner,
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/not-waiting-for-thefeds.php#2211941//MGD)
Absent strong federal leadership, states, cities and local communities are
indeed stepping out on their own, raising funds from innovative sources, and
doing what they can to make it happen. But left to shoulder the burden
entirely alone, these communities noble efforts wont be enough to meet the
challenges were facing. These communities are stepping forward, but in the
hopes that the federal government will take the next step with them and
support them along the way. The role for the federal government in
transportation is indeed changing, evolving from being the driving factor that
it was during the interstate era to being more of a partner in helping localities
meet their changing needs. And their needs are a national concern, because
they bear on whether Americans have a safe, reliable way to get to work, and
whether goods can get to market. No developed nation in the world leaves
these matters of basic infrastructure entirely to chance. But there seems little
doubt that, for the foreseeable future, federal resources will be constrained,
and that makes it more imperative than ever that we set goals for the
investment, and measure progress toward those goals. Thats why provisions
to do that in the Senates bipartisan transportation bill, MAP-21 bill are so
important. Its time we figure out what matters most, and what will get the
best bang for the buck. Local communities raising money for transportation
are following a tried-and-true blueprint that rewards accountability and
specificity: When they know what transportation dollars are going to buy
this new transit line, that new busway, this new bridge project and who is
accountable for implementation, measures to fund those projects pass close
to 70 percent of the time. Such was the case with the transit-funding Measure
R in Los Angeles, which earned a two-thirds majority vote. Having passed the
tax, Los Angeles is now seeking federal help with low-cost loans that can
build 30 years worth of projects in 10. Local bootstraps are great for getting
off the ground, but they only get you so far up the ladder if the federal rung is
missing. These innovators arent pressing for devolution, theyre simply
looking for a dance partner.

Coordination key- federal government has a monopoly on


research

Katz et al 10 (Bruce Katz, Jennifer Bradley, and Amy Liu, November,


Delivering the Next Economy: The States Step Up, The Brookings
Institution, Brookings- Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan
Innovation //MGD)
States already share responsibility with Washington for many of the publicsector investments that will move the next economy forward. There is a
continuum of federal and state spending and engagement on the constituent
elements of the next economy, with both levels of government involved to a

greater or lesser extent. For example, the federal government dominates in


research funding, with federal actual outlays for R&D in FY 2007 of $116
billion, compared to less than $700 million spent by state agencies and
another $3 billion spent by state (and local) governments for R&D at colleges
and universities.3 By contrast, for every dollar that the federal government
spends on highways, the states spend about two.4 The federal Department of
Education spent some $68 billion in FY 2008, on both K-12 and higher
education, plus another $21 billion in tax expenditures related to education,
but states spent more than $400 billion of their own funds for the same
purpose.5

Federal regulations and funding key to private investment


Gibbs 11 Subcommittee Chairman (Bob, Memorandum on the Hearing
on The Economic Importance of Seaports: Is the United States Prepared for
21st Century Trade Realities?, October 21, 2011,
http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/112th/Water/Water
%20Briefing%20Memo%20%20%2010-26-11.pdf)
Infrastructure Investment Investing in ports not only creates jobs during the
construction period, but supports wider and long lasting opportunities.
Knowing the value of maritime trade, localities and port authorities
have invested in the infrastructure of their ports. The AAPA finds
that American ports are investing $2 billion annually in marine terminal
capital improvements. The Port of New Orleans has spent $400 million in
recent years on landside improvements that make it more efficient and
attractive to shippers. Acknowledging that 12% of the country's international
containers pass under the Bayonne Bridge, The Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey have pledged $1 billion toward the bridge retrofit that will
allow for Post Panamax ships to sail under it and into the Atlantic Coast's
busiest port. The cost benefit analysis of the project estimates that this single
project will provide a $3.3 billion dollar annual national benefit. Local
investments optimize existing infrastructure and increases port efficiency;
however, many projects are required to utilize Federal funds and

processes. The operation and maintenance of shipping


channels is paid for by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF), which is funded from a .125% ad valorum tax levied on cargo
imports at American ports. The HMTF is a user fee that grows based on the
value of cargo coming to ports. These monies pay for the necessary dredging
that keeps navigation channels open for business. In fiscal year 2010, the
HMTF grew by $1.3 billion; however, only $828,550,000 was spent in total
operations of the fund as the balance was diverted to deficit spending.
Because the HMTF is not _off-'book' on paper there is a balance, however the
reality is that all of the balance has been used to offset other

government spending. Because of this inequitable allocation,


many of the country's most valuable navigation channels are
under maintained, reducing the cost effectiveness and
efficiency of maritime trade. While some FY 2012 presidential budget
requests reflect goals of the NEI, in the areas of navigation there appears to

be a disconnect between the production of exports and the transportation of


exports overseas. The International Trade Administration request was $526
million towards the administration costs of implementation. Thirty million
dollars of Small Business Administration grants are to be disbursed to states
to support export activities. Transportation is addressed in the President's
budget request with a sweeping surface transportation authorization request
and $70.5 billion to fund the Federal Highway Administration. However,
maritime trade, the most prevalent form of exportation, does not receive as
much funding necessary to support a significant development much less
doubling exports. The President's Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
program appropriation request in the Administration's FY 2012 budget
submittal is $4.631 billion, which is approximately 6.1% below the annualized
Continuing Resolution for FY 2011 of $4.929 billion. These funds are
distributed to the many missions of the Corps civil works program including
investigations, construction, operations and maintenance, levee safety, flood
control and environmental restoration. The Corps budget has a profound
effect on waterborne commerce as it shoulders the bulk of coastal

infrastructure development and operation and maintenance


activities. Unlike surface transportation funding, there is no Federal
credit assistance programs for the construction, operation and
maintenance of ports' navigation channels. Even local ports
with willing investors are often required to wait on Federal
appropriations to pursue needed projects. Two accounts within the

budget of the Corps have significant impact on maritime trade: Construction The President's budget requests $1.48 billion for the Construction account.
This is $210 million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of
$1.69 billion. These funds are used for the construction of river and harbor,
flood damage reduction, shore protection, environmental restoration, and
related projects specifically authorized or made available for selection by law.
Almost half of this budget request is for flood damage reduction projects.
However, more alarming is that approximately $470 million are for ecosystem
restoration projects that provide Rule or no economic benefits, while
navigation projects would only receive $280 million. Operation and
Maintenance - The President's budget also requests $2.314 billion for
expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, maintenance, and care
of existing river and harbor, flood control and related projects. This is $47
million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of $2.361
billion. The budget would use only $691 million from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund resulting in an increase in the estimated balance from $6.12 billion
to $6.93 billion at the end of FY 2012. In addition, while proposing paltry
amounts be appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the
President's budget proposes to expand the authorized purposes of the fund
for activities not typically associated with the Corps of Engineers
maintenance of navigation channels. Among the persistent barriers to trade,

only one-third of the nation's federal navigation projects are


currently at their authorized depths and widths, and 8 out of
the nation's 10 largest ports are not at their authorized depths
and widths. Exporters are required to wait for high tide to get out of port or
are forced to ship in lighter loads. This reality is especially

burdensome for the many raw material exporters whose


products are heavy and whose ships require deeper drafts.
Overall, the President's proposal does not address some of the
nation's most profound infrastructure needs. It does not direct

Congress to pursue multiyear reauthorizations that provide stability and


predictable funding to projects. Developing world-class infrastructure cannot
be hurried to completion in two years to comply with a truncated funding
schedule. Even beyond funding, a transportation infrastructure bill could
include no cost policy changes that would support maritime trade. The
proposed legislation does not streamline the permitting processes, an action
that would expedite valuable projects. Permit backlog delays the

timeline for construction and increases costs associated with


navigation projects that could promote maritime trade. Also,

legislation that would support maritime trade would allow non-federal project
sponsors to supply more capital to navigation projects without having to wait
on the appropriations process. Re-authorizations, permanent policy

changes, and regulatory reduction would unlock private capital


and hasten project completion, benefitting maritime trade and
the economy as a whole existing river and harbor, flood control
and related projects. This is $47 million less than the FY 2011 annualized
Continuing Resolution of $2.361 billion.

Say Yes: Port Dredging


States Say Yes to Port druging- Recent SC funding proves.
Stairs 6/20
Clayton Stairs. "State Funding for Port Dredging Approved." South Strand News. N.p., 20 June 2014. Web. 30 June
2014. <http://www.southstrandnews.com/article/20140620/GTT06/140629980/1141>.

South Carolina leaders have announced that state funding of maintenance dredging for the
Port of Georgetown has been approved as part of its $18 million budget. The total cost of the
project, which will increase the depth of the channel to 27 feet, is $33.5 million and the balance
of the funding will come from federal and local funds, as well as the states Ports Authority.
Sen. Yancey McGill, speaking on behalf of Sen. Ray Cleary, Rep. Carl Anderson, and Rep.
Stephen Goldfinch, announced June 16 that the states Fiscal Year 2015 budget included $5
million for the dredging project and promises $2.6 million in each of the next five years. He
added that the dredging project will take four years and port renovations are being planned as
well. McGill said, I want to express my appreciation for their cooperation and assistance to
the Georgetown County Council, the City of Georgetown, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Tim
Scott, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Rep. Tom Rice, Sen. Hugh Leatherman, Jim Newsome and the South
Carolina Ports Authority, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources,
and Tim Tilley, Vida Miller, [Georgetown County Administrator] Sel Hemingway, Jim Jerow and
Mayor [Jack] Scoville of the Georgetown Dredging Task Force. To secure new capital
investment and job creation, we must grow and invest in our economy. This project will
promote both commerce and tourism in our state. Finally, the Charleston and Georgetown
state ports are moving forward for dredging. Tilley, chair of the Task Force, said he is proud of
the local legislative delegation and the General Assembly for taking this big step toward making
the dredging project a reality. This is a step in the process required for us to obtain complete
funding for the port dredging, Tilley said. Im very excited that the state, through our
local delegation, has shown their willingness to protect this state asset. He said the next
steps in the process involve obtaining federal funding and local funding. Earlier this month,
the federal government passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
(WRRDA) with language that will make it easier for small ports like Georgetown to receive
funding. Rice, who was instrumental in the passing of the WRRDA, said he applauds state
leaders for their hard work on South Carolinas budget and recognizing the economic potential of
the Georgetown Port. This port is key to maintaining our states competitiveness. By
funding the dredging of this canal, South Carolina has sent a clear signal to our federal
appropriators the Palmetto State is serious about deepening the Georgetown Port and
furthering its competitive edge, Rice said. For the local portion of the project funding,
Georgetown County leaders have appointed a commission to develop a referendum question
for a one-cent Capital Projects Sales Tax. One of the five projects for the sales tax funds will
be the $6 million local portion of the dredging project funding. Hemingway, who has been
leading the Capital Sales Tax Commission, said the state approving funding for the project is very
good news. We want to thank our local delegation for their efforts in making this
appropriation possible, he said. We look forward to having similar results from the
federal delegation so we can move the project forward and complete dredging as soon as
possible. Hemingway pointed out that the local contribution, which could be handled by the
one-cent sales tax over four years, is necessary for everything to fall in place for dredging. Tilley
urged voters to say yes to the one-cent sales tax in November. In my opinion, the sales tax
mechanism becomes a very attractive option for us since the revenue stream is from sales tax and
visitors to the area will help pay for it, Tilley said. I believe it is a wise choice to fund port
dredging through the capital projects referendum.

