Round 5 v.

AHS BMopen source johns

creek hooch ap
1nc
Off
 OFF
Interpretation education is curriculumplan changes school environment
TINSAE 16 (Esayas W.; Addis Ababa University, School of Graduate Studies, College of Education and
Behavioral Studies, Department of Mathematics Education, Ethiopia, A critical Review and Analysis of
the Definitions of Curriculum and the Relationship between Curriculum and Instruction, International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Social Sciences, April, v. 6 i. 4)ww
Introduction Before defining the term curriculum, it is better to define Education and relate with curriculum. Education has been described
differently by different scholars of the field. According to Nyagah G. (2010) education is defined as a process of acquiring
the desirable knowledge, skills and attitudes to fit well in and become a useful member of that
society . The term education means to draw out , i.e. facilitating realization of self-potential and latent talents of an
individual. The teacher thus uses curriculum to bring out the best of learners . What then are the functions of
education? Education has a variety of functions including the following: Intellectual function. This is to enable men awaken in and have a taste
of knowledge. It is also to develop intellectual powers of learners. Productive function i.e. provides individuals with knowledge, skills and
attitudes that could be used for economic activities in a society. Vocational training contributes to this function. Social function. In this
context, education is considered as a process of preserving and transmission of cultural heritage. Beside education helps learners acquire skills
for interpersonal Education is also a means of individual development. It therefore serves a personal function (Nyagah, ibid). Definition of
Curriculum The term curriculum originated from the Greek word curere meaning to run a course. But debate is still continuing as to the
definition of curriculum. It has varied definitions and this variation is due to scholars position or approach or philosophical basis or
understanding of the world in general. Though there is no universal/ common definition of curriculum, different scholars defined curriculum in
their philosophical or contextual basis. Some of the definitions are: The definition of curriculum placed on continuum from the narrowly focus
to the broad. The narrow focus is one that define curriculum as plan for discipline or course of study . In its
broader sense, however, the curriculum is considered to everything that transpires in the course of planning, teaching, and learning in an
educational institution (Derebssa, 2004).

Voter
Limitsallows affs that change school environment and non curriculum policies and
explodes the topic
Groundhaving a narrow version of the topic allows plan specific links based on
curriculum

Impact is clash, predictability, fairness, and in depth education

 OFF
Regulations are exclusively prescribed and carried out by the DOE and has legal
binding effect
US Code Title 20 (United States Code, Title 20, established ESEA and outlines the role of education in
the United States Code.[1]Education; Chapter 31: General Provisions Concerning Education, Lexis)//ac

1232. Regulations (a) "Regulation" defined. For the purpose of this section, the term "regulation"
means any generally applicable rule, regulation, guideline, interpretation, or other requirement that--
(1) is prescribed by the Secretary or the Department; and (2) has legally binding effect in connection
with, or affecting, the provision of financial assistance under any applicable program. (b) Citation of
authority. Regulations shall contain, immediately following each substantive provision of such
regulations, citations to the particular section or sections of statutory law or other legal authority on
which such provision is based. (c) Uniform application. All regulations shall be uniformly applied and
enforced throughout the 50 States

Limitscourts can rule on anything related to educationexplodes topic

Effects tcourts can rule on existing regulations, or rule on regulations after theyre
pastthey lead to reg changesindependent voter for fairness
Groundno link to ptx disads and we need them on this topic
Voter for the same reason on the other flow
 OFF
tax reform passes now
Bloomfield 9/21/17 (Mark, The Hill, "The bumpy road to tax reform is still driveable")
A word of caution to anyone preparing to throw dirt on the prospect of tax reform this year: Dont break
out your shovels just yet. Tax reform is still alive because of a strategic decision by the White House and Republican congressional leaders.
The path to passing comprehensive tax reform is becoming clearer. Step one was for the Big Six the White House, Treasury
secretary, House speaker, Senate majority leader and the chairmen of the congressional tax writing committees to get Republicans on one page. This was
achieved in their joint statement released in July with more detailed consensus principles expected the week of September 25. With unified principles
in hand, advancing tax reform should avoid the pitfalls and intraparty fractures that plagued repealing ObamaCare.
While it might be hard to fathom in todays populist and often divisive climate that broad agreement can be reached on an issue as politically-charged as tax reform,

there is nonetheless consensus among most Republicans , including the key players . Permanent, comprehensive tax reform is
a major part of fixing the American economy. After all, the U.S. tax rate on businesses is the fourth-highest rate in the world, placing American firms at a
disadvantage against their global competitors. Its also long overdue. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) recently illustrated this point, commenting that the last
time Congress fixed the tax code was the same year he got his first drivers license. Ryans anecdote would be funnier if it werent horrifyingly true. The trillion
dollar question is how to pay for making taxes competitive. The consensus plan to make tax reform permanent includes moving the U.S. to a system that
encourages American companies to bring back jobs and profits trapped overseas. In other words, repatriated earnings would help offset any anticipated revenue
losses. The Big Six proposal aims to reform international tax treatment for U.S. businesses and prevent inversions so that American companies are no longer
tempted to move abroad. As ex-Treasury Secretary George Shultz and other former Treasury officials stated, Inversions are a symptom. The disease is Americas
anomalous international tax code. The path to permanent and long-lasting tax reform will involve at least three steps. Step one has largely been accomplished.
Step two, the passage of a budget that paves the way for debate on tax reform, is critical. Thats why the White House recently dispatched Treasury Secretary
Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn to meet with key congressional leaders. Given the recent ruling by the Senate parliamentarian
that temporary budget rules will expire after September 30, many Republicans
are worried that the absence of a new budget
could derail tax reform efforts this year. As a result, Mnuchin and Cohns trip to Capitol Hill likely signaled the
beginning of a full court press toward budget passage. After all, no budget means Republicans can't count on reconciliation to pass
tax reform. For a president and a Congress eager to deliver a key victory, the passage of a budget is an obstacle that simply must be cleared. The fate of tax reform
is inextricably linked to the reconciliation process the path Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated the Senate will pursue. The Republican majority
needs 51 votes, instead of 60, to pass tax reform through reconciliation. Factoring in the possibility that some Republicans could defect, President Trump

has attempted to win over Democrats. Successfully doing so would demonstrate bipartisanship and would
he will travel to up to 13 states many where a Democratic senator is up for re-election and
be politically effective. In the coming weeks,

where the president won big. There won't be a vote to spare and Trumps objective makes it more possible to get

51 votes in the case of Republican defections. With a new budget in hand and potential Democratic support, Step three
on the path to comprehensive tax reform will eventually be a fait accompli when Trump signs the The Big Six Tax Reform Act of 2017 into law.

The discussion of education creates party fightsthats detrimental

Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-education-policy/

How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how
much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have
been controlled at the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three
distinguished education policy analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new
Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA) Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress

weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly
polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig,
Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of
Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm; Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of
the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy, President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the
nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by Henig, the
panelistswho were welcomed by TC
President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even violent disagreements on federal

versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school desegregation battles of
the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting schools and reporting back
to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school desegregation, in the 1964
presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have occurred had not Abraham
Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal
politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The bottom line for all
three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or policy.
Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children. Congress passed
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when the notion that
children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening nowwas a
revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing teachers to focus
on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly affected spending
priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education unquestionably has to be
answered yes, Cross said. The
reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by what happened
in federal
policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education policy is
or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent
case in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of
teachers jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming
fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy
should really be integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions will be
left to those who are not equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and equity in education. The panelists
were unanimous in their criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they differed on what to do about it. The law has
not been amended since its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and Republicans now agree it should be changed,
Republicans dont want to give credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy concurred, adding that the
environment in
Congress has become much more poisonous, and it has become more difficult to create the
environment we need in order to transform education. And while education has always been a
polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good education, for the first time in the countrys
history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than theirs, Puriefoy said. They dont believe in the ability
of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be doneand is this years presidential election an opportunity to put
national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was skeptical, but said he would like both parties to discuss education
issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating federal-state partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but
Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs other than education. Schools cant be responsible on their
own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like to see in the next administration?Cross replied that the
U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language Learners, Special Education and others, which are too large,
bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the incoming president should not listen to the radical right, but
instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently based on property taxes, and fight the long tradition
of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching.
Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children, strong federal standards, and getting rid of states rights. This
fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual contract in this country, she said. Good policy follows good
intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP code, were going
to have to dismantle what
were doing. Were not going to get there without significant disruption.

Tax reform is critical to the pharma and life sciences industry brink now
Michael, PwC, Partner, US Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Tax Sector Leader, 1/18/17
(Kathleen, A Prescription For Change: Navigating Tax Reform In 2017,
https://www.lifescienceleader.com/doc/a-prescription-for-change-navigating-tax-reform-in-0001)

pharmaceutical and life

The beginning of a new year is often a time to look ahead with anticipation for what the next twelve months will bring both opportunities and challenges. During 2017,

sciences (PLS) companies will face a wave of change impacting their businesses including: potential ACA repeal,
increases in emerging technologies and new entrants , and continued pressure on pricing. Adding to this
already challenging environment , PLS companies must closely monitor the ongoing tax reform debate . I truly
believe that 2017 will bring significant and fundamental change to the tax world. While the specific details remain to be seen, the election of President-elect

Donald Trump along with GOP majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate suggest the probability of

comprehensive tax reform has never been higher . In June 2016, the House Ways and Means Committee and Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled a
Better Way for Tax Reform in an effort to modernize and simplify the existing tax code. The blueprint, as it is known,
goes well beyond the incremental changes we saw over the last 30 years and harkens back to the sweeping changes made with the Tax
Reform Act of 1986. The proposed changes transcend the tax world and will impact all aspects of businesses

including: supply chain, capital structures, pricing and deal modeling, to name a few. With this in mind, I wanted to share my thoughts on how
PLS companies may be most impacted and can prepare for the changes to come: Reduction in the corporate income tax rate: A reduction in the
corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% likely will benefit many PLS companies and provide opportunities for tax
planning . Pre-enactment planning should be considered, including accelerating deductions, credits and other attributes into periods where
the current 35% rate applies and deferring income to periods where the lower rate will apply. The rate reduction will likely have financial statement impacts to uncertain tax positions, deferred taxes, and effective tax rates, and will
also impact forecasts communicated internally and externally to the extent effective tax rates included reflect current law. All of these impacts will need to be evaluated. Border adjustable consumption-type tax: The proposed
border adjustable, destination-based, business cash-flow tax system would likely tax imports of goods and services and exempt exports. This new system would also likely apply to intangibles and related royalty flows. The impact
on PLS companies will depend on their supply chain structures and whether exchange rates or prices adjust in response to this new aspect of the tax code. Affected companies should examine the current state of their supply chain
in light of this new tax system and determine the impact to their after-tax results. Important first steps include mapping out existing physical asset footprints and physical and financial transaction flows and evaluating the tax
treatment under both current and proposed tax law. New business income tax rate for pass-through entities: Collaboration agreements, alliances, joint ventures and formal partnerships are increasingly common in the PLS industry
and I expect this trend to continue in 2017. The House blueprint proposes a 25% rate for pass-throughs. Entity level taxation for pass-through entities is a major change and PLS companies should consider the types of entities they

use to structure alternative deals. Full expensing of tangible and intangible property: PLS companies will likely benefit from full expensing of tangible
and intangible property. However, land would be excluded, and it is uncertain how inventory would be treated. The House Republican tax reform blueprint states that the last-in-first-out inventory
method will be retained, but inventory accounting issues require further consideration. The full expensing of intangible assets could impact the way deals are modeled and structured given the large portion of value typically placed
on intangible assets in the industry. No net interest deduction: The corporate tax deduction for interest expense has been a part of U.S. tax law since 1894 and has been an important factor considered by companies when choosing
between debt and equity financing alternatives. PLS companies often incur debt to make acquisitions and support investment in research and development; they currently deduct the related interest expense. To prepare for the
elimination of the deduction for interest expense, PLS companies should assess the tax impacts of their current capital structure and consider alternative financing options going forward. Loss of most business tax credits and