Miami Ports are cleared by the EPA key to econ


Dredging Today 5-25-12 (USA: Miami Port Dredging Plan Gets Final Environmental OK

http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2012/05/25/usa-miami-port-dredging-plan-gets-final-environmental-ok/)MSD

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has


issued a permit that will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dredge
and deepen in and around Government Cut by up to 50 feet. The project will
be put out for bids this summer, with construction expected to begin in early
2013. Port expansion advocates argue the greater depth will allow Miami Port
to be more competitive by accommodating larger vessels that are expected
to make use of the new and wider Panama Canal when that project is
completed some time next year. The deep dredge is critical to our future
growth, Port of Miami Director Bill Johnson said. Port of Miami will be one of
only three U.S. Atlantic ports to be at [minus] 50 feet when the expanded
Panama Canal opens.
According to The Miami Herald,

Oregon coastal ports need dredging


Wyden et. al, 7/19/12 (Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator, Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator,

Peter DeFazio, Member of Congress, Targeted News Service, "eFazio, Wyden,


Merkley, Urge Corps to Dredge Port of Port Orford", Lexis)
Congressman Peter DeFazio and Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley sent a
letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) urging them to find funds
to dredge the Port of Port Orford before it becomes unusable and threatens
the local economy. DeFazio, Wyden, and Merkley asked the USACE to add
funds to dredge the Port of Port Orford to another shallow water dredging
contract on the nearby Chetco River. This would save the USACE $400,000 in
the long-term and preserve this vital resource. "The Port of Port Orford is a
critical lifeline that fuels the local economy, keeps over a hundred fishermen
working, and keeps this community alive. We are urging the Army Corps of
Engineers to add this shallow water dredging project to the contract already
servicing the Chetco River. It will save the Corps money in the long-term and
fulfill its commitment to safeguard our infrastructure in ports both big and
small," said DeFazio. "Whether it's maintaining jetties or dredging harbors,
keeping coastal ports open for business is a federal obligation and is money
well spent," Wyden said. "Ensuring that ports such as Port Orford remain
operational helps drive the local economy, save existing jobs, create new jobs
and generate economic development at a time we need it most."
"Oregonians living in coastal communities depend upon the dredging of their
ports so they can support their families," said Merkley. "Without proper
dredging, rural communities like Port Orford see their economies dry up. We
cannot allow the Port of Port Orford to become unusable and cost further job
loss. We need to continue investing in Oregon's coastal communities and
dredging our small ports is one of the most critical things we can do." A group
of Port Orford fishermen has organized a petition on change.org. Community
members can show support for the project by signing the petition at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/army-corps-of-engineers-keep-the-port-inport-orford Text of the DeFazio, Wyden, Merkley letter is below: July 12, 2012
The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy Assistance Secretary of the Army, Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-0108 Dear Ms. Darcy: We are
writing to request the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) consider using
any unallocated funds for dredging at the Port of Port Orford. The Port is in

dire need of dredging and will soon be unusable. The Port of Port Orford,
located in Port Orford, Oregon, is unique in that it has no harbor so it is
directly exposed to the Pacific Ocean. It is also the only port on West Coast
that uses a dolly dock to retrieve boats out of the water once they enter the
Port. According to the Port, it hosts 60 commercial fishing vessels that employ
120 individuals. Their catch value was $5 million last year. The Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon State University have also based
research operations at this port to study the new Redfish Rocks Marine
Reserve. As early as 1873, the USACE began developing plans to construct
and build a breakwater at Port Orford to protect it from waves. By 1935, a
breakwater was built by "local interests" to protect a pier, but it was not
completely effective. The USACE then built a 550 foot extension of the
breakwater in 1968, but that extension caused the Port to infill with sand.
Emergency dredging took place in 1970, but the problem of sand infiltration
did not abate. A 1981 USACE study of shoaling at this Port noted that
breakwaters are a good tool to protect against waves. However, if such
structures are constructed on "a shoreline with a substantial littoral sediment
transport," and "no other measures are taken," sediment deposition will begin
to accumulate and infill the channel. This is the case at the Port of Port
Orford, in part because of the lengthened breakwater. We have each have
worked diligently during our tenures in Congress to secure federal funds to
dredge small ports along Oregon's south coast. Administration after
administration, regardless of party, has failed to budget needed funds for
even the most modest of dredging projects in this area despite having
research in-hand that clearly demonstrates its own past construction work
exacerbates the need for ongoing dredging. We have had to fight nearly
every year to secure funds in the congressional budget process for this work.
These federal funds are essential to keep our ports open and safe, and to
ensure Oregon's coastal communities are able to thrive. Last January, the
USACE did not allocate a portion of its $30 million in the FY 2012 Energy and
Water Appropriations bill for shallow draft ports to the Port of Port Orford for
dredging. The USACE Portland District has since scheduled the hopper
dredge, YAQUINA, to dredge several ports along Oregon's coast. Even if the
USACE Portland District had the financial resources to dredge Port Orford, it is
too shallow for the YAQUINA to enter. It requires a clamshell or a similar
dredge to get in and do the work. We have recently learned that the USACE
Portland District will be letting an emergency contract to have a private
clamshell dredge areas of the Checto River in Oregon. This work is part of an
emergency clean-up effort from last year's tsunami. The USACE Portland
District says it will cost an extra $800,000 to include dredging at the Port of
Port Orford in this contract. A stand-alone contract would cost an additional
$400,000. We respectfully request you consider allocating any unused USACE
funds to include the Port of Port Orford in this dredging contract. We are well
aware that USACE budgets have been underfunded for too many years
leaving many worthy projects short of needed maintenance funds. However,
we are convinced this request deserves additional consideration. The Port is
the community's lifeline. Failing to dredge a port that experiences rapid sand
infiltration as direct a result of a past USACE construction project seems
unreasonable. We also request you view this video made by community
residents about current conditions at the Port. It highlights the need for this

work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVewO9qo0f0. We are available to


further discuss this matter with you either in person or over the phone.

Say Yes: Desal


States say yes to desal strategies- California Proves
Barringer 2013
Barringer, Felicity. "In California, What Price Water?" The New York Times. The New
York Times, 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 June 2014.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/business/energy-environment/a-costly-californiadesalination-plant-bets-on-future-affordability.html>.
CARLSBAD, Calif. On a calm day, a steady rain just about masks the sound of Pacific Ocean
water being drawn into the intake valve from Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Listen hard, and a faint
sucking sound emerges from the concrete openings, like a distant straw pulling liquid from a
cup., a senior vice president at Poseidon Resources, at the Carlsbad site. At the moment, the
seawater is being diverted from the ocean to cool an aging natural-gas power plant. But in
three years, if all goes as planned, the saltwater pulled in at that entryway will emerge as part
of the regional water supply after treatment in what the projects developers call the newest
and largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. Large-scale ocean
desalination, a technology that was part of President John F. Kennedys vision of the future half a
century ago, has stubbornly remained futuristic in North America, even as sizable plants have
been installed in water-poor regions like the Middle East and Singapore. The industrys
hope is that the $1 billion Carlsbad plant, whose builders broke ground at the end of the year,
will show that desalination is not an energy-sucking, environmentally damaging, expensive
white elephant, as its critics contend, but a reliable, affordable technology, a basic item on
the menu of water sources the country will need. Proposals for more than a dozen other
seawater desalination plants, including at least two as big as Carlsbad one at Huntington
Beach, 60 miles north of here, and one at Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps base are pending
along shorelines from the San Francisco Bay Area southward. Several of these are clustered
on the midcoast around Monterey and Carmel. The San Diego County Water Authority
has agreed to buy at least 48,000 acre-feet of water from the plant each year for about
$2,000 an acre-foot. An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, roughly enough for two
families of four for a year. The authority has made a long-term bet that those costs now
double those of the most readily available alternative will eventually be competitive. But it
still means the authority will pay more than $3 billion over 30 years for only about 7 percent of
the countys water needs. As Sandra Kerl, the deputy general manager of the authority, said in a
recent interview, Theres a lot of eyes on this. The technology used in the Carlsbad plant,
known as reverse osmosis, was developed decades ago. It involves pushing the water through a
series of microscopic sieves rolled up into larger cylindrical filters. The energy-intensive
process separates pure water from both salt molecules and impurities. The filters, some of
which are made locally, are cheaper and more durable than they were a decade ago, industry
accounts say, bringing down the overall price of the plant and its operations. In the Western
United States, where the complexities of water law and heavily subsidized federal and state
water projects have complicated the economics of water delivery and hamstrung any
widespread development of water markets, the Carlsbad plant offers a peek into a future when
water prices reflect the actual cost of procurement and delivery. David Moore, a managing
director of Clean Energy Capital, financial advisers to the San Diego County authority, said the
water authority had made the call that over time this water is going to be more affordable
than other sources. That was the fundamental risk of the transaction. The price of water the
authority now gets from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is about $1,000 an
acre-foot. The bet on this technology was not an obvious one; the recent history of desalination in

the United States and Australia has been mixed, at best. Some recently constructed Australian
plants are flourishing while others stand idle some of the time. In this country, technological
missteps, delays and bankruptcies dogged the first big plant, which finally opened in Tampa in
2007.

AT: Perm
Binding consulation to critical solvencyineffective
federal implementation crushes the plan and permutation
but the counterplan boosts cooperative federalism
Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,
Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
The local tailoring ability of cooperative federalism regimes facilitates ambitious regulatory ventures
like the Telecom Acts attempt to open up local telephone markets to competition. A cooperative
federalism approach recognizes that many regulatory problems are so complex that they cannot be
resolved by one level of government acting alone; rather, they require cooperation among all
levels.24 Economists repeatedly have praised this aspect of federalism.25 Professor Richard Stewart
calls it a reconstitutive approach to regulatory pro- grams, a strategy which can afford flexibility to
accommodate diverse subsystem conditions and values, broaden decisional responsibility, and
reduce costly and dysfunctional centralized decisionmaking.26 The federal government simply does
not have the know-how and resources to tailor broad standards to local circumstances.27 As an
important case in point, modern environmental regulation convincingly demonstrates how [t]he need
to tailor environmental policy to local conditions and the even more important need to use state
technical and personnel resources compel Congress to share some of its au- thority.28 Notably, when
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in for the state of Idaho to administer its air
quality regulatory program, it clearly was not up to the task, reportedly spending almost five times as much
as the state would have spent to do the same job.29 As a result of this need for cooperation, both the
states and the federal government are well aware that they are tied together in their ability to
administer cooperative federalism programs.30 The resulting interdependence gives each important
influence over the other.

The perm is not cooperative federalism: false consultation


is really a federal preemptive mandate
Lawton & Burns 96
1996 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology Albany Law Journal of Science &
Technology 1996 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 71 LENGTH: 9326 words SYMPOSIUM: THE
STATE ROLE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION: Models of Cooperative
Federalism for Telecommunications NAME: Raymond W. Lawton * and Bob Burns *
Associate Director and Senior Institute Attorney at The National Regulatory Research Institute,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
This paper examines three basic models of federalism. The first model is the preemption model,
which entails a clearly dominant role for the federal government. n5 The second model is dual
federalism, in which the states and federal government retain supremacy within their respective
spheres. n6 The third and most interesting model is cooperative federalism,
where power is shared between the states and the federal government. n7
Unfortunately, rhetoric can often confuse reality; many officials claim [*73]
their programs are in the cooperative category when in reality they are not.
The sections below briefly examine each model of federalism as it relates to telecommunications
as well as other substantive examples used by political scientists. This brief examination is
intended to provide telecommunications regulatory policymakers with an objective appraisal of
the advantages and disadvantages associated with each model. The cooperative model examines

one approach in detail because of its relevance as a way of maximizing federal-state cooperation
to develop nationwide telecommunications policies. Two policies that follow the cooperative
approach are the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) n8 and the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). n9 The proposition presented in this article is that the PURPA
approach is directly transferable to telecommunications reform legislation. PURPA's improved
energy policies, designed and implemented for electric and natural gas utilities, demonstrate that
federal and state governments can cooperate in high stakes regulatory arenas. n10 II.
PREEMPTION MODEL OF FEDERALISM The Constitution confers specific, broad, and
unstated (or implied) powers to the federal government which include the power to declare war,
coin money, and regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. n11 State
governments retain the right to regulate commerce within a state, ensure public health and safety,
and exert powers that the Constitution neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited
the states from using. n12 Both the states and the federal government share other powers, such as
the authority to establish courts and expend funds for the general welfare. In a preemptive model,
the federal government implements policy that effectively limits the state's [*74] role in a
particular area, even where both the states and the federal government share the power to control
that area. In a preemptive mode, the federal government does not necessarily overstep its
authority, rather it acts within its power to mandate compliance, delegate responsibility, promote
negotiation, or obtain services from the states. A prominent example of the preemptive mode is
this nation's long history of desegregation, integration, and civil rights. One problem related
to preemption is what some have called "mandate madness." n13 This term is
used to describe the federal government's attempt to mandate that a state or
local government comply with or act affirmatively to adopt or implement a
federal policy or piece of legislation. n14 The federal government allocates
generous sums of money to state and local governments which cannot afford
to lose the money by not complying with these "unfunded mandates." n15 A
classic example of linking policies to mandates is granting highway construction monies to states
that implement a fifty-five mile per hour speed limit. n16 Dependant upon federal highway funds,
a state's autonomy is effectively preempted inasmuch as these mandates
provide the state with a program it cannot maintain without federal
assistance. n17

Aff Doesnt Solve


States are key laboratories but blanket policies crush aff
solvencyprior binding consultation leads boost
cooperative federalism and solve the case
Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law,
Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
In perhaps the most memorable defense of federalism, Justice Brandeis explained that [i]t is one of the
happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens so choose,
serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the
country.40 Unlike some New Deal programs that left no room for variation between the states,41
cooperative federalism programs capitalize on these laboratories. When states enjoy significant
discretion, they can experiment and learn from one another when performing complex regulatory
tasks from setting pole attachment rates (Pole Attachment Act of 1978)42 to encouraging the
development of alternate sources of electric power (the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA))43
to making judgments about cost containment in health care reimbursement (Medicaid)44 to setting
appropriate water quality benchmarks (Clean Water Act).45 Resisting the immediate institution of a
uniform national rule hedges the federal governments bet by waiting to pick a single stan- dard. A
national standard may ultimately emerge, but avoiding the premature selection of such a standard
or its ineffective administra- tionleads to better regulatory policy.46 The absence of a federal
standard in difficult regulatory policy areas can help ensure that the regulatory regime does not
lock in a suboptimal standard.