The research and development

deductions: Although most business tax credits and deductions are expected to be repealed, they will likely be offset by the reduced corporate income tax rate.

credit will likely be retained and possibly enhanced to provide a continued benefit for PLS companies . Importantly and at this
time, the House blueprint does not explicitly address the Orphan Drug Credit, which provides a significant benefit for companies in that therapeutic area. Mandatory deemed repatriation of US companies untaxed post-1986 foreign
earnings and profit (E&P): The PLS industry reported over $400 billion of unremitted earnings in 2015. Mandatory deemed repatriation is a critical area of focus, and the impact of the one-time mandatory repatriation tax will
depend on the specific company, as well as the repatriation tax rates ultimately enacted. Affected companies should consider pre-enactment dividend / foreign tax credit planning opportunities, and controlled foreign corporation

PLS companies likely would

earnings and profit reduction through accounting method changes. Companies also should consider the impact on financial statements. Repeal of Affordable Care Act (ACA):

benefit from the repeal of the pharmaceutical tax and medical device excise tax ; however, the timing for a repeal and replace is
Post-election transitions present uncertainty, opportunity and implications for any
uncertain and may not be linked to comprehensive tax reform.

industry, to which healthcare is no exception. The significance of the United States market and the high volume of
trade between its partners make reform of the current tax system a top issue for PLS organizations one for which they must prepare.

Extinction
NAS 8 (National Academy of Sciences, The Role of the Life Sciences in Transforming America's Future
Summary of a Workshop December 3, 2008, Board on Life Sciences Division on Earth and Life Studies,
National Research Council)

scientific research into

A Critical Time for the Life Sciences Speaker after speaker at the Summit agreed: the life sciences are poised to usher in a period of unprecedented health and prosperity. Basic

living things function is producing new understanding of how living systems work and new ways of
how

using biological processes to meet human needs. If current opportunities are grasped, the life sciences can help produce
enough food for a growing population, cure chronic and acute diseases, meet fImportant segments of
the life sciences are merging with the physical sciences and engineering to create transdisciplinary
scientific endeavors focused on pressing global problems. This blending of d Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) President
Susan Hockfield. They improve human health. They foster potential of vaccines and antibiotics, among many
other research results, have improved the lives of people everywhere. The progress made in combating heart disease is a prime example of
the payoffs from investment in the life sciences, said Hockfield. Over the past 30 years, the National Institutes of new knowledge in medicine. Fostering Industries to Counter Global Problems The life sciences have applications in

Life-science based approaches could contribute to advances in many industries, from energy
areas that range far beyond human health.

production and pollution remediation, to clean manufacturing and the production of new biologically
inspired materials. In fact, biological systems could provide the basis for new products, services and
industries that we cannot yet imagine. Microbes are already producing biofuels and could, through further research, provide a major
component of future energy supplies . Marine and terrestrial organisms extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which suggests that biological systems
could be used to help manage climate change. Study of the complex systems encountered in biology is
decade, it is really just the beginning . Advances in the underlying science of plant and animal breeding have been just as dramatic as the advances in genetic can put down a
band of fertilizer, come back six months later, and plant seeds exactly on that row, reducing the need for fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural inputs. Fraley said that the global agricultural

system needs to adopt the goal of doubling the current yield of crops while reducing key inputs like
pesticides, fertilizers, and water by one third. It is more important than putting a man on the moon, he said. Doubling agricultural yields would
change the world. Another billion people will join the middle class over the next decade just in
India and China as economies continue to grow. And all people need and deserve secure access to
food supplies. Continued progress will require both basic and applied research, The evolution of life put earth under new management, Collins said.
Understanding the future state of the planet will require understanding the biological systems that have

shaped the planet. Many of these biological systems are found in the oceans, which cover 70 percent of
the earths surface and have a crucial impact on weather, climate, and the composition of the
atmosphere. In the past decade, new tools have become available to explore the microbial processes that drive
the chemistry of the oceans, observed David Kingsbury, Chief Program Officer for Science at the
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. These technologies have revealed that a large proportion of the planets genetic
diversity resides in the oceans. In addition, many organisms in the oceans readily exchange genes, creating evolutionary forces that
can have global effects. The oceans are currently under great stress, Kingsbury pointed out. Nutrient runoff from agriculture is
helping to create huge and expanding dead zones where oxygen levels are too low to sustain life. Toxic
algal blooms are occurring with higher frequency in areas where they have not been seen in the past. Exploitation of ocean resources is disrupting ecological balances that have formed

over many millions of years. Human-induced changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere are changing the chemistry of the oceans, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
If we are not careful, we are not going to have a sustainable planet to live on, said Kingsbury. Only
by understanding the basic biological processes at work in the oceans can humans live sustainably on earth.
 OFF
The 1ACs reform of Zero Tolerance Policies leads to a false hope in the political system as
well as the education system. The political system gains its coherence only through the
accumulation of black flesh.
WARREN 15 [2015, Calvin Warren is an assistant professor of American Studies @ George Washington
University. Dr. Calvin Warrens research and teaching interests are located at the intersection of
contemporary continental theory, Black Nihilism, Ethics, and African American History. He received his
Ph.D. from Yale University in African American Studies/American Studies and his A.B from Cornell
University, Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope]

Perverse juxtapositions structure our relation to the Political. This becomes even more apparent and
problematic when we consider the position of blacks within this structuring.1 On the one hand, our Declaration of Independence
proclaims, All men are created equal, and yet black captives were fractioned in this political arithmetic as three-fifths of this man.
The remainder, the two-fifths, gets lost within the arithmetic shuffle of commerce and mercenary prerogatives. We, of course, hoped
that the Reconstruction Amendments would correct this arithmetical error and finally provide an ontological equation, or an
existential variable, that would restore fractured and fractioned [End Page 215] black being. This did not happen. Black humanity
became somewhat of an imaginary number in this equation, purely speculative and nice in theory but difficult to actualize or
translate into something tangible. Poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, and extra-legal and legal violence made a mockery of
the 14th Amendment, and the convict leasing system turned the 13th Amendment inside out for blacks. Yet, we
approach
this political perversity with a certain apodictic certainty and incontrovertible hope that things will
(and do) get better. The Political, we are told, provides the material or substance of our hope; it is within
the Political that we are to find, if we search with vigilance and work tirelessly, the answer to the
ontological equation hard work , suffering , and diligence will restore the fractioned three-
fifths with its alienated two-fifths and, finally, create One that we can include in our declaration
that All men are created equal. We are still awaiting this event. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. placed great
emphasis on the restoration of black being through suffering and diligence in his sermon The American Dream (1965): And I would
like to say to you this morning what Ive tried to say all over this nation, what I believe firmly: that in seeking to make the dream a
reality we must use and adopt a proper method. Im more convinced than ever before that violence is impractical and immoralwe
need not hate; we need not use violence. We can stand up against our most violent opponent and say: we will match your capacity to
inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we
will still love youwe will go to in those jails and transform them from dungeons of shame to havens of freedom and human dignity.
Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities after night and drag us out on some wayside road and beat us and
leave us half dead, and as difficult as it is, we will still love you. [T]hreaten our children and bomb our churches, and as difficult as
it is, we will still love you. But be assured that we will ride you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we will win our freedom, but
we will not only win it for ourselves, we will so appeal to your hearts and conscience that we will win you in the process. And our
victory will be double. The
American dream, then, is realized through black suffering . It is the
humiliated, incarcerated, mutilated, and terrorized black body that serves as the
vestibule for the Democracy that is to come. In fact, it almost becomes impossible to think the
Political without black suffering . According to this logic, corporeal fracture engenders ontological
coherence, in a political arithmetic saturated with violence. Thus, nonviolence is a misnomer, or
somewhat of a ruse. Black-sacrifice is necessary to achieve the American dream and its promise of coherence, progress, and equality.
We find similar logic in the contemporary moment. Renisha McBride, Jordon Davis, Kody
Ingham, Amadou Diallo, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, Frederick Jermain Carter, Chavis Carter,
Timothy Stansbury, Hadiya Pendleton, Oscar Grant, Sean Bell, Kendrec McDade, Trayvon
Martin, and Mike Brown, among others, constitute a fatal rupture of the Political; these
signifiers, stained in blood, refuse the closure that the Political promises. They haunt
political discourses of progress, betterment, equality, citizenship, and justicethe
metaphysical organization of social existence. We are witnessing a shocking accumulation
of injured and mutilated black bodies, particularly young black bodies, which place what seems to be an
unanswerable question mark in the political field: if we are truly progressing toward this society-that-is-to-come (maybe), why is
black suffering increasing at such alarming rates? In response to this inquiry, we
are told to keep struggling, keep
hope alive, and keep the faith. After George Zimmerman was acquitted for murdering Trayvon Martin, President
Obama addressed the nation and importuned us to keep fighting for change because each successive generation seems to be making
progress in changing attitudes toward race and, if we work hard enough, we will move closer to becoming a more perfect union.
Despite Martins corpse lingering in the minds of young people and Zimmermans smile of relief after the verdict, we are told that
things are actually getting better. Supposedly, the generation that murdered Trayvon Martin and Renisha McBride is much better
than the generation that murdered Emmett Till. Black suffering, here, is instrumentalized to accomplish
pedagogical, cathartic, and redemptive objectives and, somehow, the growing number of
dead black bodies in the twenty-first century is an indication of our progress toward
perfection. Is perfection predicated on black death? How many more [End Page 217] black bodies must be lynched,
mutilated, burned, castrated, raped, dismembered, shot, and disabled before we achieve this more perfect union? In many ways,
black suffering and death become the premiere vehicles of political perfection and social
maturation. This essay argues that the logic of the Political linear temporality , bio-political futurity ,
perfection , betterment , and redresssustains black suffering . Progress and perfection are worked through
the pained black body and any recourse to the Political and its discourse of hope will ultimately reproduce
the very metaphysical structures of violence that pulverize black being. This piece attempts to
rescue black nihilism from discursive and intellectual obliteration; rather than thinking about black
nihilism as a set of pathologies in need of treatment, this essay considers black nihilism a necessary

philosophical posture capable of unraveling the Political and its devastating logic of political
hope . Black nihilism resists emancipatory rhetoric that assumes it is possible to purge the
Political of anti-black violence and advances political apostasy as the only ethical
response to black suffering .