Uniform federal policies crush innovationshould give


states authority over federal programs via consultation
Weiser 01.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism,
and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act.
lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf
The development of federal common law for unitary federal regimes, ranging from the Sherman
Antitrust Act, to the Labor Management Relations Act,65 to maritime law, often rests on the assumption
that such uniformity is necessary to effectuate the relevant substantive federal policies in each area.
In fact, however, courts and commentators have begun to recognize that the aspiration for
uniformityboth before Erie and after itoften rests on flawed assumptions.66 By focusing on
achieving uniform legal rules, courts often overlook the potential value of diversity and fail to
examine adequately the policies advanced by the federal statute.67 Consequently, federal judge-made
law and its attendant aspiration to develop a uniform regime impose institutional costs on the
lawmaking system by displacing other actors and undermining the benefits of experimentation by
state agencies, state courts, and other bodies.

**India

Now Key
India Pushing for cooperative federalism
IANS 3/14
Indo Asian News Service. "Punjab Seeks 'cooperative Federalism' for Inter-state Disputes."Yahoo Maktoob
News. N.p., 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/punjab-seekscooperative-federalism-inter-state-disputes-123906167.html>.
Chandigarh,March3(IANS)Calling

for the early resolution of inter-state issues, the Punjab


government Monday sought "cooperative federalism"inthecountrysayingthatstate and central
governments should be "equal and responsible partners in progress".AddressingthePunjab
assemblyattheopeningofitssessionhere,GovernorShivrajPatilsaidthatmany inter-state issues concerning
Punjab remained unresolved.TheseissuesincludethetransferofChandigarhtoPunjab,sharingofriverwaterand,
transferofPunjabispeakingareas,hesaid."Severalimportantissuesrelatingtothestatestillremainunresolved.Thestatehasbeen
denieditscapital,Chandigarh,andvastPunjabispeakingareashavebeenleftoutofitatthetimeofreorganisationin1966,"hesaid,
addingthedeadlineforthetransferofChandigarhtoPunjabwassetbythecentralgovernmentasJan26,1986,butnothinghas
happened.

Highlighting the severe water crisis being faced by Punjab, the Punjab government
sought the expeditious implementation of the 'riparian principle' on water-sharing with
other states."Punjabalreadyfacesseverewatercrisiswithgroundwaterlevelgoingalarminglydownbecauseofexcessive
relianceofourfarmersontubewellirrigation.Keepinginview,thisproblemneedstoberesolvedexpeditiously,whichhas
unfortunatelynotbeendonesofar,"saidPatil.Justifying

the rationale behind seeking cooperative


federalism in the country, the governor demanded that the share of states in central taxes be
increased from the present 30 percent to 50 percent and that these funds should be given to
states in an untied manner."Thestategovernmentisinabetterpositiontounderstandandaddresstheproblemsofthe
peopleofthestate.Financialstrengthandautonomyshouldbegiventothestatesothatthedemandsofthepeoplewereaddressedand
metinanexpeditiousandjustmanner,"hesaid.PatilsaidthatPunjabwassufferingonthefrontofindustrialinvestmentduetothe
concessionsgivenbythecentralgovernmenttotheneighbouringhillstates,andsoughtextensionoftheseconcessionstoPunjabalso.

Inda Modles Federalism


India and models us cooperative federalism
Starobin, 6-13-09.
Author, Divided We Stand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304574219813708759806.html

The most hopeful prospect for the USA, should the decentralization impulse prove
irresistible, is for Americans to draw on their natural inventiveness and democratic
tradition by patenting a formula for getting the job done in a gradual and cooperative
way. In so doing, geopolitical history, and perhaps even a path for others,
might be made, for the problem of bigness vexes political leviathans
everywhere. In India, with its 1.2 billion people, there is an active discussion of
whether things might work better if the nation-state was chopped up into 10
or so large city-states with broad writs of autonomy from New Delhi. Devolution
may likewise be the future for the European continentthink Cataloniaand for
the British Isles. Scotland, a leading source of Enlightenment ideas for Americas founding
fathers, now has its own flourishing independence movement. Even China, held together by an
aging autocracy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.

Cooperative federalism key to solve kashmir conflict


Devra 2k
Kashmir calls Delhi's bluff on decentralization By Ranjit Devra, June 28, Asia Times
Political analysts noted that Abdullah ignored a last minute appeal by Vajpayee to tone down the
autonomy demand in order to regain popularity in the state. ''The people of J&K are
unhappy with Farooq Abdullah's performance over the past four years. There has hardly
been any development and joblessness, collapsed health and educational
infrastructure remain huge problems,'' commented The Times of India on Tuesday. ''This
is the only way in which Farooq Abdullah feels he can woo back the disenchanted people. But
will this really solve the state's problems? The real issues are still unemployment and
lack of development and autonomy does not automatically guarantee
solutions.'' However, Abdullah has insisted that these problems cannot be solved
without autonomy. ''We did not promise them (the people) employment or anything, just
the restoration of autonomy . . . we are bound to fulfil that promise,'' he told the assembly
before the autonomy vote. A serious debate on the question of a truly federal
structure for India is also a demand of regional parties that have played a key
role in forming four Indian governments, including Vajpayee's, in the last four years.
''Autonomy must not be viewed as a dirty word and an autonomous Kashmir
could become a model of cooperative federalism,'' said political analyst and Kashmir
expert Amitabh Mattoo of the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University. Former Prime Minister
Inder Kumar Gujral too said that after half-a-century of independence from British
colonial rule, it was time for India to adopt the principle of cooperative
federalism.

Deterrence Will FailOnly Resolving Kashmir Crisis Can


Permanently Build CBMs and Prevent War Nuclear
Between India and Pakistan
Kapur 05
S. Paul Kapur is a Visiting Scholar at Stanford Universitys Center for International Security and Cooperation and Assistant Professor of Government
at Claremont McKenna College. India and Pakistans Unstable Peace. International Security, 127, Fall//souders

Just as important as these strategic and technical measures, however, will be energetic diplomatic
attempts to ameliorate ongoing territorial disputes. Such efforts can help to reduce a key incentive
for aggression by new nuclear states, thereby lowering the potential costs of future nuclear
proliferation. In the South Asian case, international political and economic support for the
Musharraf government's recent efforts to rein in the Kashmir insurgency, and to forge a more
cooperative relationship with India, could be useful. While such support cannot ensure increased
regional stability, it can help to reduce the Pakistan government's desire to alter the Kashmiri
status quo, and thus may lower the likelihood of Indo-Pakistani conflict despite their nuclear
weapons' potentially destabilizing effects. An important means of avoiding nuclear danger may
thus have more to do with diplomacy than with nuclear weapons themselves.

India Models the US Federalism


India Models US Federalist structures
Smith 6
Berkeley Journal of International Law 2006 24 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 218 LENGTH: 27297
words Article: Making Itself at HomeUnderstanding Foreign Law in Domestic Jurisprudence:
The Indian Case NAME: By Adam M. Smith* BIO: * Chayes Fellow, Harvard Law School.
Modern India has also been strongly influenced by many states that never ruled
its territory. For instance, American influence can be found both in the state's
judicial process and its constitutional text. n83 The Indian Constitution's express
declaration of fundamental rights coupled with the introduction of judicial review n84 marked a
radical departure from the British doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, and thoroughly
"Americanized" the system. n85 In addition to judicial review, the framers of the Indian
Constitution explicitly used the American Bill of Rights as a starting point in
their discussions. n86 Moreover, India even adapted its constitution upon the
recommendation of an American jurist. Following the terror of partition and Mahatma
Gandhi's assassination, many representatives to the constitutional convention began to argue for
carving out a constitutional allowance for preventive detention, placing "citizens' freedom at the
disposition of a legislature for the sake of a public peace." n87 As a result, constitutional
guarantees to due process were removed from the document, a change supported by (and
potentially instigated by) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who served as an
unofficial - though evidently persuasive - legal consultant to the assembly

Cooperative Federalism Solves Kashmir


Cooperation key to solve Indian conflicts
Observer Research Foundation 4
REPORTS Co-operative Federalism and Management of Diversity 02 November 2004,
http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/report/ReportDetail.html?
cmaid=1258&mmacmaid=1259
As the world comes closer in the wake of information explosion and gobalisation, the idea of
'Cooperative Federalism', which is seen as a tool to resolve conflicts, is
gaining increasing relevance and acceptance. Inspired by this development, a twoday International Conference on "Co-operative Federalism and Management of Diversity", has
been organized from November 2-3, 2004, under the auspices of Observer research Foundation
(ORF) , New Delhi, and Forum of Federation (FoF), Canada. Speakers examined the working of
federal models in different countries and deliberated upon possibly suitable alternative(s) for
India and other developing societies. Inaugurating the Conference, Mr Manishankar Aiyar, India's
Union Minister for Panchayati Raj, drew the attention of foreign as well as Indian participants to
the nuances of federalism inherent to India's culture, tradition and ethos. He drew examples from
the Mahabharat and the Bhagvat Gita. Mr Aiyar said "India was never a true
federation" and attested that "it is a Union State". It was the Union which has
created the States and it still holds the powers to redraw the boundaries of
any State. He felt that co-operation acquires greater importance between the
various States and their respective local governments on the issues of
economic development, social justice, equity and efficiency.

Cooperative federalism key to solve kashmir war


Observer Research Foundation 4
REPORTS Co-operative Federalism and Management of Diversity 02 November 2004,
http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/report/ReportDetail.html?
cmaid=1258&mmacmaid=1259
Mr R.K.Mishra, Chairman, Observer Research Foundation, in his opening remarks said it was an
irony that the Constitution of India which we gave to ourselves has been amended more than 90
times in its short existence of 54 years. He said that the current tensions between the
Center and the States could be attributed to faulty arrangements of federal
relations in the Constitution which gave overriding powers to the Center and
promotesd a situation of competition among States on the one hand, and
between the States and the Center, on the other. Citing two major regions of tension in
India, the Northeast and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Mishra made it clear that the
time has come to think in terms of 'creative federalism' based on cooperation and mutual trust than merely adhering to an armed solution which
even the mightiest power like the US was finding difficult as a method to
resolve conflicts.

Cooperative Fism Solves Kashmir War


Cooperative federalism gives Kashmir enough autonomy
to solve war
The Times of India 2k
A Fine Balance, June 13.
First, Kashmir is unique, and must be dealt with specially. Jammu and Kashmirs
uniqueness is obvious for a variety of historical reasons recognized even by the Supreme Court,
but its singular importance to the very idea of India is often forgotten. A Muslim majority state
that voluntarily acceded to India in 1947 lent tremendous strength to the construction of India as a
vibrant, secular and pluralistic state. The battle, therefore, to win back the hearts and
minds of the Kashmiri people is critical not just for the recovery of the ideals that inspired
Indian nationhood, but central to the war against obscurantism and
fundamentalism. In other words, Kashmir must no longer be dealt with the kind
of political ineptitude and bureaucratic inertia that has often characterized
the Centres policies toward many other states over the last decades. Second,
autonomy must not be viewed as a dirty word, and an autonomous Kashmir could be
become a model of cooperative federalism. It is not often realized that autonomy is
synonymous with devolution of decentralization of power. The demand for greater
decentralization has been part of the charter of virtually every Indian political partyat one time
or another. Even if Article 370 is restored to its pre-1952 shape, it is still possible to strike
a harmonious balance between the need to integrate Jammu and Kashmir
within the national mainstream, and the states demand for autonomous selfgovernance. If this balance is struck, Jammu and Kashmir could become a
model of co-operative federalism, a special model that could be gradually applied to
other states of the Union.

**Ukraine

U.S Influence Key


U.S Influence high now- Ukraine distancing itself from
Russia
Sink 5/29
Justin Sink. "Obama Touts US Influence as Changing 'balance' in Ukraine."TheHill. N.p.,
29 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://thehill.com/policy/international/207514obama-touts-us-influence-as-changing-balance-in-ukraine>.
U.S. efforts to rally the world against Russia's incursion into Ukraine have "rapidly
changed the balance and equation" there, President Obama said in an interview with NPR
News airing Thursday. "When you look at events in Ukraine over the last two months, there is
no doubt that our ability to mobilize international opinion rapidly has changed the balance
and the equation in Ukraine," Obama said. He pointed to the election of Ukrainian Presidentelect Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement to withdraw troops
from Ukraine's border as evidence that international pressure was paying dividends. "Thats an
application of American leadership that is sustainable, consistent and is most likely to
produce the kinds of results we want," Obama said. Asked if Ukraine could be considered a
foreign policy success considering Moscow's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, Obama
said it was a mistake to think Putin's moves "reflected strength in this situation." "From Mr.
Putins perspective, he was operating from a position of weakness," Obama said. "He felt as if
he was being further and further surrounded by NATO members, folks who are looking west
economically, from a security perspective. And even in Ukraine, the crown jewel of the former
Soviet system, outside of Russia, an oligarchy that was corrupt was rejected by people on the
streets." Obama says Putin was "scrambling" to react to that public uprising. "The fact that
Crimea, which historically is dominated by native Russians and Russian speakers, was annexed
illegally does not in any way negate the fact that the way of life, the systems of economic
organization, the notions of rule of law, those values that we hold dear, are ascendant, and you
know, the other side is going to be on the defense," Obama said.