We will defend grassroots movements as a net better way to tackle issues based on race
because inculcating spiritual hope in bottom up activism is the only way to deconstruct
ruses of progressivism. We defend the BPP schooling model as a model of schooling system
for Blacks
Drummond 16 (Tammerlin Drummond a reporter for East Bay Culture, had many investigation and
articles on race, sexism and the education system Black Panther school a legend in its time
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/10/06/black-panther-school-ahead-of-its-time/ R.N)
OAKLAND What does the inside of a slave ship look like? An inquisitive fourth-grader posed the question in his class at Oakland Community
School. The teacher instructed the children to lay on their backs on the carpet hip to hip and place their heads between the knees of the person
behind them. He had the students hold the pose for less than a minute then asked how it made them feel. How did women have their babies?
a former
the children asked. Why did they enslave just Africans? Then, without missing a beat, what time is lunch? Ericka Huggins,
director of the Oakland Community School, says that story is an example of the innovative teaching
that turned children from poor and marginalized communities who so often fall through the cracks in
public school into eager scholars. Opened in 1973, the Black Panther school was an oasis in an impoverished East Oakland
neighborhood until 1982 when the party collapsed and it closed. We called it a model for education that was replicable
anywhere, said Huggins, a former Panther Party leader who is a professor in the Peralta Community College District. The Intercommunal
Youth Institute was renamed Oakland Community School when the party purchased a church property at 61st and International Boulevard to
house the campus. The new space could accommodate 150 students and OCS began accepting kids ages 2 1/2 to 11 whose guardians werent
Panthers, as well as the offspring of party members. Most of the students and their teachers were black though there were
also a few whites, Latinos and Asians. Betty Jo Reuben, was a single mother who lived in the neighborhood, working and going to school to
become a medical assistant. She was not a member of the Black Panther Party, but enrolled her son Tim, 5 and daughter Kesha 2, in OCS
because she wanted them to learn about black history. My
children grew up feeling proud of being black instead of
feeling like it was a curse like a lot of children, Reuben said. OCS was administered by the Educational Opportunities
Corporation, a non-profit set up by the party. Tuition was mostly free. The school held radiothons and other fundraisers to help cover operating
costs, headlined by entertainers such as Sheila E. It also received government funding. Children were fed three meals a day.
Betty Joe Reuben is photographed at the East Bay Times studio in Oakland, Calif., on Thursday, Sept. 29, 2016. Reuben was a parent who had
two kids in the Oakland Community School, the black panther liberation school.(Laura A. Oda/Bay Area News Group) The
alternative
school grew out of No. 5 in the Black Panther Partys Ten Point Program, which called for educating black and poor
people about their true history in the United States. Yet the mission was broader than indoctrinating the next
generation into the Black Panther ideology, historians say. The real focus was to teach children to be critical thinkers
and problem solvers. To think of ways to make their community better, said Kimberly Mayfield Lynch chair of the
Education Department at Holy Names University in Oakland. The OCS philosophy was that the classroom extended beyond the school grounds.
Teresa Williams remembers going on a field trip to Oakland airport. The children were ushered onto a plane. They were told to take a seat,
fasten their seatbelt and visualize a place they wanted to visit. Then, promise themselves that they would go. I said I would go to Antarctica
and to Ghana to see the Door of No Return and I did, said Williams, 50, now a geology professor at Merritt College. They taught us to see
yourself in the future doing what you want to do and just know that the future hasnt caught up with you yet. M. Gayle (Asali) Dickson, who
had been an artist for the Black Panther Party newspaper, taught pre-school. She took her class to Coit Tower in San Francisco to see Diego
Riveras murals about working class struggles. They might have been only 2 but they saw the pictures and kind of got the idea, Dickson said.
Former Black Panther artist M. Gayle Asali Dickson is photographed with copies of the Black Panther newspaper containing some of her
drawings at the former Black Panther Party Office #4, at 1048 Peralta Street in West Oakland, Calif., on Thursday, Sept. 29, 2016. Dickson
worked out of the office as an artist for the Panther's newspaper. (Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group) The world also came to the school. Civil
Rights icon Rosa Parks, poet Maya Angelou, writer James Baldwin, labor leader Cesar Chavez all paid visits. OCS
also got involved in
students lives outside the classroom. One student was chronically late because he was helping his mother shoot heroin,
according to Elaine Brown, executive director of Educational Opportunities Corporation. We told her we got your 8-year-old son and were
putting him in our dorm, said Brown a former head of the Panther Party. Well see you later when you get out of rehab. And if you call the
police, well tell them what you were doing to your son. The guiding principle was that children would be taught how and not what to
think. They were assigned to classes, usually with 10 students or less, based upon their ability, rather than age. There was poetry writing, math,
science, Spanish, history and current events. Martial arts, meditation and yoga. A child who was cutting up might be sent outside to stand in
tree pose until he had calmed down. A student advisory board meted out discipline to fellow students who misbehaved. The
OCS
students performed on average better than their Oakland Unified peers on standardized tests. In 1976,
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors gave the school a glowing commendation. Here is this group that was presenting this really strident
view of the world carrying guns and going into public places and I was really happy to see them take a different tact, said Berkeley Mayor Tom
Bates, who was a county supervisor at the time. Then in 1977, 10 years after armed Black Panthers marched on the state capitol to protest the
repeal of the Mulford Act, lawmakers had a ceremony recognizing OCS for its highly effective service in educating children in the community of
Oakland. Saturu Ned, (formerly James Mott) a party member who taught at OCS, was in the group with Panther cofounder Huey
Newton and OCS students who addressed lawmakers. It was amazing, Ned said. I have never seen anything like it where you had
Republicans and Democrats on their feet, applauding. But by the late 70s, the party was disintegrating. State investigators and the FBI alleged
financial misconduct in the partys use of government grants awarded for OCS programs. Erratic behavior by party leadership led to an exodus
of school staff. Toward the end, paranoia and addiction and all these things that were the problem with people outside the school impacted
everything, Huggins said. In that last year it was obvious even though I hung in there until the last minute, that I needed to go. Yet the
schools legacy endures in the many students whose lives were touched. Some would not manage to navigate the minefields in their
neighborhoods prostitution, drugs, prison and violent death. But others would become doctors, teachers, writers, entertainers, and open
community-based nonprofits. Gregory Lewis, 46, says the mentoring he got at Oakland Community School taught him the importance of being
The little
involved in the lives of his three children, two of them young adults and one teen. His teachers encouraged him to ask questions.
boy who asked what the inside of a slave ship looked like is now an attorney. I think more times than not, a
young kid born in East Oakland in 1970 to a 17-year-old single mother doesnt experience all of that, Lewis said.
 OFF
Text: All relevant sub-national entities and the 50 states should curtail zero tolerance
policies and other harsh disciplinary measures in all secondary and elementary
education.

Politics is fundamentally corrupt and is built upon a neo-fascist regimerefuse to

legitimize itchange under Trumps government is impossibleleads to violence
Henry A. Giroux 2017, Giroux holds the Global Television Network Chair in Communication Studies at McMaster University, Ontario. He is
the author of many books, including Americas Addiction to Terrorism, Trumps America, May 1, https://kanaanonline.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/monthlyreview.org-Trumps-America.pdf

With the rise of Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States, politics has descended , like never before, to a
theater of the absurd. Unbridled anti-intellectualism, deception, and vindictive chaos offer the rhetorical
tools for repeating elements of a morally reprehensible past in the guise of making America great again. Advancing
an aggressively alarmist agenda bolstered by alternative facts, the Trump administration has unleashed a type of anti-
politics that unburdens people of any responsibility to challenge, let alone collectively transform, the
fundamental precepts of a society torn asunder by blatant misogyny, massive inequality, open
bigotry, and violence against immigrants, Muslims, and poor minorities of color.1 In the new age of Trump, justice becomes the enemy
of democratic leadership, and the capacity to name this collectively agreed upon reality recedes with each assertion of fakery in infinite
repetition. When evidence, science, and reason are purged of their legitimacy, politics capitulates to the
venomous ideals, policies, and practices one associates with a totalitarian past . Cast into a political,
existential, and ethical crisis in which it now finds itself immersed, the United States mimics a failed
state as the credibility of its democratic institutions and the trustworthiness of its leadership are called into question on the global stage.
Despite his populist posturing, Trumps contempt of democratic processes is matched by his commitment to the
market and economic policies that favor the financial elite. In short, as the Washington Post observed, Trump is a
unique threat to democracy, and a triumph for the forces of nativism, racism, and misogyny.2 Trumps ascendancy in U.S. politics has made
visible a plague of deep seated civic illiteracy, a corrupt political system, and a contempt for reason that has been decades in the making; it also
points to the withering of civic attachments, the decline of public life, and the use of violence and fear to shock and numb everyday people.
Galvanizing his base of true-believers in post-election rallies, the country witnesses how politics is
transformed into a spectacle of fear, divisions, and disinformation . Under President Trump the scourge of
has returned as neo-fascism , not only in the menacing plague of populist rallies, fear-
twentieth-century fascism
mongering, hate, and humiliation, but also in an emboldened culture of war, militarization, and violence that looms
over society like a rising storm.
 OFF

States leading now in educationplan destroys the Republic and notion of

decentralization
Roberts, PhD, Executive Vice President of TPPF, 17
(Kevin D., States, Not the Feds, Should Lead Education Reform,
http://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2017/02/07/states_not_the_feds_should_lead_education
_reform__110115.html)

The era of Donald Trump offers conservative reformers opportunities they have not seen since the 1980s. The
most significant are in education, where the federal government has aggrandized its power, rendering
states impotent. This overreach comes at the expense of two things very dear to the nationour
schoolchildren and our understanding of shared power. Though the Trump administration will no doubt address the
former problem, its means of doing so may very well exacerbate the latter. Too often, well-intentioned, conservative executives
end up using federal power to heal the wounds caused by the very same bludgeonfederal power. If President
Trump is correct in his inaugural exhortation that now is the hour of action, then statesnot federal bureaucratsneed

to lead the charge on education policy. Among the many problems facing American education, the most significant may be our
schools and colleges utter failure to teach civic education. Two generations of American students have been taught precious little about the
American Founding or the Constitution, let alone the philosophical foundation of the American system of governmentfederalism. That
notion of shared power between the federal government and states has, as a result, withered. How fitting,
then, that Texaswhere the American spirit of independence, work ethic, freedom and a vibrant
notion of state power is palpabletake the lead in renewing federalism. And how fitting that it do so in the
policy area where revitalized state power is most needed: education. During the otherwise-bleak years of the
previous administration, the Lone Star State has shined as a beacon of liberty, deregulation and restrained government authority. Harkening to
Justice Louis Brandeis's early-20th-century comment that states are the laboratories of democracy, Texas-based initiatives have
sprouted across the nation. It's no Texan braggadocio to observe that nationwide, efforts in tort reform, deregulation, tax reduction
and criminal justice reform originated in Texas. The resulting Texas Model has become the blueprint for leaders in
dozens of states. And that is precisely how our system should work . Though we are all familiar with the legitimate
claims based on state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment, our Founders viewed those as mere baseline expectations. In the realm of public
policy, they
saw the states as taking the initiative, being so bold and innovative that the federal
government would have to serve as a check on themnot the other way around, as the case has been in
recent years. As the Obama administration would be the first to say, Texas has led those efforts to check federal power. That defensive posture
was necessaryand, for the Republic, crucial. But now Texas
and other states must seize the field of education policy,
exercising their own power with bold policy initiatives. The timing for Texas policymakers is perfect. The state's biennial
legislative session has just begun, and the momentum for an education overhaul has never been stronger. At the National School Choice Week
rally earlier this week, both Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick gave rousing, full-throated endorsements of school choice reforms. There
are obstacles, to be sure, but even the defenders of the status quo recognize that it's hard to defend the mediocrity of the status quo. Among
the many school choice vehicles, the most far-reachingfor Texas and the United Statesis an Education Savings Account (ESA). Built on the
successes of early choice vehicles such as tax-credit scholarships, ESAs offer wider and easier usage, removing the barriers to access that have
been foisted on choice programs by opponents. Parents may use an ESA to pay for a host of education-related expenses, including private
school tuition, tutoring, special needs programs and books. In sum, an ESA gives parents an unprecedented means for customizing their childs
educationthe exact opposite of the conveyor-belt, cookie-cutter approach that has become modern American education. Though some
reformers have advocated for federal ESAs, the inefficiency inherent in the large federal bureaucracy begs for
states to take the lead . Texas, the most populous state with a bent toward conservative, free-market reforms, has a unique
opportunity to show that states, as our Founders expected, can be at the forefront of policy innovation. There could
not be more at stake. Our children deserve an end to zip-code discrimination, which dramatically limits their access to decent
educational options. Furthermore, the civic health of our American Republicin particular, the long-standing

view that states, not the feds, would leadhangs in the balance.