Federal Reform Key


Federal reform key to Ukrainian stability- now is key
Kaurin 4/29
Nikola Kaurin. "Distorting Federalism in Ukraine." English Pravda.ru. N.p., 29 Apr. 2014. Web.
30 June 2014. <http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/29-04-2014/127472-federalism_ukraine-0/>.
Nikola Kaurin is a Sydney and occasionally Zagreb-based foreign policy contributor. His interests
include Central European history, the EU, Middle East and post-Soviet studies.
It was quite a shock for those of us who live in charitable, stable and economically prosperous
federations to hear EU, US and Ukrainian officials describe federalisation as an attempt to
'destroy Ukraine'. Australia, where I'm writing this article, was recently named by the Global
Youth Wellbeing Index as the best place in the world for young people to grow up. Other
federations like Canada, the United States, Germany and Switzerland score similarly well in
indicators like the Human Development Index. Bosnia and Herzegovina, where much of my
family originates, only saw its bloodshed end when the great powers recognised the divisions in
Bosnian society and endorsed a realist constitutional framework that reflected these divisions.
Meanwhile many Australians can't help but notice what's been happening in the country of their
constitutional origins since Australia federated in 1901. Much of Ireland left the United Kingdom
in 1922 and civil war occurred in the portion that didn't later on. Scotland is having a referendum
on independence in September 2014 and the pro-independence forces are gaining ground.
Nationalist parties are popular in Wales and Cornwall and even parts of England are known to
call for some form of devolution. Being a unitary country hasn't stopped the UK from splitting up
(formally or otherwise). Now the time for the obligatory of-courses. Of course there are bad
federations and of course there are good unitary countries but by-in-large federations have
proved to be the most enduring and best incubators of good governance that the world has
ever seen. Seeing as though sovereignty is an important concern for Ukrainians (and rightfully
so given recent events) let's look at this statistic. Out of the presently 206 sovereign states in the
world, only 6 have survived the incinerators of the 20th century with their territorial integrity
intact; Australia, Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Sweden and New Zealand. The first four
of these six are federations. Federations have the ability to produce great nations because
they combine the best traits from unity and independence - those of common-wealth and
home-rule, regional experimentation and national solidarity, integration and diversity. Out
of the many reasons that drove Ukrainians to protest at Maidan one of them was certainly a desire
to remove their country from the legacy of the Soviet Empire. The USSR ought to remind
Ukrainians of the critical failures in centralist and Utopian ideologies which regrettably
appear to have continued in their country even after its independence. Federalism isn't even
an ideology but rather a compromise between ruling others and letting others rule
themselves and that's one of the many things that are great about it. The first part of fixing a
problem is acknowledging that a problem exists. While the legality of Russia's annexation of
Crimea is questionable, the willingness of a clear majority of its inhabitants to leave a country
with a similar culture, religion and language as themselves was more than convincing. At this
hour masked gunmen continue to occupy government buildings in Eastern Ukraine - if not with
the majority support of the regions' population then certainly with a substantial portion of it. If
this isn't an indicator that Ukraine's constitutional arrangements aren't working than I don't know
what is. Ukraine may decide to become a federation or it may not. That is a decision strictly
for Ukrainians and Ukrainians alone. But the fact that Russian officials may have been the
first to raise this idea shouldn't automatically deny Ukrainians the opportunity to consider
it. Tal Becker, a former lead Israeli negotiator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace discussions, once

told me that when he advised his seniors than a Palestinian proposal was something they could
live with; the Palestinians immediately withdrew it because they thought the Israelis' acceptance
of the proposal meant there was something wrong with it. Ukraine's new leaders should not be
as immature. I welcome their recent signals to open debate on constitutional reform. In the
hope of constructively aiding this debate here are 3 quick reasons why federations won't cause an
evil giant Shubin (a Ukrainian mythological spirit) to run rampant across the Donbass.

Ukrainian Federalism key to resolve conflict


Rieth 4/16
Peter Strzelecki Rieth. "Ukraine: A Case for Federalism - The Imaginative Conservative." The Imaginative
Conservative. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/04/politicalremedies-for-ukraine.html>.

The potential solution to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, consistently put forward by the
government of the Russian Federation, has been routinely characterized by various European
politicians as the equivalent to the lunatic ravings of madmen. To American conservatives and
lovers of ordered liberty, this should come as grim news. Since when was political Federalism
in the spirit of Madisons Federalist #10 equivalent to lunacy? Since when was it lunacy for
popular sovereignty within diverse territories to determine the political destiny of native peoples?
If we shut out the stereotypes whereby all things Russian are eternally evil, and simply examine
the content of the Russian governments proposals, we shall discover it to beat the very least
deserving of serious consideration. There are those who may claim, with the current
revolutionary government of Ukraine, that Russia has no business making proposals about
the kind of political system Ukraine ought to adopt. This is a salient point because civilized
men and women agree that the sovereignty of nations should be respected. Nevertheless, the
geopolitical reality of Europe is such that when any nation fails at peaceful, orderly selfgovernment, its instability creates a general European crisis for its neighbors. Long standing
European tradition has been to resolve such situations through a concerted effort of European
nation states, particularly neighboring states. At times, these solutions were unjust, violent
conquests organized by stronger parties against weaker parties. Many times, thankfully, these
solutions were peaceful, political measures agreed by all after reflection and deliberation.
Incidentally, Ukraine itself is now demanding billions of American and European dollars, as
well as demanding that Russia give away its gas at below market prices. If Ukraine can
make such demands of the world, perhaps the world can make a suggestion as to the type of
political remedies Ukraine might consider for bettering its condition? It is folly to deny the
Russian interest and right to be concerned for the stability and proper development of its neighbor
Ukraine. Poland, the Baltic Stateseven far away America claims such a right; surely
Russia may do so as well. If a political solution is to be found, reflection and deliberation
behoove us to take all proposals that are peaceful seriously. We should also hope for
proposals that are serious and bold. The European Union and United States have, sadly,
refrained from serious political proposals, preferring platitudes about freedom and
democracy. President Obamas recent speech only revealed his ignorance of recent European
history when he erred in describing how Kosovo gained independence as well as being full of
mere platitudes about territorial integrity and democracy. If Americas Founders gave such
speeches at the Constitutional convention, the United States would not exist. What is required
here is serious political thought, not public relations slogans worthy of the childish and deceiving
I am a Ukrainian video. We need a political solution that acknowledges the reality of the
Maidan as a violent coup and the Crimean referendum as a legitimate popular movement. Let us
then, in this spirit, turn to the Russian proposal.

U.S Modeled
Ukrain constitutional reformations following U.S
Influence.
Sasse & Hughes 3/19
GWENDOLYN SASSE AND JAMES HUGHES. "Building a Federal Ukraine?" Washington Post. The Washington
Post, 19 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2014/03/19/building-a-federal-ukraine/>. The following is a guest post from Oxford University political
scientist Gwendolyn Sasse and London School of Economics political scientist James Hughes.

The idea of a remaking of Ukraines constitutional order along federal lines is beginning to
gain traction. On March 18, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk reached out to
Russophones in the eastern and southern regions, announcing that new measures linked to
decentralization of power will be reflected in a new constitution. Senior U.S.
administration officials have encouraged the Ukrainian leadership to consider
constitutional reform along federal lines. On March 17, the Russian Foreign Ministry
proposed the establishment of an international support group to manage the crisis. The list of
items that Russia wants to be the basis for negotiation in Ukraine includes a new federal
structure for Ukraine and the recognition of Russian as a second language. Until recently the
federal idea was an anathema among the greater part of Ukraines political elite. As a
constitutional form it was largely rejected in the 1990s, partly as a negative reaction to the
experience of Soviet federalism, and partly from fear of its centrifugal potential for splitting the
country along ethnolinguistic fault lines. The negative view of federalism as a destabilizing
constitutional order in ethnically divided places was one that was not only perceived by
elites as a lived experience in former communist federations, such as the Soviet Union
successor states Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, but was also prevalent among scholars studying
the collapse of communism. Federalism, or ethnofederalism as it was usually termed by
political scientists, came to be seen as part of the problem of mismanaging ethnically
diverse countries, not part of the solution. The turmoil in Ukraine suggests that now is a
good time to reassess the potential for federalism, ethno- or otherwise, for managing
divided places like Ukraine.

Coop- Federalization Solves Conflict


Cooperative federalism deescalates Ukraine crisis and
provides long term stability: Prevents enthic disputes
McGarry & Loizides 5/22
Neophytos Loizides, and John McGarry. "Ukraine Needs Federalism and Power-sharing |
OpenDemocracy." OpenDemocracy. N.p., 22 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.opendemocracy.net/odrussia/john-mcgarry-neophytos-loizides/ukraine-needs-federalism-and-powersharing>. Neophytos Loizides is a Senior
Lecturer at the University of Kent. His book Designing Peace Process: Institutional Innovations in Cyprus and Divided
Societies is forthcoming with the University of Pennsylvania Press. John McGarry is Professor in Political Studies and
Canada Research Chair in Nationalism and Democracy at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario

In Kyiv, federalism has become a dirty word, reports the International New York Times
(April 17, 2014). In the view of the Yatsenyuk Government, federalism will tear the country
apart, and Ukraine will never escape Russias grasp. The Ukrainian parliament is so
convinced of this, in fact, that it has adopted a resolution barring diplomats from negotiating
constitutional revisions at the latest Geneva talks. There is little doubt that the current
circumstances where Ukraine is being threatened by a powerful neighbouring state are not
ideal for considering major institutional change. At the same time, it seems reasonably clear
that the current unitary structure is unlikely to placate Russian-identifiers in the east, or to
get Crimea back. In fact, instead of threatening Ukraines unity, a properly designed
federalism may be the best, indeed the only, way to keep Ukraine together over the long
term..What would a proper federal design look like? Providing they can be agreed upon by
genuinely representative elites, the most stable federations are those with more federal units
rather than a few. Fifty (the United States) is much better than two (the old Czechoslovakia).
It would not be good, in other words, if the Ukrainians agreed, or felt bound, to divide their
state into west (the pro-EU part) and east (the more Russophile part, and base of former
President Yanukovychs Regions Party). Every divisive issue would then pit these two parts
against each other, and break-up would be only a matter of time. Multi-federal regions, by
contrast, would allow floating alliances, which would not always pitch Russophiles against
Europhiles; furthermore, they would also create paradoxically useful feasibility and coordination
problems that would stand in the way of secessionist tendencies. The key to success will also lie
in combining decentralisation with power-sharing at the level of the federal authorities in
Kyiv. At least some of the current problems Ukraine is facing, have resulted from the
extraordinarily foolish decision of the pro-Western parliament, flush with the success of the
Maidan protests, to rescind measures that promoted Russian as an official language in certain
regions. Even if we blame Russia for Ukraines problems, it was this prior step (subsequently
dropped) that gave Russia its casus belli. To prevent a recurrence of anything similar, or of the
traditional recent pattern in which the central government represents either the east or the west,
but not both, Ukraines federal government would have to be formally set up on powersharing grounds. This would ensure that the government would be fully representative of
Ukraines complex different ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. There are different
power-sharing models available; for example, under the Belgian constitution, half of the cabinet
must be French-speakers, and the other half Flemish-speakers. If the Ukrainians did not want
to engage in these sorts of corporate or ethnic quotas, for fears that they might entrench
divisions rather than alleviate them, they could instead consider liberal power-sharing. It
would be possible, for example, to have constitutional provisions, which simply specify that any
party with a certain percentage of votes would get a cabinet ministry. Such percentages have been
set at 5% in South Africa (1994), 10% in Fiji (1997) and Burundi (2001). As long as there is no

ethnic requirement favouring any particular group, this could be a fair, negotiable and liberal
arrangement.

Transition to cooperative federalism key to resolve


Ukraine Crisis: managing nationalism
Sasse & Hughes 3/19
GWENDOLYN SASSE AND JAMES HUGHES. "Building a Federal Ukraine?" Washington Post. The Washington
Post, 19 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkeycage/wp/2014/03/19/building-a-federal-ukraine/>. The following is a guest post from Oxford University political
scientist Gwendolyn Sasse and London School of Economics political scientist James Hughes.

There was a turn against ethnofederalism in the 1990s that is ripe for a reassessment. Prior to
the collapse of communism, there was a dominant paradigm that federalism as self rule
and shared rule has positive win-win effects on promoting stable politics, and indeed, that
it was the constitutional order (following the U.S. example) that was most conducive to
democracy. Federalism was also seen as an essential constitutional design for the politics of
accommodation in deeply divided or plural societies. From the early 1990s this
paradigm was shaken by critiques which argued that federalism and autonomy more
generally were highly destabilizing in ethnically divided states where the federal administrative
architecture and boundaries were drawn to reflect ethnic divisions. The three socialist
ethnofederations (USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) were used as cases to demonstrate this
thesis. The argument is that the mode of socialist federalism, which while it was intrinsically
a sham in terms of power distribution given that real power resided in communist parties,
was flawed because of its ethnic structure leading to a mismanagement of nationalism.
Consequently, a major cause of the collapse was the fact that the previously disempowered
federal architecture became a platform for ethnonational mobilization. Socialist-era federal
structures were essentially subversive institutions. The negative thesis was developed further in
perspectives on the frozen conflicts to include even the prospect of autonomy and
decentralization. In the Caucasus region, autonomy was seen as a root cause of conflict and a
driver for secession. The causal link between ethnically defined federalism and state
instability appears to be misdirected. In reality, it was precisely the de-institutionalization
of autonomy by titular nationalities in the successor states that often provoked ethnic
conflict. The Russian Federation is partially divided into ethnic units, and only Chechnya posed a
serious threat to its territorial integrity. If one analyzes the case of Tatarstan and other ethnic
republics of the Russian Federation the fact is that the asymmetric federalism and autonomy in
key areas relating to self-rule, culture and, to some extent, economic power, was sufficient to
quash secessionist demands and maintain state stability. That stability has persisted even when
Putin recentralized powers from the ethnic republics to create his power vertical (see this recent
Monkey Cage post). A similar argument holds with regard to conflict-prevention in Crimea in the
1990s (see the recent Monkey Cage post). The Ukraine crisis offers an opportune moment to
reassess the value of autonomy and federalism to peacefully manage conflict and enhance
state stability. It is of note that the federal concept is now central to how policymakers see
the way forward not just in Ukraine but in other places of conflict in the post-communist
space, and beyond (for example, Iraq, Syria, and Libya).

Cooperative federalism is key to stop Russian lead decentralization: solves


stability
The Globe & Mail 5/15

The Globe and Mail. "Choose Federalism to Keep Ukraine Together." The Globe and Mail. N.p., 15 May 2014. Web.
30 June 2014. <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/choose-federalism-to-keep-ukrainetogether/article18706295/>.

Under the present system, the central government appoints provincial governors. For
example, in March, the acting president, Oleksandr Turchynov, appointed as governor of the
Donetsk province Serhiy Taruta, a billionaire whose fortune was made in the coal and steel
industry of Donetsk. But as the governor sent by the new Kiev authorities who are distrusted
by many in the east, and with a civil war fomented by Russia effectively under way, he has
had difficulty establishing his authority. The country would be much better off if, instead of
appointed governors, it had the equivalent of Canadian provincial premiers and
legislatures, with all their imperfections. It would be best if those opposing the new
government in Kiev were encouraged to take the argument off the streets and into elected bodies.
Those favouring greater regional autonomy, and even closer ties with Russia, might win
some local elections. That would be far better than their winning gun battles. Meanwhile, as Ms.
Merkel urges, the presidential election of May 25 should proceed on schedule. If need be, it
should go to a second round. No doubt, voting will be disrupted in some localities in a few of
Ukraines 24 provinces. But it is better to establish a democratic mandate first, so that there
can be negotiations to modify the Ukrainian Constitution. Would Russia favour a federal
Ukraine? Yes. Would some of the splittists in Eastern Ukraine support it? Surely. That is no
reason for Kiev to be opposed. Federalism does not mean debilitating decentralization. It
means the possibility of stopping violence and restarting politics. And its the most plausible
way of keeping Ukraine intact.

Ukrain Fed AT Factionailism


Strong Federal government prevents factionalismfederalism key to minimize violence.
Rieth 4/16
Peter Strzelecki Rieth. "Ukraine: A Case for Federalism - The Imaginative Conservative." The Imaginative
Conservative. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/04/politicalremedies-for-ukraine.html>.

As to the nationalist fear that Federalism means national disintegration: this is not true.
Federalism would only mean national disintegration if the Ukrainian government in Kiev
continued to demonstrate to the world that it is incompetent and incapable of governing. If
the Kiev government cannot govern, if Ukraine is indeed so splintered and barbaric as to be
incapable of self-government, if we continue to see Ukrainians on the streets beating one
another, Ukrainian members of parliament beating one another, oligarchs vying for power
and attempting to suck Europe, Russia and America into a wider conflict to serve their own
interests, then I humbly submit that perhaps Federalism would offer the only peaceful
resolution of the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine which is possible . Then, Kiev and Lvov
can vote to return to Poland (and thus the EU) while Eastern and Southern cities can vote to
return to Russia. If there are true Ukrainian patriots in the country committed to peaceful
existence rather than brawling in the streets, they can have they own nation state as well. So
long as people vote in a peaceful election, so long as order and liberty are respected, why is
territorial integrity a priority? Why not make peace and freedom a priority instead? It is another
matter altogether whether Europe and Russia can even manage to absorb such a fractured country
and calm its nascent violent factions. Of course, no matter what the political remedy
undertaken, none will work unless there is a concerted effort by Russia, America and
Europe to deflate the crisis for the common good, rather than escalate it by playing Ukrainians
off of one another, inciting faction and violence and pursuing narrow policies which serve narrow
and short term interests. To my mind, this is the present policy of the West: they work towards
the easy task of inciting revolution and then naively hope another election will miraculously
resolve the problems they created. Russia, by proposing Federalism for Ukraine, is making a
serious attempt at a settlement. President Putin has demonstrated himself to be extremely well
educated and predictable as a Statesman. We would assume an American President would
know enough about the benefits of Federalism to at least consider it and perhaps
recommend it to the Ukrainian revolutionaries who now reach out to American taxpayers
for billions of dollars. Then again, we would assume President Obama would understand the
recent history of Kosovo, or have advisors who understood it. Ignorance, it seems, is the prelude
to crisis and war. Alas, the XX century seems to continue. When Isaac Asimov said that the XXI
century would be guided by one ideano more XXth centuries! he was apparently engaging in
wishful thinking. Time will tell.

Prolif
Failure to protect Ukraine causes global prolif cascade by
invalidating Budapest Memorandum japan, Taiwan,
Saudi Arabia
Boyes 3/6/14
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-lesson-hang-on-to-your-nukes-if-putins-on-theprowl/story-fnb64oi6-1226846228761#
Editorial writer, the Times
Twenty years ago Ukraine had the third-largest strategic nuclear weapons stock in the world after
the US and Russia, having inherited its share of the Soviet arsenal. It gave up those stocks in
return for Western cash and a piece of paper, the 1994 Budapest memorandum that was meant
to guarantee its territorial integrity. Today, it seems that Kiev made a bad deal. The
agreement, signed by the US, Britain and Russia, has done nothing to shield Ukrainians. Had
Ukraine stayed nuclear Russia would have thought twice about snatching Crimea. The invasion
is thus not just about the regional manipulation of power and Russian President Vladimir Putins
effective threat to foment a European civil war unless Ukraine stays in his orbit. It is about the
new international order and about nuclear securitys role in it. How safe do non-nuclear
Japan and Taiwan feel at the moment? How much are their security agreements with the US
worth if Washington is powerless to deter a Russian land-grab in a country that borders four
NATO members? How credible as world policemen are the five leading nuclear powers - the US,
Russia, China, Britain and France - as the permanent members of the UN Security Council? In
the 1990s it was briefly possible to believe in the merits of unilateral disarmament and the dream
of global non-proliferation. South Africa admitted to having had secret nuclear plans and
promptly dropped them. The threat of Soviet encroachment had evaporated. So, too, had the
Soviet Union. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus had more pressing economic problems than
keeping their nukes in working order. Ukraine in 1991 boasted inter-continental ballistic missiles,
almost two dozen strategic bombers, more than 1000 long-range cruise missiles and several
hundred tactical nuclear weapons. To turn that into a purely Ukrainian force, to target it on
Moscow rather than NATO, would have meant an investment of $US30 billion to replace
Russian-owned early warning systems and communication centres. Some in Kiev argue it would
have been worth the effort. If we had hung on to even a fraction of that force it would have been
like hanging a gun on the wall of your living room, said one Ukrainian politician. Maybe the
gun has no bullets but when the neighbour comes round for dinner, hes afraid of it. Neither the
West nor Russia bought into the idea of a Ukrainian deterrent. The US did not trust the 90s
Ukrainian leadership to keep tight control of the weapons. It paid Ukrainians to load their nuclear
kit on to 100 trains and send it to Russia. In 1996 Ukraine officially became a non-nuclear nation
- and soon afterwards the Kremlin piled pressure on Kiev to pay more for its gas. Unilateral
disarmament doesnt pay. It only results in nuclear weapons becoming the sole property of those
nations that do not renounce them. The quest for nuclear advantage can poison the politics of
the whole region . Iran is pushing its nuclear program not only to balance Israels undeclared
weapons but also to win a pivotal role in the Middle East. That prods Saudi Arabia towards
getting its own atomic deterrent, perhaps with the help of Pakistan - an enormous challenge to
non-proliferation efforts.

Hegemony
Ukraine is the litmus test of US primacy
Kanat 3/17/14
http://setav.org/en/the-ukrainian-crisis-as-a-new-chessboard-of-global-geopolitics/opinion/14586
Kilic Bugra Kanat is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Penn State University, Erie and
a Research Fellow at the SETA Foundation at Washington, D.C. He received his doctoral degree
in Political Science from Syracuse University. He holds a masters degree in Political Science
from Syracuse University and a masters in International Affairs from Marquette University. He
completed his undergraduate education in the International Relations Department of the Middle
East Technical University. Dr. Kanat also holds a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Middle
Eastern Affairs and Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study in Conflict Resolution. His research
interests include foreign policy decision-making, foreign policy change, and domestic politics and
foreign policy interaction. Dr. Kanats writings have appeared in Foreign Policy, Insight Turkey,
Middle East Policy, Arab Studies Quarterly, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies,
and Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. He also regularly contributes op-eds to Star, Sabah,
Today's Zaman, Zaman Daily, Radikal Daily, and Hurriyet Daily News. He is also co-editor of an
edited volume History, Politics and Foreign Policy in Turkey published by the SETA
Foundation.
Halford Mackinder, one of the founding fathers of geopolitics, once wrote "Who rules East
Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules
the World-Island controls the world." Ukraine was one of the integral parts of the Heartland that
he stated. Now, the crisis in Ukraine is becoming an arena for a major geopolitical
confrontation. The problem in Ukraine that has been overshadowed in recent days with the
mysterious loss of the Malaysian Airlines plane is quickly being transformed into a global
problem instead of a regional challenge for countries in Eastern Europe. The crisis not only
brought Western powers and Russia face to face in Crimea but is becoming a global chessboard
in which global powers have stakes . The most significant centers of gravity in international
relations, namely the United States and China and their positions and diplomatic steps
regarding the crisis will be very important for the future of the conflict in Crimea, their
bilateral relations, as well as the international system . The crisis and its outcomes will be a
major determinant of future global geopolitics. The crisis in Ukraine is yet another serious
test of U.S. leadership in terms of its international alliances, guarantees and assurances.
The world is watching the reaction of the U.S. after Russia's invasion of Crimea.

AT: Russia Push Good


Russian lead federalization cedes power from Ukrainian
government and perpetuates regional instability.
Dorell 5/23
Dorell, Oren. "Putin Vows to 'respect' Ukraine Vote." USA Today. Gannett, 23 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/23/vladimir-putin-russia-ukraine-presidential-electionrespect/9480961/>.

Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged Friday to "respect' the outcome of Ukraine's
presidential election on Sunday, but his conciliatory words were received with skepticism by
Washington analysts. The Russian leader, speaking at an investment forum in St. Petersburg,
slammed the West over its involvement in Ukraine and its economic sanctions against
Moscow but said Russia is ready to work with the new leadership in Kiev. "We understand
that the people of Ukraine want their country to emerge from this crisis. We will treat their
choice with respect," he said. "It would have been better to hold a referendum and adopt a new
constitution," Putin added. "Under the current constitution (Viktor) Yanukovych is still in
power." Putin on Monday announced that Russian troops were ordered to withdraw from near
Ukraine's eastern border, which NATO says has yet to happen. He also called for a decrease in
violence by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, while violence there has increased,
said economist Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute of International Economics in
Washington. What Putin is really saying is "we will cause as much trouble as we can without
fully investing ourselves," Aslund said. "If the elections work out then we will try something
else." Putin will try to have it both ways, says Damon Wilson, an adviser on Russia and European
affairs in the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, now at the Atlantic Council, a
Washington think tank. He may "respect" Ukrainian elections because of their inevitability,
meaning he will recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation represented by a legitimate
government. Wilson said. "At the same time, it's disingenuous to think he'll not try to
influence what's happening inside Ukraine." Putin will continue to push for federalization, a
concept all Ukrainian presidential candidates have endorsed for improved efficiency, but that
Putin seeks to reduce the central government's ability to function, Wilson said. He will
continue to use energy and economics as a leverage of influence, and to try to buy members of
parliament like he's done in the past, Wilson said. And Putin will keep in the wings both his
forces across the border and special forces "able to manipulate and wreak havoc inside
Ukraine," Wilson said. "That remains as a coercive thing over the head of Ukraine."
Putin's statement is timed to forestall a next round of sanctions prepared by U.S. and
European Union officials that would target broad sectors of Russia's banking and energy
sectors that will be ready to implement as early as Monday, Wilson said, citing private
conversations with U.S. officials.