Education regulations directly spill over to environmental law

Jonathon WOOD et al. 16 Counsel of Record, Pacific Legal Foundation, Amicus Brief for Christie v. NCAA, November,
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%2015-356%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

The Third Circuits narrow interpretation of the anti-commandeering doctrine could impact far more than sports gambling. It creates a
significant loophole in the doctrine that would allow the federal government to overextend its constitutional authority. This
could
fundamentally alter the relationship between the federal government and the states. For instance, the
federal government could compel states to continue implementing education policies well after they have proven
unpopular. Previously, the need to convince states to cooperate has given them significant leverage to
influence federal policy. See Young, supra at 1074-75 (explaining that state resistence to federal education policy forced a federal
agency to change its requirements). If, once adopted, the federal government could compel states to continue to
implement particular policies, the political consequences could be far reaching . The federal government could
dictate curricula or testing requirements in those states that previously embraced the federal policy. But see Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717,
741-42 (1974) (recognizing education as an area of traditional state and local control). It could also require states to continue enforcing
their current bathroom policies, whatever those may be. Cf. G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), cert.
granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016). Limiting the anti-commandeering doctrine could also have severe repercussions in
environmental policy . Federal-state cooperation on environmental regulation is particularly useful
because states have greater local knowledge and more available enforcement officers . See Richard B.
Stewart, Pyramids of Sacrifice? Problems of Federalism in Mandating State Implementation of National Environmental Policy, 86 Yale L.J. 1196,
1243-50 (1977). But if
the federal government could indefinitely impose its will on states after they initially agree,
that would threaten these cooperative federalism arrangements, with far reaching affects. Cf. Robert V.
Percival, Environmental Federalism: Historical Roots and Contemporary Models, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1141, 1174 (1995). The decision below invites
these problems. For instance, if the
federal government used its spending power to entice a state to adopt federal policy as its own, it
could then forbid the state from ever changing its policy . When the state cried foul, the federal government could respond that,
despite all appearances, the state isnt being commandeered because it was not compelled to adopt the policy originally. See N.C.A.A., 832 F.3d at 401-02.
Obviously, a state would be extremely wary to cooperate in implementing federal environmental policy if it knows that, once it does, it may be permanently giving
up its sovereignty. Cf. Stewart, supra at 1243-50. That
would make cooperative federalism arrangements far more
treacherous, not only undermining federalism but also the policy goals that these arrangements
advance.

Decentralized model solves warming

Balme, Professor at the Paris School of International Affairs, 14
(Richard, Multi-Level Governance and the Environment: Intergovernmental Relations and Innovation in
Environmental Policy, Environmental Policy and Governance, Volume 24, Issue 3)

evolution, initiated in the 1970s and accelerated thereafter, occurred in parallel with the introduction of
It is also worth noting that this

environmental policy and politics, under the joint pressure of industrialization and urbanization. Developed and then developing countries created protection agencies or ministries, and
 Decentralization is often seen as a condition for the
initiated a whole body of legislation, jurisprudence and regulation specifically devoted to the environment.

political system's capacity for environmental policy , as it allows for the introduction of environmental

institutions at the different levels of the state (Weidner and Jnicke, 2002). While the early measures of the 1970s and 1980s were primarily framed under the concept of
environment conservation, interactions with other policy sectors such as agriculture, industry, health and energy intensified quickly, and the initial set of policy values evolved towards sustainable development, and more recently
towards management of the earth ecosystem with climate change policies. Undoubtedly, these cognitive changes have been progressive and remain unevenly distributed across countries and policy subsystems. Nevertheless,
during each of these transformative phases, relations between levels of government intensified. National authorities usually negotiate international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol or the United States/Canada acid rain treaty.
They also set environmental standards and enforce them upon subnational governments. However, in the European case, the European Union (EU) institutions rather than member states play a fundamental role in negotiating
these agreements and in defining environmental norms. The competencies of states in federal governments widely vary, for instance between the United States and the EU (Vogel et al., 2005) or between the United States and
Canada where provinces rather than the federal government define standards for air or water quality. Local governments such as counties and municipalities usually operate refuse collection and recycling, decide upon land-use
zoning, transportation planning and construction, and often manage local natural resources such as wild forests, groundwater or coastal areas. Because of this variance in the distribution of legal competencies, these centrallocal

relations are anything but simple. In the United States, policies addressing climate change adopted by the federal
government remain comparatively limited . This does not preclude significant policy initiatives at the state level,
but their coordination remains at best partial , and contributes to limit their effectiveness . In the EU, the role of
European integration, and in particular of the Commission and the European Court of Justice, in promoting environmental policies in the member states has been widely reported (Kelemen, 2000; Krmer, 2005; Andonova and
VanDeveer, 2012). However, the environment is also one major policy area where the implementation deficit of EU legislation remains important. In China, observers of environmental policy regularly emphasize the
implementation gap between legislation and agenda setting at the national level, and the realities of environment protection in provinces and localities. In all three cases centrallocal relations are identified as critical aspects of

environmental policy design and implementation. Decentralization is also regularly advocated by evaluation studies of
environmental policies (FAO, 2002; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009; Rodrigo et al., 2009), and part of the policy packages
associated with good governance prescriptions (Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). However, we do not have a clear understanding, if not a theory, of the structural
constraints imposed by different types of centrallocal relations on environmental policy. Nor do we properly comprehend how changes in territorial arrangements impact on the capacity for adjustment and innovation in
environmental policy. Finally, we also need to better explore how the dynamics of environmental policy, with its new political conflicts and policy instruments, creates new incentives and opportunities for revising the territorial
arrangements of public policy. The Environmental Implications of Territorial Arrangements: Disentangling the Conundrum Territorial arrangements may impact the environment in several ways. Oates (1972), in his foundational

study, argued that central governments are confronted with difficulties in providing optimal local variation in policy stringency. By contrast, decentralization allows jurisdictions to
control for their own pollution levels. They may therefore be tempted to engage in a race to the bottom in environmental regulation, to protect industrial interests and to attract ingoing investments,
lowering general environmental quality. The level of transboundary pollutants in particular is expected to be higher under decentralization, as jurisdictions can easily free-ride on each other in that case. In the same vein of
theoretical economics, Baumol and Oates (1988: 284) explore the theoretical foundations for the decentralization of environmental policy. They point to the need for centralized decision-making as well as for decentralized
participation in the setting of environmental standards. They argue that the competition for jobs between localities can be consistent with Pareto-optimal levels of environmental quality. Nevertheless, excessive environmental

the empirical effects of

degradation can easily result from regions or localities engaging in rent-seeking measures to attract capital. In parallel with this normative literature,

decentralization on environmental outcomes are increasingly documented . Most studies are national and
US-based (List and Gerking, 2000; Millimet, 2003; Cutter and DeShazo, 2007). Sigman (2007), using a cross-country database and measuring levels of a local and
regional pollutant, finds greater interjuristictional variation in pollution in federal than in non-federal
countries. Her analysis supports the traditional view that decentralization allows for policies better suited for
local conditions . However, she does not conclude upon a race to the bottom in pollution levels. Most studies analysing
processes of environmental policy rather than mere pollution outcomes reach more complex and ambivalent conclusions (Young et al., 2008; Paavola et al., 2009). Indeed, the precise influence of territorial arrangements is hard to
identify for three major reasons. First, variations in the institutional structures of the state and in the effective design of intergovernmental relations are both significant and complex. They include constitutional, fiscal,
administrative and socio-political aspects, which are not always and not necessarily convergent, especially when intermediary cases are considered. Therefore, the idea of classifying the wide range of situations in the territorial
organization of the state under a simple typology or along a single continuum is not as easy, nor as appropriate, as it may seem. Secondly, these territorial arrangements do not operate in a vacuum, but are embedded within other
institutional structures such as the parliamentary, presidential or authoritarian type, or the regime, extent of welfare redistribution, class and cultural structure of the population, and configuration of the ecosystem formed by the
urban network. Finally, environmental policy itself is a rather composite category, and a given territorial arrangement may not have a similar influence on the provision of different environmental goods, for instance on the
conservation of local biodiversity and on the deployment of renewable energy. Territorial autonomy is in particular likely to favour NIMBY (Not in my backyard) types of mobilization, whereby residents oppose local negative
externalities associated with decision-making. Such mobilizations are often able to limit the implantation of polluting industries or constructions. But localities also regularly resist to the creation of natural reserves or energy
policies when they impose constraints on local business and industries. Isolating empirically the net impact of centralperiphery relations on the different aspects of environmental policy will definitely require further and more
detailed research and investigation. To advance in that direction we can start by considering these potential effects under a simple analytical dichotomy between conditions of pure forms of centralization versus federalism. Under
centralization, concentration of powers on the top level of government is extreme, and we assume that the central government has a monopoly over environmental legislation and agenda setting, that it collects taxes, controls
public expenditures, and ensures homogeneity of regulation and provides for redistribution across local governments. Local governments are placed in a position of implementing the policy defined at the central level.

Under federalism, by contrast, legislation, taxing and spending are shared competencies between the federal government and lower-tier
levels alternatively called states, regions or provinces. All of these units benefit from their constitution and from the capacity to

adopt their own legislation , at least in some policy areas. We consider federalism analytically as the most extreme case of decentralization, the one in which territorial governments have the
largest degree of discretion and power vis--vis the central government. In such a case policy is co-determined and alternatively or jointly implemented by the two levels of government. A powerful constitutional court exerts
judicial review to regulate the discrepancies and divergences in policy orientations likely to develop in such a system. For unitary decentralized systems, local and regional governments have some limited room for policy initiative
and some discretionary power over public spending, within the limits set by national legislation. When the environment is considered, centralization ensures the unity of legislation and regulation across territories, and the
consistency of environmental policy with international engagements. Normative consistency has some advantages, including clarity in policy design, a principle of equality in access to environmental goods, and the capacity for
central government to implement policy without bargaining with sub-national units. At first sight it allows the government to escape the principalagent relation coming with federalism or decentralization. In the theory of
collective action (Olson, 1965), a centralized distribution of authority provides a solution to the problems of cooperation and coordination in public goods provision among multiple actors. Centralization therefore seems more

adequate than federalism to provide global environmental goods, such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. Nevertheless, centralization also has some corresponding limitations :
little reactivity to local circumstances, a limited capacity for innovation through local
experimentation, and a strict dependence on state bureaucracies and top-down processes for
implementation. In a pure centralized system, the principalagent problem at the origin of the implementation gap is in a way translated from the relations between different levels of government to the
relation between the government and public administration. The bureaucracy in charge of environmental protection may be more immune than local governments to the pressure of local interests. However, it may not be as
powerful as needed within the state apparatus to impose environmental policy to ministries such as construction, transportation, energy or agriculture, usually benefiting from strong networks and connections at the local level.