**Aff Answers

Plan is Preemptive Federalism


Plan is preemptive federalism which takes a dominant
role for the federal government
Lawton & Burns 96
1996 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology Albany Law Journal of Science &
Technology 1996 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 71 LENGTH: 9326 words SYMPOSIUM: THE
STATE ROLE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION: Models of Cooperative
Federalism for Telecommunications NAME: Raymond W. Lawton * and Bob Burns *
Associate Director and Senior Institute Attorney at The National Regulatory Research Institute,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
The cooperative model examines one approach in detail because of its relevance as a way of
maximizing federal-state cooperation to develop nationwide telecommunications policies. Two
policies that follow the cooperative approach are the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (PURPA) n8 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). n9 The proposition presented in
this article is that the PURPA approach is directly transferable to telecommunications reform
legislation. PURPA's improved energy policies, designed and implemented for electric and
natural gas utilities, demonstrate that federal and state governments can cooperate in high stakes
regulatory arenas. n10 II. PREEMPTION MODEL OF FEDERALISM The
Constitution confers specific, broad, and unstated (or implied) powers to the
federal government which include the power to declare war, coin money, and
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. n11 State
governments retain the right to regulate commerce within a state, ensure
public health and safety, and exert powers that the Constitution neither
delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited the states from using.
n12 Both the states and the federal government share other powers, such as the authority to
establish courts and expend funds for the general welfare. In a preemptive model, the
federal government implements policy that effectively limits the state's [*74]
role in a particular area, even where both the states and the federal
government share the power to control that area. In a preemptive mode, the
federal government does not necessarily overstep its authority, rather it acts
within its power to mandate compliance, delegate responsibility, promote
negotiation, or obtain services from the states. A prominent example of the
preemptive mode is this nation's long history of desegregation, integration,
and civil rights. This paper examines three basic models of federalism. The
first model is the preemption model, which entails a clearly dominant role for
the federal government. n5 The second model is dual federalism, in which the states and federal government retain
supremacy within their respective spheres. n6 The third and most interesting model is cooperative federalism, where power is shared
between the states and the federal government. n7 Unfortunately, rhetoric can often confuse reality; many officials claim [*73] their
programs are in the cooperative category when in reality they are not. The sections below briefly examine each model of federalism as
it relates to telecommunications as well as other substantive examples used by political scientists. This brief examination is intended to
provide telecommunications regulatory policymakers with an objective appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages associated with
each model.
In contrast to dual federalism, cooperative federalism envisions a sharing of regulatory authority between the federal government and
the states that allows states to regulate within a framework delineated by federal law... . Significantly, these programs neither leave
state authority unconstrained within its domain, as would a dual federalism program, nor displace such authority entirely with a
unitary federal program, as would a preemptive federalism... . By crafting a middle ground solution between the extremes of dual
federalism and preemptive federalism, Congress continues to outstrip existing constitutional rhetoric, which envisions a separation
that does not exist in practice. n323
While cooperative federalism has yet to be discussed in the context of corporations, the reasons behind its emergence in the regulatory
arena offer a striking parallel to the current problems in corporate law:

Asymmetric Federalism Prevents War


Asymmetric federalism prevents internal secession
Galtung 3
John Galtung is Professor of Peace Studies and Director of TRANSCEND. FEDERATION AS
PEACE STRUCTURE: THE CASE OF SRI LANKA, I
I C P W O R K I N G P A P E R
Under symmetric federalism the whole country is divided into Parts with
(roughly speaking) the same rights and duties and levels of autonomy relative to
the Center. Symmetry, universalism, is attractive because all parts, like all citizens, become
equal for the law. The counter-argument, for asymmetry, particularism, is that all parts of the
country may not have the same concerns. Under asymmetric federalism some parts of
the country are given more autonomy and some other parts less, in the extreme
case none at all. Only a part of the country is federalized. A counter- argument is that
particularism makes the country difficult to govern. The counter-counter-argument is that
without some particularism addressing special, deep-rooted concerns the
country may become ungovernable because of violent or nonviolent
struggle.

No India Modelling
India not modelling US federalism
The Hindu 1
Federalism at a crossroads? July 17
The essay on India's federal order examines the institutional and structural arrangements in detail
and concludes that ``a dictatorial marshalling of the regions was never envisaged by the
Constitution makers. The Article which allows a highly interventionist role to the Centre should
be reinterpreted in order to allow the spirit of cooperative federalism to emerge.'' In India,
federalism increasingly engages the attention of scholars on the use and abuse of Article 356 of
the Constitution. Indian scholars have the tendency to always compare Indian
federal system with the federal practices in the U.S., and other such federal systems.
There is no such thing as an ideal federation for any country to emulate.
Neither the U.S. nor Switzerland could be a model for others to follow
because each federation has a different history and socio-political and socioeconomic diversity. It was the centripetal forces which brought forth the U.S.
whereas the centrifugal forces beget the Union of States in India.

Cooperative Federalism Bad for Demo


Cooperative federalism crushes political participation
Greve 2k
Mississippi Law Journal Winter, 2000 70 Miss. L.J. 557 LENGTH: 24431 words
ARTICLE: AGAINST COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM NAME: Michael S. Greve * BIO: *
John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University,
1987. I thank Jonathan Adler, Robert Gasaway and Curt Levey for helpful comments and Kim
Kosman and Jinney Smith for their capable research assistance. All errors and misjudgments are
mine.
The political consensus on cooperative federalism stands in sharp contrast to
the academic debate and literature. The cooperative federalism critique of the 1980s,
exemplified by the ACIR Reports cited earlier, n93 has never been seriously contested, never
mind rebutted. Even defenders of cooperative arrangements agree that
cooperative federalism diffuses political accountability and responsibility. n94
They also agree that cooperative federalism's distributional effects lack rhyme or reason. n95
Good reasons support the ACIR's contention that the [*585] impenetrability of
cooperative federalism contributes to public cynicism and disaffection, that is,
to citizens' sense that Washington cannot be trusted and that their votes do
not matter. n96 To be sure, many federalism scholars, both in the legal and the political
science profession, take cooperative federalism for granted, if for no better reason than its
familiarity and pervasiveness. n97 And of course, individual cooperative programs have found
defenders. However, no coherent defense of cooperative federalism as a basic
political arrangement is available.

Cooperative federalism leads to special interest take over


Greve 2k
Mississippi Law Journal Winter, 2000 70 Miss. L.J. 557 LENGTH: 24431 words
ARTICLE: AGAINST COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM NAME: Michael S. Greve * BIO: *
John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University,
1987. I thank Jonathan Adler, Robert Gasaway and Curt Levey for helpful comments and Kim
Kosman and Jinney Smith for their capable research assistance. All errors and misjudgments are
mine.
In this crucial respect, the academic debate differs from the 1960s, when cooperative federalism
sailed under public-spirited banners. Supposedly, intergovernmental cooperation
served to prevent interstate externalities, to aid redistribution, to avert a
fiscal crisis of the states and to enhance localism and flexibility. All four
justifications, however, have proven untenable. Actual cooperative practices fail
to correspond to the theoretical justifications. n98 Scholars who are quite
sympathetic to [*586] cooperative federalism's ostensible objectives (notably redistribution)
concede and indeed argue that cooperative federalism's growth has little to do
with public-spirited objectives and is better understood as an accommodation
to political and interest group demands. n99

Cooperative Federalism Hurts Economy


Cooperative federalism hurts economy growth
Greve 2k
Mississippi Law Journal Winter, 2000 70 Miss. L.J. 557 LENGTH: 24431 words
ARTICLE: AGAINST COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM NAME: Michael S. Greve * BIO: *
John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University,
1987. I thank Jonathan Adler, Robert Gasaway and Curt Levey for helpful comments and Kim
Kosman and Jinney Smith for their capable research assistance. All errors and misjudgments are
mine.
As the intra-governmental conspiracy moves onward and upward, expanding
political commitments produce further interdependencies and conflict. The
ineluctable tendency is towards a pathology that German scholars and high-brow journalists call
Politikverflechtung, meaning a political meshing or entanglement. n33 Political scientists and
legal scholars have shown that cooperative federalism produces, first, a loss of
transparency and, consequently, rising civic discontent. As government grows and the
range of cooperative arrangements expands, transparency, accountability, and responsibility
diminish exponentially. Second, cooperative federalism stifles political
competition and, consequently, political innovation and economic growth.
Germany's Financial Constitution, and in particular the commands to harmonize living
conditions and to equalize financial resources across the various states,
diminishes every state's incentive to improve its lot by providing a favorable
economic climate. It systematically punishes wealthy, successful states, while rewarding the
basket cases. n34 Finally, [*568] cooperative federalism produces political paralysis. Instead of
enhancing the states' autonomy, it rewards the most intransigent participant. In the end, every
player becomes a holdout, and reform becomes impossible. Scholars, journalists, and leading
politicians have tagged cooperative-federalist arrangements as a principal cause of Germany's
Reformstau (reform jam, as in "traffic jam")--that is, Germany's inability to adjust its institutions
and policies to the demands of a modern, global economy. n35

Will Say No
Some states will say no, thats a solvency deficit
Washington Post 8
December 2, 2008
One voice of dissent in the Philadelphia meeting will likely come from Gov.
Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). "We're just putting off the day of reckoning," he said
in an interview. "A problem created as a consequence of too much debt
probably will not be solved by issuing more debt."

Some states will say no To Social service aid


Evans 9
Desiree Evans on April 1, 2009 12:05 PM, http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/louisianascao-vacillates-on-obamas-budget-jindal-plans-to-reject-more-stimulus-funds.html
Perhaps Cao is still wobbling due to the bad example being set by Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal, who made the controversial announcement in February that he was
rejecting $98.4 million in federal stimulus money that would expand Louisiana's
unemployment compensation program. Some Democrats in the Louisiana legislature
have said they will still push for the state to accept all of the stimulus money for which it is
eligible. But Tuesday Jindal's administration notified legislative leaders that it
plans to reject even more funds - this time turning down federal health-care
dollars for the poor and uninsured. Despite the fact that most Southern
governors support stimulus spending, a handful of Southern governors and
state legislatures continue to make headlines this week as they battle it out
over whether or not states will reject portions of the federal stimulus money.
In the South - following Jindal's lead - Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Bob Riley of
Alabama, Rick Perry of Texas and Haley Barbour of Mississippi have also made
announcements that they will not accept funds for expanding eligibility rules
for unemployment benefits.

Governors will say no


WorldPress.com 9
Putting GOP Governors Stimulus Antics in Perspective, February 23, 2009, 2:00 pm,
http://acandidworld.net/2009/02/23/putting-gop-governors-stimulus-antics-in-perspective/
Jindal and likeminded conservative-Republican governors claim the stimulus
bill requires permanent changes to their states respective laws concerning
unemployment benefits, specfically who is eligible to receive said benefits.
[T]he stimulus law would require states to give benefits to people who quit
their jobs for compelling family reasons and include other requirements,
such as the state staffing an office to help the unemployed find jobs. Apparently, too:
Governor Barbour says the Magnolia State will not permanently change [Mississippi] laws to
provide unemployment compensation benefits to part-time workers, because wed have to hike
employer taxes $13 million annually once the temporary stimulus money runs out. Based on the
media blitz by conservatives this weekend, it appears the stimulus bill delivers an ear
boxing to states rights and will unilaterally kill all business development by
increasing unemployment-insurance rates paid by employers. The truth of

Jindals permanent change claim is unclear. According to Louisiana State


Senator Robert Adley (R), the state legislature could revisit its UI policies in
the future.

Governors will say no


WorldPress.com 9
Putting GOP Governors Stimulus Antics in Perspective, February 23, 2009, 2:00 pm,
http://acandidworld.net/2009/02/23/putting-gop-governors-stimulus-antics-in-perspective/
Bobby Jindal, Republican governor of Louisiana, made a big splash this
weekend, saying he was going to refuse approximately $98.4 million in
unemployment-insurance funds due his state from the stimulus bill.
Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour, followed suit, and the governors of South
Carolina, Alaska, Texas, and Idaho are considering a similar move.

Fed K2 Port Dredging


Fed key-review process
Nagle, GMU economics masters, 2012
(Kurt, Budget Hearing - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Assistant Secretary,
Chief of Engineers, 3-7, http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/EWTestimony
%20Mar2012%20Final.pdf, DOA: 7-12-12)

The second troubling trend that impacts our ability to be ready


for the challenges of the future is the time it takes to complete
new projects. Ports are growing increasingly wary of the time it takes to
complete a project. The new norm is decades, with costs rising with
each delay . There are a multitude of reasons for these delays,
including a long, slow approval process, lack of funding which
results in small amounts of funding for each project, and lack of resources to
maintain expertise at the Corps. We must make port modernization a
higher priority in our future funding. Maritime movement of cargo is
the most cost-effective way to move cargo, and we should be

encouraging this through effective federal project


development processes, investments and funding.5 As our
nation recovers from its economic troubles, we know that cargo growth will
expand as well. As our nation invests in infrastructure, we must ensure that
ports and their needs are high on the list. We are in a critical time for our
nation. We face enormous challenges, and ports are making the

necessary investments to build and maintain a world-class


maritime transportation system which support U.S. jobs, our
global competitiveness, and our economy. We need our federal
partner to make that commitment, too . We urge your subcommittee to
serve as advocates for waterside port infrastructure so that we can meet the
challenges of today and tomorrow

Fed key
AAPA 2011
(Getting Back to Basics, March, http://aapa.files.cmsplus.com/PDFs/Transportation%20and%20the%20Constitution1.pdf, DOA: 713-12)

Pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States


Constitution, Congress, by statute, has reserved jurisdiction
over navigable waters for the federal government, which can
determine how the waters are used, by whom, and under what conditions.
As a result, the federal government takes the lead in building,

maintaining, and operating the nations navigation channels.