Therefore, in the case of conflicting priorities, implementation of environmental policy is not necessarily more effective with centralization. Environmental policy development
under a strictly centralized policy-design may be limited by four kinds of factors: (1) the hostility or lack of political will
on environmental issues by the central government; (2) the reluctance or absence of proper incentives for local or regional governments in implementing the policy;
(3) a shortage in state capacities in the policy subsystem, e.g. regarding legislation, budgeting and staffing of environmental policy, and the lack of political clout of environmental bureaucracy with regard to other stakeholders such

as firms, labour unions, local leaders and other ministries; and (4) a deficit of compliance mechanisms , including controlling , monitoring ,
reporting , information disclosure , evaluation , sanctioning and litigation . By contrast, in a federal system, elected territorial
governments have the capacity to issue environmental legislations and regulations, and are directly in
charge of their implementation . Territorial governments are in principle dependent on their local constituencies and are therefore more likely
to be responsive to local environmental circumstances , such as relating to water quality, air quality or the preservation of natural areas. This, however,
presupposes that citizens are indeed affected and sensitive to these issues. If they have green preferences, or if they are significantly exposed to environmental damages or risks, there is a case for decentralization as improving

Local leaders are therefore probably in a better position than remote national
policy responsiveness. Obviously, place matters for the quality of environment.

legislators to marshal compromises among social interests vested in environmental policy-making. Similarly,
local bureaucracies may be better skilled and motivated to develop policy innovations in cooperation
with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society's organizations, and better able to contribute to the provision
of local environmental goods . When costs are internalized within territorial jurisdictions, local institutions may therefore facilitate the bottom-
up emergence of self-governing arrangements managing common resources (Ostrom, 1990).

Extinction and outweighs everything

Torres 16 affiliate scholar @ Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (Phil, PhD candidate @
Rice University in tropical conservation biology, Op-ed: Climate Change Is the Most Urgent Existential
Risk, http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/Torres20160807)

Humanity faces a number of formidable challenges this century. Threats to our collective survival stem from asteroids and
comets, supervolcanoes, global pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss, nuclear weapons, biotechnology, synthetic biology,
nanotechnology, and artificial superintelligence. With such threats in mind, an informal survey conducted by the Future of Humanity Institute placed the probability of human extinction this
century at 19%. To put this in perspective, it means that the average American is more than a thousand times more likely to die in a human extinction event than a plane crash.* So, given
limited resources, which risks should we prioritize? Many intellectual leaders, including Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates, have suggested that artificial superintelligence constitutes

one of the most significant risks to humanity. And this may be correct in the long-term. But I would argue that two other risks, namely climate change and biodiveristy loss,
should take priority right now over every other known threat . Why? Because these ongoing catastrophes in
slow-motion will frame our existential predicament on Earth not just for the rest of this century, but for literally thousands of
years to come. As such, they have the capacity to raise or lower the probability of other risks scenarios
unfolding. Multiplying Threats Ask yourself the following: are wars more or less likely in a world marked by extreme
weather events , megadroughts , food supply disruptions , and sea-level rise ? Are terrorist attacks more
or less likely in a world beset by the collapse of global ecosystems , agricultural failures , economic
uncertainty , and political instability? Both government officials and scientists agree that the answer is more likely. For example,
the current Director of the CIA, John Brennan, recently identified the impact of climate change as one of the deeper causes of

this rising instability in countries like Syria , Iraq , Yemen , Libya , and Ukraine . Similarly, the former Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel,
has described climate change as a threat multiplier with the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today from
infectious disease to terrorism. The Department of Defense has also affirmed a connection. In a 2015 report, it states, Global climate change will aggravate

problems such as poverty , social tensions , environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions

that threaten stability in a number of countries. Scientific studies have further shown a connection between the environmental crisis and violent conflicts. For example, a
2015 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that climate change was a causal factor behind the record-breaking 2007-2010 drought in Syria. This drought led to
a mass migration of farmers into urban centers, which fueled the 2011 Syrian civil war. Some observers, including myself, have suggested that this struggle could be the beginning of World
War III, given the complex tangle of international involvement and overlapping interests. The studys conclusion is also significant because the Syrian civil war was the Petri dish in which the

Islamic State consolidated its forces, later emerging as the largest and most powerful terrorist organization in human history. A Perfect Storm The point is that climate change and
biodiversity loss could very easily push societies to the brink of collapse
mkd

. This will exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions and introduce entirely new power struggles between
state and nonstate actors. At the same time, advanced technologies will very likely become increasingly powerful and accessible. As Ive written elsewhere, the malicious agents of the future
will have bulldozers rather than shovels to dig mass graves for their enemies. The result is a perfect storm of more conflicts in the world along with unprecedentedly dangerous weapons. If the
conversation were to end here, wed have ample reason for placing climate change and biodiversity loss at the top of our priority lists. But there are other reasons they ought to be considered
urgent threats. I would argue that they could make humanity more vulnerable to a catastrophe involving superintelligence and even asteroids. The basic reasoning is the same for both cases.
Consider superintelligence first. Programming a superintelligence whose values align with ours is a formidable task even in stable circumstances. As Nick Bostrom argues in his 2014 book, we
should recognize the default outcome of superintelligence to be doom. Now imagine trying to solve these problems amidst a rising tide of interstate wars, civil unrest, terrorist attacks, and
other tragedies? The societal stress caused by climate change and biodiversity loss will almost certainly compromise important conditions for creating friendly AI, such as sufficient funding,
academic programs to train new scientists, conferences on AI, peer-reviewed journal publications, and communication/collaboration between experts of different fields, such as computer
science and ethics. It could even make an AI arms race more likely, thereby raising the probability of a malevolent superintelligence being created either on purpose or by mistake. Similarly,

imagine that astronomers discover a behemoth asteroid barreling toward Earth. Will designing, building, and launching a spacecraft to divert the assassin past our planet
be easier or more difficult in a world preoccupied with other survival issues? In a relatively peaceful world, one could imagine an asteroid

actually bringing humanity together by directing our attention toward a common threat. But if the

conflict multipliers of climate change and biodiversity loss have already catapulted civilization into chaos and
turmoil, I strongly suspect that humanity will become more, rather than less, susceptible to dangers of this sort. Context Risks We can describe the

dual threats of climate change and biodiversity loss as context risks. Neither is likely to directly cause the extinction of our species. But both will define the context

in which civilization confronts all the other threats before us. In this way, they could indirectly contribute to the
overall danger of annihilation and this worrisome effect could be significant. For example, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
effects of climate change will be severe, pervasive, and irreversible. Or, as a 2016 study published in Nature and authored by over twenty scientists puts it, the consequences of climate
change will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far. Furthermore, a recent article in Science Advances confirms that humanity has already escorted the biosphere

another study suggests that we could be approaching a

into the sixth mass extinction event in lifes 3.8 billion year history on Earth. Yet

sudden, irreversible , catastrophic collapse of the global ecosystem . If this were to occur, it could result in widespread social unrest, economic
instability and loss of human life. Given the potential for environmental degradation to elevate the likelihood of
nuclear wars , nuclear terrorism , engineered pandemics , a superintelligence takeover , and perhaps even an
impact winter , it ought to take precedence over all other risk concerns at least in the near-term. Lets make sure we get our
priorities straight.
 OFF
Gerrymandering gets struck down now
Greenblat, Staff Writer, 9/13/2017
Alan, Will the U.S. Supreme Court Take a Stand Against Partisan Gerrymandering?
http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-supreme-court-wisconsin-gerrymandering.html

The U.S.
One of the most time-honored and criticized traditions in American politics is for the party in power to draw legislative districts in ways that help keep them in power.

Supreme Court, though, may soon outlaw at least the most blatant partisan gerrymandering . On Oct. 3, the nation's
highest court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging Wisconsin's state legislative districts. Plaintiffs
complain that the map unfairly protects Republican lawmakers from partisan competition. A lower court agreed with that argument last November. "This could be a huge

case if the justices strike down Wisconsin's partisan gerrymander," says Joshua Douglas, a law professor at the University of Kentucky.
"That will show that there are some limits to partisan gerrymandering." The last time the Supreme Court heard a partisan gerrymandering case, in 2004's

Vieth v. Jubelirer, the justices were divided. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that there could be such a thing as an

unconstitutional partisan gerrymander -- but only if the courts had a "workable standard" for
determining when partisans had crossed that line. The Wisconsin case, known as Whitford v. Gill, represents an
attempt to come up with such a standard . To prove their argument that partisan gerrymandering in the state exceeded what's constitutional, the
plaintiffs used a new political science measurement known as the efficiency gap, which looks at how
votes translate into victories. According to this argument, all votes cast for a losing candidate and any votes for the winner beyond what was needed to win are
considered wasted. If too many districts have lopsided outcomes (where the party that drew the map wasted significantly fewer votes), the argument goes, that shows that

the party that drew the map sought to game the system, creating districts that are totally safe for one party or the other and diluting its
strength in neighboring districts. Plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case used the efficiency gap to show that Wisconsin's Assembly map -- as measured by results in the 2012 elections -- was roughly
three times more inefficient than the average legislature's. Democrats actually won a majority of the overall vote in Wisconsin's legislative contests in 2012 but came away with only 39 of the
Assembly's 99 seats. "Basically, it didn't matter what we did in an election," says Sachin Chheda, a Democratic consultant in Milwaukee who directs the Fair Elections Project, which organized
and launched the Whitford lawsuit. "We could get more votes, but there was no path to a majority in the legislature." That's because regardless of how the total vote breaks out, what matters
is winning by district, says Matt Walter, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which helps elect GOP state officials nationwide. "The redistricting process in and of itself is
inherently political and was designed as such at the founding," Walter says. "It was designed to have accountable elected officials take the actions of adjusting districts based on population
growth." For their part, Wisconsin Republicans have maintained that they didn't draw the maps to punish Democrats. Rather, they note that most Democrats are clustered in Milwaukee or
Madison, while Republican voters are spread out more evenly around the state. Although the issue is almost always divided along partisan lines (depending on which party is in power),

there's growing bipartisan support for putting a stop to partisan gerrymandering. A handful of
prominent Republicans -- including Ohio Gov. John Kasich, U.S. Sen. John McCain and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- urged the
Supreme Court to use the Wisconsin case to establish a standard for measuring partisan
gerrymanders. "The Supreme Court has said before that partisan gerrymandering can be unconstitutional, but basically it doesn't know how to tell when a plan goes too far," says
Annabelle Harless, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, which is working with plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case. "They could adopt the test plaintiffs propose, they could in theory come

plaintiffs in Wisconsin didn't rely exclusively on the efficiency

up with their own standard, or they could say it's not justiciable [not an issue for courts to decide]." Harless notes that the

gap. They demonstrated that Wisconsin legislators acted with partisan intent, namely by unearthing emails

that showed they were putting Democrats at a disadvantage. They also argued that the fact that Democrats tend to live in the state's
major cities wasn't enough to justify the lopsided nature of the Assembly map. The makeup of the Supreme Court has changed

considerably since 2004 -- the last time it took a partisan gerrymandering case -- but the ideological breakdown of justices is expected
to remain the same, with four convinced that partisan gerrymanders are out of bounds and four others
believing the exact opposite. On this question, as in many other cases, Justice Kennedy is expected to remain the
swing vote. "Justice Kennedy's views," says Douglas, the law professor, "are really the whole ballgame."