Authority to construct and maintain navigation projects on
behalf of the United States was granted to the Corps of

Engineers in the General

Survey Act of 1824. In 1826, Congress

passed the first Rivers and Harbors Act and provided funds to the Corps
to make specific navigation improvements to the Ohio, Mississippi, and
Missouri Rivers. Congress has continued to appropriate funds for specific
navigation projects and the Corps has played a dual role by assessing, as
well as implementing, needed projects in federal navigation channels. In
1899, Congress enacted the Rivers and Harbors Act, which

makes it unlawful to undertake any modifications of navigable


water channels unless authorized by the Secretary of the
Army on the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers. It is
well established that the Commerce Clause is the basis for
exclusive federal jurisdiction over navigable waterways. The
landmark United States Supreme Court case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S.
1 (1824) found that navigation of vessels in and out of the ports of the
nation is a form of interstate commerce and that federal law takes
precedence. Federal authority over navigable waterways has
been repeatedly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. With
interstate commerce and connectivity as the impetus, the federal role in
ensuring a contiguous system of roads spanning the states has been implicit
in our federal government since the writing of the Constitution. These powers
were granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution by the
clauses describing the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and
among the several states and the responsibility to establish Post Offices
and Post Roads. As the timeline illustrates, since the founding of this great
nation, our most visionary leaders have engaged in national infrastructure
initiatives. The highway system as we know it today was largely borne out of
the 1939 Bureau of Public Roads report commissioned by Franklin Delano
Roosevelt titled Toll Roads and Free Roads, which proposed a map of a
transcontinental national superhighway system. This led to President
Eisenhowers Federal-Aid Highway of 1956 and subsequent development of
the Interstate System. Without the federal role in planning, coordinating and
providing funding, our current system of inter-regional highways would not
have been possible. Today, this federal responsibility continues through the
surface transportation programs funded largely by federal gas taxes.
Highways, arterials and secondary roads that are identified as being
important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility are classified as
part of the National Highway System (NHS) and are eligible for federal funds
through the federal-aid program. Road infrastructure that accesses major
intermodal terminals, including seaports, are designated NHS connectors by
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). While accounting for less
than one percent of total NHS mileage, this important infrastructure
represents a critical link in the goods movement value chain, carrying truck
traffic between transportation modes and to the broader network of the
interstate system. According to the Federal Highway Administration, of the
616 total defined NHS intermodal connectors, 253 are connected to ocean
and river ports. Of the 1,222 total miles defined as part of the NHS intermodal
connectors, 532 miles are port-related infrastructure. Unfortunately, these
roads are often inadequate and in poor condition, plagued by inadequate
turning radii and shoulder deficiencies and have been found to have twice the

percentage of mileage with pavement deficiencies when compared to noninterstate NHS routes according to a study conducted by USDOT. States and
MPOs have traditionally assigned freight-focused projects a low priority when
compared with passenger-related improvements. Due to their freight-focused
nature, NHS connectors generally do not fare well in project selection within
the State and MPO planning processes. This critical infrastructure is more
important than ever as our nation rebuilds the economy and creates jobs by
expanding commerce through free trade agreements and increasing
Americas exports and international competitiveness. These roads are key
pieces of our connection to the world marketplace. In addition to their
national economic importance, NHS Intermodal connectors are vital to
defense mobilization and national security. With the military's increasing
reliance on strategic ports and commercial trucking for mobility, intermodal
connectors are critical to national defense planning. Given the reliance

of our national economy and defense on intermodal


connectors, it is important that the federal government remain
engaged in identifying, prioritizing and funding improvements
to this critical infrastructure which has languished when
dependent upon State and local planning processes.

**India

India Assymetric Federalism Now


India uses Asymmetric federalism nowmore autonomy
than cooperative federalism
The Hindu 4
March 19.
The Bill is part of an extended legal dialogue on the concept of `permanent residence,'
which is crucial in understanding the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir.
There is an excessive constitutional illiteracy in India about the status of the
State in the Union of India as well as Article 370 of the Indian Constitution through which
this status is defined. In the past, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Hindu Right have expressed
disquiet about Article 370 as an affront to Indian federalism because it gives special status to
Jammu and Kashmir. This, by itself, grossly misunderstands the nature of Indian federalism,
which is founded on a theory of `unequal federalism' under which all States
are not equal and many enjoy a special status. Article 371 contains special
provisions for Maharashtra and Gujarat. Then follow a stream of special provisions, including
Articles 371A (for Nagaland), 371B (Assam), 371C (Manipur), 371D and E (Andhra Pradesh),
371F (Sikkim), 371G (Mizoram), 371H (Arunachal Pradesh), and 371(I) (Goa). To this may be
added the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution, which grant special provisions to the
Tribal Areas and the Northeastern States. We do not have to emulate American
federalism to find answers for India. China has special provisions for Hong
Kong, Macao and other autonomous regions. If Sri Lanka is to find a solution within a
federal structure, it will have to examine India's `unequal but special' approach to federal
governance to find an answer to its problems.

Status quo asymmetric federalism key to indian unity


Krumins 4
Aaron Krumins is with the Honors College and Department of Economics at Earlham College,
where he was also 3rd string QB and TE, playing in four games in three years. Internal Exit in the
Indian Federation, online.
It has been noted by many analysts that the central government has systematically
offered more concessions and privileges to politically intractable states,
rather than cooperative ones. That practice has been termed asymmetric
federalism and is not limited solely to the case of India, but crops up in the literature on other
federations, particularly Russia (Treisman, 1999). Rao and Singh (2004) have argued that
asymmetric federalism may have helped preserve unity of India in the face of
secessionist movements and note the uneven allotment of fiscal transfers as
one way the recalcitrant states have been able to manifest advantages over
the other states.

Asymmetric Federalism Prevents War


Asymmetric federalism prevents internal secession
Galtung 3
John Galtung is Professor of Peace Studies and Director of TRANSCEND. FEDERATION AS
PEACE STRUCTURE: THE CASE OF SRI LANKA, I
I C P W O R K I N G P A P E R
Under symmetric federalism the whole country is divided into Parts with
(roughly speaking) the same rights and duties and levels of autonomy relative to
the Center. Symmetry, universalism, is attractive because all parts, like all citizens, become
equal for the law. The counter-argument, for asymmetry, particularism, is that all parts of the
country may not have the same concerns. Under asymmetric federalism some parts of
the country are given more autonomy and some other parts less, in the extreme
case none at all. Only a part of the country is federalized. A counter- argument is that
particularism makes the country difficult to govern. The counter-counter-argument is that
without some particularism addressing special, deep-rooted concerns the
country may become ungovernable because of violent or nonviolent struggle

Cooperative Federalism Fails in India


Indian cooperative federalism collapses into unitary
government
Rao 2k
K. Madhusudhana Rao is Assistant Professor in the Department of Law at Andhra Universty. The
scope of Article 365 of the Constitution (2000). 4 SCC (Jour) 1
The federalism that normally envisages "competitive federalism" in which both the Union
and State Government compete with each other for identification and operation in the
constitutional structure has given way to "cooperative federalism" which helps the
federal system to act in unison by minimising friction and also by promoting
cooperation among the various constituent Governments of the Federal Union for the purpose of
achieving certain desired national goals29. In the process this cooperative federalism
gave way to the development of "organic federalism" wherein the federation
and the federating units function as part of one organism to achieve the common
governmental purposes that are mentioned in the constitutional document. Therefore what is
discernible is that the Indian federalism in its working has been moved from
the theoretical framework of cooperative federalism towards an organic
federalism to be placed towards the unitary end of the federal spectrum

No India Modelling
India not modelling US federalism
The Hindu 1
Federalism at a crossroads? July 17
The essay on India's federal order examines the institutional and structural arrangements in detail
and concludes that ``a dictatorial marshalling of the regions was never envisaged by the
Constitution makers. The Article which allows a highly interventionist role to the Centre should
be reinterpreted in order to allow the spirit of cooperative federalism to emerge.'' In India,
federalism increasingly engages the attention of scholars on the use and abuse of Article 356 of
the Constitution. Indian scholars have the tendency to always compare Indian
federal system with the federal practices in the U.S., and other such federal systems.
There is no such thing as an ideal federation for any country to emulate.
Neither the U.S. nor Switzerland could be a model for others to follow
because each federation has a different history and socio-political and socioeconomic diversity. It was the centripetal forces which brought forth the U.S.
whereas the centrifugal forces beget the Union of States in India.

No Indo-Pak War
No Indo-Pak War
Wright 13 (Thomas Wright is a fellow at the Brookings Institution in the Managing Global
Order project. Previously, he was executive director of studies at the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs, a lecturer at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, and senior
researcher for the Princeton Project on National Security, "Dont Expect Worsening of India,
Pakistan Ties," http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/16/dont-expect-worsening-of-indiapakistan-ties/, January 16, 2013)
Theres no end for now to the hostile rhetoric between India and Pakistan. But that
doesnt necessarily presage anything more drastic. Pakistan claims another of its soldiers died Tuesday
night in firing across the Line of Control in Kashmir, the divided Himalayan region claimed by both nations. Indian army
chief, Gen. Bikram Singh, on Wednesday, said Pakistan had opened fire and India retaliated. If any of their people have
died, it would have been in retaliation to their firing, Gen. Singh said. When they fire, we also fire. It was the latest

in tit-for-tat recriminations over deaths in Kashmir that began last week. Pakistan claimed
one of its soldiers died on Jan. 6. Two days later, India said Pakistani forces killed two of its soldiers and mutilated the
bodies. Tuesday night, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the mutilations meant it could not be business as usual
between the countries. That has worried some that peace talks, which have been in train for

two years, could be about to break down. Mr. Singhs comments built on a drumbeat of anger from India.
Gen. Singh, Monday called the mutilations unpardonable and said India withheld the right to retaliate to Pakistan
aggression when and where it chooses. Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, who is in the U.S., Tuesday termed the
Indian army chiefs comments as very hostile. There are some other worrying signs. India said Tuesday it was delaying the
start of a visa-on-arrival program meant to make it easier for some Indians and Pakistanis to visit each others countries. The
visa program, like talks on opening up bilateral trade, is supposed to pave the way toward broader peace talks that would
encompass thornier issues, like how to solve the Kashmir problem. Also Tuesday, nine Pakistani hockey players who had
come to participate in a tournament in India were sent home due to fears of protests and violence against them. Still,

theres little benefit for either side to escalate what is now still sporadic firing over
the Line of Control, the de facto border in Kashmir. Pakistan is embroiled in its own
political meltdown sparked by the Supreme Courts decision Tuesday to order the arrest of Prime Minister Raja
Pervez Ashraf on allegations of corruption. Tens of thousands of protesters Tuesday took to the streets in Islamabad, and
remain there today, demanding immediate elections and a greater role for the army and Supreme Court in politics.

Pakistans military continues to play an important political role, dominating defense


and foreign policy. But it has so far shown little sign of mounting a full-blown coup
despite persistent rumors of military intervention. Pakistans government must hold national elections
by May, meaning the next few months are likely to be choppy ones in Pakistan politics. In
such an environment, the military is unlikely to want to dial up tensions with India .
On the Indian side, despite Mr. Singhs unusually strident tone Tuesday, there also will be pause before
taking matters to the next level. Mr. Singh has put immense personal political capital
into trying to improve ties with Pakistan since he came to power in 2004 . Last year, he
hosted Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari in New Delhi and promised a return visit. Such a trip is clearly off the table for
now. But India still has put too much into peace talks to throw away the progress made

so far on visas, trade and other issues. Even Gen. Singh, Indias army chief, Monday
said he did not believe the latest flare-up would lead to a broader escalation in
violence and an official end to a 2003 ceasefire agreement in Kashmir. The clashes so far, he noted, have been
limited to specific areas of the Line of Control.

It would never escalate to nuclear weapons


Economic Times 11 (No chance of Indo-Pak nuclear war despite 'sabre rattling': Pak
nuclear scientist A Q Khan, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-0517/news/29552014_1_nuclear-blackmail-nuclear-secrets-india-and-pakistan, May 17, 2011)
NEW YORK: Pakistan's disgraced nuclear scientist A Q Khan has said that despite "sabre rattling" between
Islamabad and New Delhi, there is no chance of a nuclear war between the two

neighbours .

Khan, who has been accused of selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and Syria, wrote in Newsweek

magazine that nuclear

weapons in both countries had prevented war for the last 40 years.
"India doesn't need more than five weapons to hurt us badly, and we wouldn't need
more than 10 to return the favour," he said. "That is why there has been no war
between us for the past 40 years ." "India and Pakistan understand the old
principle that ensured peace in the Cold War: mutually assured destruction ," he said.
"The two (India and Pakistan) can't afford a nuclear war, and despite our sabre rattling,
there is no chance of a nuclear war that would send us both back to the Stone Age," he
said. He claimed that Pakistan had to invest in a nuclear programme "to ward off nuclear blackmail from India". "I would
like to make it clear that it was an Indian nuclear explosion in May 1974 that prompted our nuclear program, motivating me
to return to Pakistan to help create a credible nuclear deterrent and save my country from Indian nuclear blackmail," he said.