Plan ruins legitimacy and causes court clog

Farber 6 Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley (Daniel, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 1173, 2006,
lexisnexis)
Few lawyers deny that precedent plays some legitimate role in Supreme Court decisions. 16 Nevertheless, it is instructive [*1177] to consider
the reasons why precedent is so important, how precedent is used, and what the use of precedent tells us about the nature of
constitutional law. Although precedents seem to have special force for the judiciary, consideration of past decisions is important in
other settings. We can divide the reasons for respecting precedent into three groups: (a) those that apply to every decision maker, judicial or
otherwise; (b) those that particularly apply to courts; and (c) those that are especially linked with the nature of constitutional law. 17There are
obvious reasons why any decision maker should consider the views of her predecessors. These reasons apply as much to a low-level officer such
as a school principal as to a Justice or a President. 18 One of these universal justifications is efficiency: it saves time and trouble to rely on
earlier decisions. 19 To reconsider all of our commitments and practices on a daily basis would ensure paralysis. It is
simply
unworkable to leave everything up for grabs all of the time. 20 Imagine if, in every First Amendment case, the lawyers
had to reargue basic questions such as whether the First Amendment applies to the states or whether it covers nonpolitical speech (both of
which have been debated by scholars). Every brief would have to be a treatise, arguing every point of First
Amendment doctrine from scratch . Moreover, different judges could adopt completely different First
Amendment theories , so a lawyer in a case before the Supreme Court might have to write nine different
briefs based on inconsistent theories of the Constitution. Similarly, dialogue between the Justices themselves would be
stymied because they would be operating within different conceptual frameworks. Unless most issues can be regarded as
settled most of the time, coherent discussion is simply impossible . Surely "it would overtax the [*1178]
Court and the country alike to insist ... that everything always must be up for grabs at once." 21

Gerrymandering ruins democracy

Klaas, Washington Post, 2017
Brian, Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to genuine democracy in the United States. So why is no
one protesting? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-
post/wp/2017/02/10/gerrymandering-is-the-biggest-obstacle-to-genuine-democracy-in-the-united-
states-so-why-is-no-one-protesting/?utm_term=.6fd9378f36a8

There is an enormous paradox at the heart of American democracy. Congress is deeply and stubbornly
unpopular. On average, between 10 and 15 percent of Americans approve of Congress on a par with public support for traffic jams and cockroaches. And yet, in the 2016 election, only eight
incumbents eight out of a body of 435 representatives were defeated at the polls. If there is one silver bullet that could fix
American democracy , its getting rid of gerrymandering the now commonplace practice of drawing electoral districts in a distorted way for partisan gain. Its
also one of a dwindling number of issues that principled citizens Democrat and Republican should be able to agree on. Indeed, polls confirm that an overwhelming majority of Americans of all stripes oppose gerrymandering. In

average electoral margin of victory was 37.1 percent. Thats a figure youd expect
the 2016 elections for the House of Representatives, the

from North Korea, Russia or Zimbabwe not the United States. But the shocking reality is that the typical race ended with a
Democrat or a Republican winning nearly 70 percent of the vote, while their challenger won just 30 percent. Last year, only 17 seats out of 435 races
were decided by a margin of 5 percent or less. Just 33 seats in total were decided by a margin of 10 percent or less. In other words, more than 9 out of 10 House races were landslides where the campaign was a foregone conclusion

not healthy for a system of government that, at

before ballots were even cast. In 2016, there were no truly competitive Congressional races in 42 of the 50 states. That is

its core, is defined by political competition. Gerrymandering, in a word, is why American democracy is
broken. The word gerrymander comes from an 1812 political cartoon drawn to parody Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerrys re-drawn senate districts. The cartoon depicts one of the bizarrely shaped districts in
the contorted form of a fork-tongued salamander. Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps,
allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts. While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the ten most gerrymandered districts in
the United States were drawn by Republicans. As a result, districts from the Illinois 4th to the North Carolina 12th often look like spilled inkblots rather than coherent voting blocs. They are anything but accidental. The Illinois 4th,
for example, is nicknamed the Latin Earmuffs, because it connects two predominantly Latino areas by a thin line that is effectively just one road. In so doing, it packs Democrats into a contorted district, ensuring that those voters
cast ballots in a safely Democratic preserve. The net result is a weakening of the power of Latino votes and more Republican districts than the electoral math should reasonably yield. Because Democrats are packed together as

uncompetitive districts have a

tightly as possible in one district, Republicans have a chance to win surrounding districts even though they are vastly outnumbered geographically. These

seriously corrosive effect on the integrity of democracy . If youre elected to represent a district that is
80 percent Republican or 80 percent Democratic, there is absolutely no incentive to compromise. Ever . In fact, there is a
strong disincentive to collaboration, because working across the aisle almost certainly means the risk
of a primary challenge from the far right or far left of the party. For the overwhelming majority of
Congressional representatives, there is no real risk to losing a general election but there is a very real
threat of losing a fiercely contested primary election. Over time, this causes sane people to pursue insane
pandering and extreme positions . It is a key, but often overlooked, source of contemporary gridlock and endless
bickering. Moreover, gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of
powerlessness. In 2010, droves of tea party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative

Those who now oppose President Trump are

Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didnt need to.

quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional
representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already

seems preordained? There are two pieces of good news. First, several court rulings in state and federal courts have dealt a blow to gerrymandered
districts. Several court rulings objected to districts that clearly were drawn along racial lines. Perhaps the most important is a Wisconsin case (Whitford v. Gill) that ruled that

districts could not be drawn for deliberate partisan gain. The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and its a

case that could transform and reinvigorate American democracy at a time when a positive shock is
sorely needed . (This may hold true even if Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, as Justices Kennedy and
Roberts could side with the liberal minority). Second, fixing gerrymandering is getting easier. Given the right parameters, computer models can fairly apportion citizens into
districts that are diverse, competitive and geographically sensible ensuring that minorities are not used as pawns in a national political game. These efforts can be bolstered by stripping district drawing powers from partisan
legislators and putting them into the hands of citizen-led commissions that are comprised by an equal number of Democrat- and Republican-leaning voters. Partisan politics is to be exercised within the districts, not during their
formation. But gerrymandering intensifies every decade regardless, because its not a politically sexy issue. Whens the last time you saw a march against skewed districting? Even if the marches do come someday, the last
stubborn barrier to getting reform right is human nature. Many people prefer to be surrounded by like-minded citizens, rather than feeling like a lonely red oasis in a sea of blue or vice versa. Rooting out gerrymandering wont
make San Francisco or rural Texas districts more competitive no matter the computer model used. And, as the urban/rural divide in American politics intensifies, competitive districts will be harder and harder to draw. The more we

what truly differentiates democracy from despotism is

cluster, the less we find common ground and compromise. Ultimately, though, we must remember that

political competition. The longer we allow our districts to be hijacked by partisans, blue or red, the further we
gravitate away from the founding ideals of our republic and the closer we inch toward the death of
American democracy.

extinction
Kasparov, Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation, 2/16/2017
Garry, Democracy and Human Rights: The Case for U.S. Leadership
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021617_Kasparov_%20Testimony.pdf

There existential threat today is not found on a

The Soviet Union was an existential threat, and this focused the attention of the world, and the American people.

map, but it is very real. The forces of the past are making steady progress against the modern world
order . Terrorist movements in the Middle East, extremist parties across Europe, a paranoid tyrant in
North Korea threatening nuclear blackmail , and, at the center of the web, an aggressive KGB dictator in Russia. They all want to turn
the world back to a dark past because their survival is threatened by the values of the free world,
epitomized by the United States. And they are thriving as the U.S. has retreated. The global freedom index has declined for ten
consecutive years. No one like to talk about the United States as a global policeman, but this is what happens when there is no cop on the beat. American leadership begins at home ,

right here. America cannot lead the world on democracy and human rights if there is no unity on the meaning and
importance of these things . Leadership is required to make that case clearly and powerfully. Right now,
Americans are engaged in politics at a level not seen in decades. It is an opportunity for them to rediscover that making
America great begins with believing America can be great. The Cold War was won on American values
that were shared by both parties and nearly every American. Institutions that were created by a
Democrat, Truman, were triumphant forty years later thanks to the courage of a Republican, Reagan. This bipartisan consistency
created the decades of strategic stability that is the great strength of democracies . Strong institutions
that outlast politicians allow for long-range planning . In contrast, dictators can operate only tactically, not
strategically, because they are not constrained by the balance of powers, but cannot afford to think
beyond their own survival . This is why a dictator like Putin has an advantage in chaos, the ability to move quickly. This can
only be met by strategy, by long-term goals that are based on shared values, not on polls and cable news. The fear of making things worse has paralyzed the United States from trying to make things better. There will always be

setbacks, but the United States cannot quit . The spread of democracy is the only proven remedy for nearly every crisis that
plagues the world today. War, famine, poverty, terrorism all are generated and exacerbated by
authoritarian regimes . A policy of America First inevitably puts American security last. American leadership is required because there is
no one else, and because it is good for America. There is no weapon or wall that is more powerful for security than
America being envied, imitated, and admired around the world . Admired not for being perfect, but for
having the exceptional courage to always try to be better. Thank you
 Framing
Evaluating consequences is key to ethics
David Runciman 17, Politics, Cambridge University, Political Theory and Real Politics in the Age of the
Internet, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 25, Issue 1, March 2017, Pages 321
Contemporary political realism carries echoes of this line of argument and of Bentham's shift from the weaker to the stronger version of it,
even though Bentham's direct influence is rarely in evidence. Critics of the current ubiquity of the language of human rights often point out that
in the absence of a robust account of the power relations that are needed to underpin any rights regimein particular, an answer to the
question of who does the enforcingall such talk is a massive distraction from the real business of improving the situation on the ground to
which human rights are meant to apply.9 But for more radical critics the emptiness of human rights talk is too convenient to be merely a
confusion: it serves as the perfect cover for the sinister interests of those engaged in neo-colonial projects of exploitation and expropriation.10
However, these two poles of the Benthamite case against moralismfrom inadvertent confusion to deliberate deceptiondo not exhaust the
range of explanations for what is wrong with it. There is another answer, drawn from an alternative intellectual tradition, which appears more
frequently in the current realist literature. This is the Weberian idea that moralism
does not so much obscure what
politicians are really up to, as conceal the truth about their personal motives from political actors
themselves. In other words, political moralism is less a form of deception than of self-deception: it lets
politicians avoid looking political reality squarely in the face because it allows them to believe they
have their eyes set on something higher. Conviction politicians think they can transcend the messy
reality of politics. That belief is dangerous because their response when they encounter the messy
reality is to deny it, or to ignore it, or to insist they can mould it to their higher purposes, which only
makes the mess worse . Weber's case against allowing an ethic of conviction to trump an ethic of
responsibility in politicswhich requires, among other things, that politicians face up to the unintended
consequences of what they doremains compelling.11 But it does not map onto any sharp distinctions between realism
and moralism. That is because the convictions that can breed self-deception are not necessarily moralistic
beliefs; they can be beliefs about anything, including beliefs about how contingency trumps moral
certainty . On the Weberian account it is not what you believe but how you believe it that makes the
difference. Realists, too, can be self-deceived, because the strength of their convictions against moralism produces its own self-deceptions
and blind spots. This is the case that can be made against Bentham, who was so thoroughly dogmatic about the vapidity of all talk of rights that
it served to blind him to what was missing from his own understanding of politics. Macaulay made the point in his celebrated takedown of the
Benthamites published in the Edinburgh Review in 1829: They surrender their understandings to the meanest and most abject sophisms,
provided these sophisms come before them disguised with the externals of demonstration. They do not seem to know that logic has its illusions
as well as rhetoricthat a fallacy may lurk in a syllogism as well as a metaphor.12 Bentham was insufficiently sensitive to the ways in which the
attempt to ground political argument in the language of force neglects the capacity of other sorts of arguments to move people successfully.
Conviction politics is not simply the preserve of the moralisers. Likewise, it is not the case that moral political philosophy is itself incapable of seeing the merit of arguments that point towards
the unavoidability of unintended consequences. Just as realists can be blind to contingency, so moralists can be alive to it. Take the example of Robert Nozick, the most prominent early critic of Rawlsian political philosophy from
within the discourse of rights. Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example was designed to highlight the inability of Rawlsian schemes of justice to accommodate the unintended consequences of cumulative instances of contingent rightful
action on the part of individuals (in this case, their willingness to hand over small amounts of their own money to watch the best basketball player around ply his trade, which would generate unjustifiable inequalities of wealth
Chamberlain becomes very richunless the state intervenes to circumscribe their choices).13 The challenge to Rawls is to adapt his patterned view of justice to a world in which events inevitably take place that will break up the
pattern. But this challenge does not come from a realist; it comes from a moralist (and a self-professed utopian to boot). There are many possible ways to push back against the apparent force of the Wilt Chamberlain example.14 A
realist response would be to challenge the assumptions behind the case itself. We live in societies that enrich leading sportspeople on a scale that even Nozick might have found hard to imagine (Nozick envisages Chamberlain
earning $250,000; his contemporary equivalentLeBron Jamesearned more than $50,000,000 in 2015). But the players wealth is not simply the cumulative consequence of the unfettered choice of large numbers of people to
hand over small amounts of money to watch them play. Any such relationshipbetween fans and performersis mediated by vast institutional structures of commodification and exchange, which make it very hard to follow the
money from individual consumers to the pockets of the superstars. It passes through the hands of many othersbroadcasters, agents, advertisers, and administratorssuch that the path of justice may be at best obscured and
more likely undermined (recent revelations about how FIFA operates do not inspire confidence that this is a transparently just business). A further iteration of the realist response would indicate that an example drawn from the
world of sports is itself a misleading one. Though polling evidence suggests that in our increasingly unequal societies it is sporting celebrities and their like who are widely believed to be reaping the most outsize rewardson the
assumption that there is at least some correlation between reward and measurable talentmost of the superrich in fact come from the financial services industry, where visible talent is much harder to identify.15 Tracing the just
transfer of money in Nozick's terms from individual consumers to the pockets of bankers would be a thoroughly thankless task. In that sense, the Wilt Chamberlain example appears designed to play into our unwarranted
presuppositions about the workings of the free market. It serves as a smokescreen. So
realists can respond to Nozick's argument about contingency with some contingencies
of their own. But so too can Rawlsians. It is possible to turn Nozick's argument on its head. He purports to grant Rawls his ideal society in order
to show that no political ideal can survive eventualities for which it was not designed. But what
if Nozick is granted his ideal societyhis
utopiain which there
is no political eventuality that cannot be justified in terms of the underlying
individual rights that must remain un-breached for any social arrangement to count as just. That
society will also be subject to unforeseen contingencies , including emergent monopolies and other market failures.
Correcting for those failures will require breaches of rights in Nozick's terms; but sitting back and doing
nothing will make the preservation of the conditions of justicewhich includes the ability to track the distribution of
wealth through a series of free exchanges much
more difficult. There is a real world variant of this argument that
illustrates what can be at stake. Critics of the most urgent demands to address the threat of climate
change tend to argue that pre-emptive responses will preclude the sort of market innovation that offers the best chance of finding a
solution.16 In other words, patterned state intervention forecloses the opportunities provided by being open
to unforeseen contingencies. But equally, openness to contingency can be its own form of limitation,
if it forecloses the opportunities provided by state intervention in the face of failure. Putting one's
faith in an unforeseen future to generate outcomes that will in due course solve the problems of the
present rules out the possibility of an unforeseen future that requires action in the present to solve
its looming problems. Those whose convictions blindly favour contingency and the free exchange of ideas can be as self-deceived in
Weber's sense as those who want to intervene in the name of a better politics. All convictions, however adaptable, have an

edge of fatalism to them.17

AND their focus is more anti-democratic---framings coopted by technocratic elites

K. S. Shrader-Frechette 91, O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and
Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame, Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of
Notre Dame, Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms, p 90-98

There are , however, a number of reasons for arguing that , in certain cases, risk consequences are more important than the

proba- bilities
accident . For one thing, greater social disruption arises from one massive accident than a number of from

single-fatality s accident , even though the same number of people may be killed. The law of torts also rec- ognizes the heightened importance of high-consequence events, apart from their probability of occurrence. In fact, for the rule of strict lia- bility, risk is

based almost totally on grave potential consequences, re- gardless of the associated probability.S2 Part of the justification for this judicial emphasis on accident consequences is ap parently the fact that the parties involved in litigation over catastrophic accidentsthe in- jured persons
and those liable for the injuryare not equal in bar- gaining power." The representative of some technological or industrial interest usually has more clout than the person damaged by it. More- over, as Chapter Twelve will argue in more detail, a person is more deserving of
compensation according to strict liability when she is vic- timized by an impact that she did not voluntarily accept or help to create. For all these reasons, societal risk evaluation of potentially cata- strophic technologies ought to focus on the accident consequences as well as on their

considers
probabilities. This point is clear if oneRussian Roulette. Suppose the probability that a bullet is in a
a rational response to the invi- tation to play

chamber when the trigger is pulled is same per year Even with a small probability, a I in like- lihood, reactor- , as a nuclear core melt. such

person could still be rational in her refusal to play the game. She could even maintain that the
probability in question is ir- relevant. Any probability of fatality might be too high if the benefits deriving from taking the risk were not

And if so, then probabilities might not be as important, in

great enough. risk evalua- tion, as proponents of environmental

the probabilistic strategy suggest . As one expert expressed it, current debate over whether a given technology has a particular risk probability is a spurious issue. "Risk assessors tend to choose methods and data that support the

claim that
position to which they are already committed."S4 If so, then debate over environmental risks is likely to be over many factors other than probability. Probabilities Are Often Uncertain The probabilities are central to risk evaluation, and that "the

bulk of disagreement" over environmental hazards has been caused by intuitive estimates of "

unreasonably high risk ," also errs in ignoring reasonable disagreement over risk probabilities. Risk
assessment has been repeatedly criticized as an " arcane expert process" that is over- dependent on probability estimates of assessors.S5 Many risk

assessors appear to believe that it is "perfectly valid to base public policy on expert estimates and data," but that, once a risk expert has spoken, any dis- agreement is unreasonable and intuitive" Such a notion is doubly ques- tionable. It is in part implausible because it presupposes a
far more objective picture of probabilistic risk data than is now available. Even the authors of the most complete hazard analysis ever accomplished, WASH-1400, cautioned that their probability estimates were deficient, unprovable, possibly incomplete, assumption laden, and saddled
with "an appre- ciable uncertainty." They said that "the present state of knowledge probably will not permit a complete analysis Of low-probability accidents in nuclear plants with the precision that would be desirable.' '37 More generally and more recently, risk assessors have pointed
out that "un- certainties of six orders of magnitude are not unusual" in any proba- bilistic risk analysis.S8 In the face of such caveats, alleged certitude about which risk probabilities are correct, and which are incorrect, may be doubtful. As this chapter has noted, often the scientific
mechanisms causing a hazard are unknown, as in the case of methylene chloride.39 And, as the previous chapter also argued, accident probability often can- not be determined on the basis of observed accident frequency.40 On the one hand, very low values of an accident probability per
LNG trip, or per reactor-year, for example, are consistent with an assumed record of zero accidents in 800 voyages, or zero core melts in 17,000 reactor- years. On the other hand, an annual accident probability as high as I in 100 or I in 200 would still be consistent with the c urrent LNG
accident-frequency record, just as a yearly probability as high as I in 2,000 would be consistent with the existing record for nuclear accidents. Even though an accident record may be consistent with very low risk- probability values, this frequency alone "does not prove that the values are

low.wu Proponents of the probabilistic strategy also err, in emphasizing risk probabilities, because they are unable to account for the reasonable controversy among
Nobel Prize winners, the American Physical So- ciety, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the American Nuclear Societyover various risk probabilities .42 Reputable assessors affirm that many of the most serious environmental risks, such as
global warming from burning Of fossil fuels, are "highly resistant to quantification."" Moreover. for a number of reasons, nuclear probabilities, for example, are especially resistant to accurate estimation. Compound events, sequential component fail- ures, sabotage or human error, and
weapons proliferation are not ame- nable to quantification." Rasmussen computed the probability of having a Three Mile Island type of accident as anywhere from I in 250 to 1 in 25,000 reactor-years." All this suggests that certain accidents are not really "impossible," because many low
probabilities are not be- lievable. For example, the probability for a royal flush is I in 464,000. Yet, in a card game the probability is actually much higher, since the probability of cheating is likely to be as high as I in 10,000. Likewise, although the probability of a given environmental or
technological ac- cident may be only very slight, the higher probability of sabotage or terrorism is likely to increase this number by several orders of mag- nitude. Real risks, then, are likely to include so-called "outrageous events" or "rogue events," which are difficult to handle in

In claiming that the public overestimates many risk

probabilistic risk assessment.46 Indeed, human error causes a majority of most in- dustrial, marine, and transportation accidents.47

probabilities, such as those for nuclear accidents , many assessors assume that, in some of the most controversial, untested, and potentially catastrophic areas of technology, it is possible to judge

clearly when a risk probability is accurate and when it is not. This is an appeal to authority, an appeal that (given the history of science) simply does not hold up. Risk assessors' emphasis on the importance of probability estimates is especially vulnerable because the characteristics that,
according to various experts, influence judgments Of perceived and acceptable risks are highly intercorrelated; involuntary hazards, for example, "tend also to be inequitable and catastrophic." 48 Therefore, as noted in Chapter Six, it is especially difficult to determine whether society's
expressed concern about involuntary risks, for example, is merely an artifact Of the high correlations between involuntariness and other undesirable risk characteristics. There are numerous allegedly causal explanations, all consistent with the same "observed" phenomena. Kasper mak es
an analogous observation: Even the best of epidemiological studies is confounded by the myriad expla- nations for low-level neurobehavioral effects; the same effects attributed to lead may be caused by exlxsure to low levels of many other trace metals, and indeed by exposure to

the pace and stress of urban life itself. The result is that careful studies yield not proof but only suggestions." Or, as Cox and Ricci put it, "multiple models, having quite different implications at low doses, may all adequately 'fit' the observed dose- response data."50 Precisely because
their hypothesis about misperceived probabilities is consistent with other explanations, proponents of the probabilistic strategy are not warranted in singling out the public's alleged misper- ceived probabilities as the cause of its high aversion to societal risks. Rather, as the previous
chapter argued, the distinction between expert/ objective and lay/subjective determination Of environmental risks will not hold up. Because of problems of actual risk calculation (prior to any alleged evaluation), many hazard estimates are merely the intui- tive gues.ses of individuals.
Authors of a recent study conducted at the Stanford Research Institute admitted, for example, that analytic tech- niques could not handle probability estimates for certain human-caused events. They concluded: ' 'We must rely on expert judgment, quantified, using subjective
probabilities.' '51 Likewise, the loss of the astronauts in e Challenger disaster, as well as the death of three astronauts on the ground at Cape Kennedy, demonstrated that even the best systems- analytic approaches cannot anticipate every possibility. In fact, one of the most famous
nuclear risk probabilities, widely touted as "objective," highly value laden. This is the reactor-year probability of a core melt in a nuclear plant, I in 17,000. As defended in WASH-1400, this proba-bility is notoriously laden with value judgments about the effectiveness of evacuation in the
face of catastrophe, the probability of weather stability, and the Gaussian Plume rise of radioactivity.52 The problem, however, is not that such "objective" probabilities (as given by experts) are value laden but that they are apparently not recognized as such by proponents of the

tendency of
probabilistic strategy. Lessons Learned from Experts' Claims about Societal Risks The proponents of the probabilistic strategy to overem- phasize the

importance of risk probabilities and to condemn the public's alleged "misperceptions" of societal risks reveals an important flaw in contemporary environmental risk analysis. Assessors presume that, if there is a public
preference for a risk whose probability of fatality is statistically higher than that of an alternative, then this preference is a result of misperceived probabilities, not a legitimate value system.5S Their failure to recognize the value components of allegedly objective probability estimates

goes hand in hand with assessors' tendencies to define ethical and political issues as merely technical ones , as

the naive positivists are prone to do."' They assume, incorrectly, that agreement about technical matters is sufficient for r esolving normative disputes. Apparently, they make this assumption because they are afraid of damaging "the scientific pretenses of their work."55 As a

consequence, their emphasis on the importance of abstract, "objective" science helps both to disguise the exploitative way in which technology is
often

used and dismiss as irrational or unscientific

to condone a passive acceptance of the status quo. It allows asses- sors to (as Okrent, Starr, Whipple, Maxey, Cohen, Lee, and others have done) any
attempts to challenge our values contemporary ethical or political " But, as Dickson has ar- gued, "the use Of supposedly objective models Of social behavior serves to legitimate the imposition of social policy," becausethe
real risk concerns of laypersons can be dismissed as subjective then .57 As one critic puts it, this is "like playing Monopoly with the Mafia: they always start the game owning