"We are forced to maintain this deterrence until our differences with India are
resolved. That would lead to a new era of peace for both countries ," Khan wrote. "I hope I live
to see Pakistan and India living harmoniously in the same way as the once bitter enemies Germany and France live today," he
said. Khan blasted various governments in Pakistan as well as "successive incompetent and ignorant rulers" for not engaging
in basic development of the country, and raising the people's standard of living. "We are far worse off now than

we were 20, or even 40, years ago when we were subjected to embargoes ," he said.

**Ukraine

Ukrain Fed Bad?


Federalism leads to Ukrainian factionalism leading to
further conflict.
Rieth 4/16
Peter Strzelecki Rieth. "Ukraine: A Case for Federalism - The Imaginative Conservative." The Imaginative
Conservative. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. <http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/04/politicalremedies-for-ukraine.html>.

In American political history, we are accustomed to the idea that Federalism goes hand in hand
with nationalism. From Hamilton to Clay, the vision of the American system is a vision
made possible by a strong, effective Federal government. We sometimes misunderstand the
term strong Federal government and think it means a strong or big central government. It
does not. A strong Federal government is, as the name implies, Federal in character. It
performs its enumerated Constitutional role with energy and dedication for the common
good, leaving to the States and the people the performance of those things not enumerated in the
Constitution as Federal powers and understood as the local good. American industrial might,
American self-government, and American associations are Federalisms historical results.
American national pride is bound to the idea and practice of Federalism. Americas XXth and
XXIst century departures from Federalism in favor of elements of unitary national government
and the administrative state rather than self-rule have led to much woe and contribute always to a
feeling of national malaise. For Americans, nationalism and Federalism are interwoven:
American nationalism would not be possible without American Federalism. This fact may make
it difficult for Americans to understand why Ukrainian nationalists (whether extreme or
moderate), as well as Polish nationalists, oppose Federalism and favor the unitary nation state
with such vehemence. If, the American mind reasons, Federalism allows for the respect for
local rule and custom while also expanding general cooperation for the general good, how
can this be detrimental to national pride or national welfare? Russian nationalists, who, like
Americans, inhabit a Federated republic, may be presumed to think likewisethus their
governments proposal: why not Federalism for Ukraine? The problem with Federalism for
Poles and Ukrainians is this: for Polish and Ukrainian nationalists, nationalism is ethnic, racial,
linguistic and cultural. A nation, connected in a natural political body by these things, constitutes
a state to govern the territory it inhabits. To create a Federal government is to invite a
factionalism, which had never been there in the first placeor so the theory goes.
Federalism, in this view, is the beginning of national disintegration. Polish nationalists fear,
for example, that introducing Federalism in Poland would lead to greater autonomy for certain
German minorities and, possibly, an ultimate secession and return to German rule, or the
establishment of a Silesian republic. Given the Polish historical phobia stemming from its
partition and from the German invasion in 1939, the mere possibility of regional autonomy under
the guise of Federalism is treated by Polish nationalists as treason. Ukrainian nationalists likely
reason in a similar fashion. If Ukraine were to adopt a Federal system and grant greater
autonomy to its various regions, what (asks the Ukrainian nationalist mind) would stop these
regions from opting to secede or coming under the influence of Russia? To the Ukrainian
nationalist, Federalism means national partition and possibly the end of Ukraine as a
political entity, or at least its diminishment.

Arctic Conflict Defense


No arctic war
Keil 14
(Kathrin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Otto-Suhr-Institutat, May 16, 2014, The Arctic: A new region
of conflict? The case of oil and gas Cooperation and Conflict 2014, Vol. 49(2) 162190)
The evidence shows that talk of a new Cold War in the Arctic is overblown. Closer
analy- sis of the actual importance of Arctic oil and gas to the countries concerned, as
well as the consideration of the uncertainty and spatial distribution of Arctic
hydrocarbons, offers a much more differentiated picture. The USA and Canada are
unlikely to join a potential rush for Russias Arctic resources given their own vast
resource bases. Norway and Denmark both concentrate on their own hydrocarbon
potential, because it is needed for economic and autonomy reasons, respectively. Activities concerning the
most promising resources, Arctic offshore oil and gas, are currently of rather
secondary importance in a global perspective. In the near- to medium-term future, however, increased
activity can be expected. Given the empirical findings, it is safe to conclude that this will not lead to
major inter-state confrontations,

but if any conflict about Arctic natural resources were to arise, it will most

likely con- cern complicated business relationships between the Russian state and foreign oil and gas companies wanting to
get a share of Russias vast hydrocarbon base to satisfy especially high European demand. In this respect, Russia is
confronted with a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, it aims to protect its resources by declaring them stra- tegic and
thus strongly limiting non-Russian involvement in any development activi- ties. On the other hand, Russias economy is
highly dependent on the continued expansion of its oil and gas production, which will be impossible to achieve in the future
without foreign expertise and capital. This precarious situation is exacerbated by the overall risky and unpredictable Russian
investment climate. It remains to be seen how joint exploration and exploitation agreements between Russian (state) firms
and foreign companies will work out. After the failed RosneftBP agreement, the new deal between Rosneft and Exxon to
explore and exploit fields in the Kara Sea offers a new chance of observing the development of such a joint venture (Kramer,
2011b; Washington, 2011; Werdigier, 2011). The empirical conclusions suggest, first and foremost,

that it is of utmost importance to start the analysis of the political state of a region by
critically examining the actual stakes and interests involved, rather than arriving at
premature conclusions based on underlying assumptions. Closer empirical scrutiny
indicates that neorealist expectations of a geopolitical rush for Arctic resources are
unrealistic, while the addition of construc- tivist variables in empirical analysis can supplement rational materialist
accounts of actors interests. While the overall interest-based approach is useful to unpack the
black box of Arctic interests, the constitution of these interests cannot be solely
understood in rationalist terms but has to include identity, cultural and historical
considerations of the importance of the Arctic region to the respective countries.

No escalation
Zero risk of Ukraine escalation
Peck 3/5/14
'm a defense writer, avid gamer and history buff. I'm currently a contributing editor for Foreign
Policy Magazine, a writer for the War is Boring defense blog and of course a contributor at
Forbes. My work has also appeared in the Washingon Post,Slate, Defense News, USA Today, the
Philadelphia Inquirer and other fine publications.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-will-never-go-towar-over-ukraine/
7 Reasons why America Will Never Go To War Over Ukraine
America is the mightiest military power in the world. And that fact means absolutely nothing for
the Ukraine crisis. Regardless of whether Russia continues to occupy the Crimea region of
Ukraine, or decides to occupy all of Ukraine, the U.S. is not going to get into a shooting war
with Russia. This has nothing to do with whether Obama is strong or weak. Jimmy Carter or
Ronald Reagan would face the same constraints. The U.S. may threaten to impose economic
sanctions, but here is why America will never smack Russia with a big stick: Russia is a
nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the
Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals
couldnt inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of
the planet. U.S. missile defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive
Russian strike. For the 46 years of the Cold War, America and Russia were deadly rivals. But they
never fought. Their proxies fought: Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Israelis and Arabs.
The one time that U.S. and Soviet forces almost went to war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Neither Obama nor Putin is crazy enough to want to repeat that. U.S. Marine Corps vehicle
during amphibious assault exercise. U.S. Marine Corps vehicle during amphibious assault
exercise. Russia has a powerful army. While the Russian military is a shadow of its Soviet glory
days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks
(with another 18,000 tanks in storage), according to the Military Balance 2014 from the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy
171 ships, including 25 in the Black Sea Fleet off Ukraines coast. U.S. forces are more capable
than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008 Russo-Georgia War.
American troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly
better weapons (though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for U.S.
pilots). However, better is not good enough. The Russian military is not composed of lightly
armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army like the Iraqis in 2003. With advanced
weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles, BM-30 Smerch multiple
rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles, Russian forces pack enough firepower
to inflict significant American losses. Ukraine is closer to Russia. The distance between Kiev
and Moscow is 500 miles. The distance between Kiev and New York is 5,000 miles. Its much
easier for Russia to send troops and supplies by land than for the U.S. to send them by sea or air.
The U.S. military is tired. After nearly 13 years of war, Americas armed forces need a breather.
Equipment is worn out from long service in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are worn out from
repeated deployments overseas, and there are still about 40,000 troops still fighting in
Afghanistan. The U.S. doesnt have many troops to send. The U.S. could easily dispatch air
power to Ukraine if its NATO allies allow use of their airbases, and the aircraft carrier George H.
W. Bush and its hundred aircraft are patrolling the Mediterranean. But for a ground war to

liberate Crimea or defend Ukraine, there is just the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, the 22nd
Marine Expeditionary Unit sailing off Spain, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in Germany and
the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While the paratroopers could drop into
the combat zone, the Marines would have sail past Russian defenses in the Black Sea, and the
Stryker brigade would probably have to travel overland through Poland into Ukraine. Otherwise,
bringing in mechanized combat brigades from the U.S. would be logistically difficult, and more
important, could take months to organize. The American people are tired. Pity the poor
politician who tries to sell the American public on yet another war, especially some complex
conflict in a distant Eastern Europe nation. Neville Chamberlains words during the 1938
Czechoslovakia crisis come to mind: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be
digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between
people of whom we know nothing. Americas allies are tired. NATO sent troops to support the
American campaign in Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. Britain sent troops to Iraq and
Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the Western
European public marching in the streets to demand the liberation of Crimea, especially
considering the regions sputtering economy, which might be snuffed out should Russia stop
exporting natural gas. As for military capabilities, the Europeans couldnt evict Libyan dictator
Muammar Gaddafi without American help. And Germans fighting Russians again? Lets not even
go there.

Interdependence will check escalation


Dreyfuss 3/10/14
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178761/capitalism-will-prevent-cold-war-over-ukraine
Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist specializing in politics
and national security.
Plain, old-fashioned capitalism will prevent a new cold war between the United States and
Russia over Ukraine and Russias gobbling up of the Crimean region. Capitalism, plus the fact
that probably not one American in a thousand could locate Crimea on a map, and even the
most hard-headed US political analysts have trouble coming up with a decent definition of
what US interests in Ukraine might be. Helping to contain the crisis is the fact that Russia,
Europe and to a lesser extent the United States are tied together in a powerful web of
financial and economic ties that didnt exist, say, during the real Cold War. Their influence runs
counter to the many, many cries from hawks to impose tough economic sanctions on Russia, as if
the giant Eurasian power were a small rogue state. The Washington Post, for instance, said in
an editorial: Some argue that the West lacks the means to damage the Putin regime or that the
United States cannot act without Europe, but neither claim is true. Banking sanctionsdenying
Russians and their banks access to the U.S. financial systemcould deal a powerful blow. Mr.
Obama must respond to Mr. Putin with measures that force the Russian ruler to rethink his
options. But, as CNN reports: Russia is the European Unions third-biggest trading partner
after the United States and China, with goods and services worth more than $500 billion
exchanged in 2012. About 75% of all foreign direct investment in Russia originates in EU
member states, according to the European Commission. In addition, Russia is the single biggest
supplier of energy to the European Union. British energy firm BP is the second-largest
shareholder in Russias leading oil producer Rosneft, and some of the biggest energy companies
in Germany, the Netherlands and France are invested in a joint venture with Russian gas giant
Gazprom. And, in a lengthy interview in The American Interest, Zbigniew Brzezinski points with
regret to the fact that British bankers, who have large deposits of Russian cashparticularly from

Russian oligarchsare resisting any sort of confrontation over Ukraine: The British seem
inclined to argue, Well, theres a lot of Russian money in our banks. The bankers doubtless
have a lot of influence, particularly in political systems in which money is increasingly the
mechanism that oils the democratic process. Earlier, the BBC had reported that a document
carried by a top British official read: The U.K. should not support for now trade sanctions or
close Londons financial center to Russians. The New York Times, in a long March 7 piece
analyzing US and European business interests in Russia and their effect on the politics of the
situation, quoted several executives with Western firms who clearly want to cool the crisis talk:
European businesses have no interests in any deterioration of the current international
situation linked to Ukraine, Frank Schauff, the chief executive of the Association of European
Businesses in Russia, said on Friday. We call upon all parties to engage in a constructive
dialogue, which will secure stability, welfare and economic growth on the European Continent.
Among American companies cited in the Times are Pepsi, Ford and John Deere. The Times
quoted Ken Golden, director of global public relations for Deere, in its piece: While Russia
represents less than 5 percent of Deeres total equipment sales, the company recently cited Russia
as being key to its future growth. We urge political leaders to solve this issue without violence
and in accord with international agreements, Mr. Golden said. Please support our journalism.
Get a digital subscription for just $9.50! It even extends to the defense industry. According to
Defense News, in a piece titled Amid Ukraine Crisis, EU Plays It Safe, various European arms
manufacturers, including in Sweden, value current and potential sales to Russia. France is
apparently insisting that it will continue to sell arms to Russia, including a $1.7 billion deal for
two Mistral-class helicopter carriers. Said one expert quoted in the piece: It looks like the
Europeans are extremely keen to do everything except anything that hurts their commercial
interests. There is zero appetite to hurt business interests, and arms sales fit into that category.

You might also like