Boardwalk."58
Inequity
 at: goss
Theyre wrong about the Goss caseeither solves the aff or proves courts cant rule
Cornell Law School citing Majority Opinion of 1975 from Goss v. Lopez, Goss v. Lopez, Cornell Law,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/419/565#writing-USSC_CR_0419_0565_ZO

Syllabus
Appellee Ohio public high school students, who had been suspended from school for misconduct for up to 10 days without a hearing, brought a class action against appellant school officials
seeking a declaration that the Ohio statute permitting such suspensions was unconstitutional and an order enjoining the officials to remove the references to the suspensions from the
students' records. A three-judge District Court declared that appellees were denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because they were "suspended without

Held:
hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter," and that the statute and implementing regulations were unconstitutional, and granted the requested injunction.

1. Students facing temporary suspension from a public school have property and liberty interests that

qualify for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Pp. 572-576. (a) Having chosen to
extend the right to an education to people of appellees' class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair
procedures to determine whether the misconduct has occurred, and must recognize a student's legitimate entitlement to a public

education as a property interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause, and that may not be
taken away for misconduct without observing minimum procedures required by that Clause. Pp. 573-574. (b) Since misconduct charges, if sustained and recorded, could seriously
damage the students' reputation, as well as interfere with later educational and employment opportunities, the State's claimed right to determine

unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the
Due Process Clause's prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Pp. 574-575. (c) A 10-day suspension
from school is not de minimis and may not be imposed in complete disregard of the Due Process [p566] Clause. Neither
the property interest in educational benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in reputation is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the
school chooses, no matter how arbitrary. Pp. 575-576. 2. Due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the
charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his version. Generally, notice and hearing should precede the
student's removal from school, since the hearing may almost immediately follow the misconduct, but if prior notice and hearing are not feasible, as where the student's presence endangers
persons or property or threatens disruption of the academic process, thus justifying immediate removal from school, the necessary notice and hearing should follow as soon as practicable. Pp.
577-584. 372 F.Supp. 1279, affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion,
in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 584.

Opinion

WHITE, J., Opinion of the Court

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

high school students in

This appeal by various administrators of the Columbus, Ohio, Public School System (CPSS) challenges the judgment of a three-judge federal court, declaring that appellees -- various

the CPSS -- were denied due process of law contrary to the command of the Fourteenth Amendment in that

they were temporarily suspended from their high schools without a hearing either prior to suspension or within a
reasonable time thereafter, and enjoining the administrators to remove all references to such suspensions from the students' records. I Ohio law, Rev.Code Ann. 3313.64 (1972), provides for free
education to all children between the ages of six and 21. Section 3313.66 of the Code empowers the principal of an Ohio public school to suspend a pupil for misconduct for up to 10 days or to expel him. In either case, he must
notify the student's parents within 24 hours and state the reasons for his action. A pupil who is expelled, or his parents, may appeal the decision to the Board of Education, and, in connection therewith, shall be permitted to be
heard at the board meeting. The Board may reinstate the pupil following the hearing. No similar procedure is provided in 3313.66 or any other provision of state law for a suspended student. Aside from a regulation tracking the
statute, at the time of the imposition of the suspensions in this case, the CPSS itself had not issued any written procedure applicable to suspensions. [n1] Nor, so far as the record reflects, had any of [p568] the individual high
schools involved in this case. [n2] Each, however, had formally or informally described the conduct for which suspension could be imposed. The nine named appellees, each of whom alleged that he or she had been suspended from
public high school in Columbus for up to 10 days without a hearing pursuant to 3313.66, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1993 against the Columbus Board of Education and various administrators of the CPSS. The complaint
sought a [p569] declaration that 3313.66 was unconstitutional in that it permitted public school administrators to deprive plaintiffs of their rights to an education without a hearing of any kind, in violation of the procedural due
process component of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also sought to enjoin the public school officials from issuing future suspensions pursuant to 3313.66, and to require them to remove references to the past suspensions from
the records of the students in question. [n3] The proof below established that the suspensions arose out of a period of widespread student unrest in the CPSS during February and March, 1971. Six of the named plaintiffs, Rudolph
Sutton, Tyrone Washington, Susan Cooper, Deborah Fox, Clarence Byars, and Bruce Harris, were students at the Marion-Franklin High School and were each suspended for 10 days [n4] on account of disruptive or disobedient
conduct committed in the presence of the school administrator who ordered the suspension. One of these, Tyrone Washington, was among a group of students demonstrating in the school auditorium while a class was being
conducted there. He was ordered by the school principal to leave, refused [p570] to do so, and was suspended. Rudolph Sutton, in the presence of the principal, physically attacked a police officer who was attempting to remove
Tyrone Washington from the auditorium. He was immediately suspended. The other four Marion-Franklin students were suspended for similar conduct. None was given a hearing to determine the operative facts underlying the
suspension, but each, together with his or her parents, was offered the opportunity to attend a conference, subsequent to the effective date of the suspension, to discuss the student's future. Two named plaintiffs, Dwight Lopez
and Betty Crome, were students at the Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School, respectively. The former was suspended in connection with a disturbance in the lunchroom which involved some physical damage to
school property. [n5] Lopez testified that at least 75 other students were suspended from his school on the same day. He also testified below that he was not a party to the destructive conduct, but was instead an innocent
bystander. Because no one from the school testified with regard to this incident, there is no evidence in the record indicating the official basis for concluding otherwise. Lopez never had a hearing. Betty Crome was present at a
demonstration at a high school other than the one she was attending. There she was arrested together with others, taken to the police station, and released without being formally charged. Before she went to school on the
following day, she was [p571] notified that she had been suspended for a 10-day period. Because no one from the school testified with respect to this incident, the record does not disclose how the McGuffey Junior High School
principal went about making the decision to suspend Crome, nor does it disclose on what information the decision was based. It is clear from the record that no hearing was ever held. There was no testimony with respect to the
suspension of the ninth named plaintiff, Carl Smith. The school files were also silent as to his suspension, although as to some, but not all, of the other named plaintiffs the files contained either direct references to their
suspensions or copies of letters sent to their parents advising them of the suspension. On the basis of this evidence, the three-judge court declared that plaintiffs were denied due process of law because they were "suspended
without hearing prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter," and that Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 3313.66 (1972) and regulations issued pursuant thereto were unconstitutional in permitting such suspensions. [n6] It was
ordered that all references to plaintiffs' suspensions be removed from school files. Although not imposing upon the Ohio school administrators any particular disciplinary procedures and leaving them free to adopt regulations
providing for fair suspension procedures which are consonant with the educational goals of their schools and reflective of the characteristics of their school and locality, the District Court declared [p572] that there were "minimum
requirements of notice and a hearing prior to suspension, except in emergency situations." In explication, the court stated that relevant case authority would: (1) permit "[i]mmediate removal of a student whose conduct disrupts
the academic atmosphere of the school, endangers fellow students, teachers or school officials, or damages property"; (2) require notice of suspension proceedings to be sent to the student's parents within 24 hours of the
decision to conduct them; and (3) require a hearing to be held, with the student present, within 72 hours of his removal. Finally, the court stated that, with respect to the nature of the hearing, the relevant cases required that
statements in support of the charge be produced, that the student and others be permitted to make statements in defense or mitigation, and that the school need not permit attendance by counsel. The defendant school
administrators have appealed the three-judge court's decision. Because the order below granted plaintiffs' request for an injunction -- ordering defendants to expunge their records -- this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1253. We affirm. II At the outset, appellants contend that, because there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense, the Due Process Clause does not protect against expulsions from the
public school system. This position misconceives the nature of the issue, and is refuted by prior decisions. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Protected interests in property are normally "not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined" by an independent source such as state statutes or rules [p573] entitling the citizen to
certain benefits. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972). Accordingly, a state employee who under state law, or rules promulgated by state officials, has a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment
absent sufficient cause for discharge may demand the procedural protections of due process. Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 191-192 (1952); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 164
(POWELL, J., concurring), 171 (WHITE, J., concurring and dissenting) (1974). So may welfare recipients who have statutory rights to welfare as long as they maintain the specified qualifications. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), applied the limitations of the Due Process Clause to governmental decisions to revoke parole, although a parolee has no constitutional right to that status. In like vein was Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), where the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause were triggered by official cancellation of a prisoner's good time credits accumulated under state law, although those benefits were not
mandated by the Constitution. Here, on the basis of state law, appellees plainly had legitimate claims of entitlement to a public education. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 3313.48 and 3313.64 (1972 and Supp. 1973) direct local authorities
to provide a free education to all residents between five and 21 years of age, and a compulsory attendance law requires attendance for a school year of not less than 32 weeks. Ohio Rev.Code Ann 3321.04 (1972). It is true that
3313.66 of the Code permits school principals to suspend students for up to 10 days; but suspensions may not be imposed without any grounds whatsoever. All of the schools had their own rules specifying the [p574] grounds for
expulsion or suspension. Having chosen to extend the right to an education to people of appellees' class generally, Ohio may not withdraw that right on grounds of misconduct, absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine
whether the misconduct has occurred. Arnett v. Kennedy, supra at 164 (POWELL, J., concurring), 171 (WHITE, J., concurring and dissenting), 206 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). Although Ohio may not be constitutionally obligated to
establish and maintain a public school system, it has nevertheless done so, and has required its children to attend. Those young people do not "shed their constitutional rights" at the schoolhouse door. Tinker v. Des Moines School

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against
Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

the State itself and all of its creatures -- Boards of Education not excepted. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943). The authority possessed by the State
to prescribe and enforce standards of conduct in its schools although concededly very broad, must be exercised consistently with constitutional safeguards. Among other things, the State is constrained to recognize a student's
legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property interest which is protected by the Due Process Clause and which may not be taken away for misconduct without adherence to the minimum procedures required by that
Clause. The Due Process Clause also forbids arbitrary deprivations of liberty. "Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him," the minimal requirements of
the Clause must be satisfied. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971); Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 573. School authorities here suspended appellees from school for periods of up to 10 days [p575] based on
charges.of misconduct. If sustained and recorded, those charges could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow pupils and their teachers as well as interfere with later opportunities for higher education and
employment. [n7] It is apparent that the claimed right of the State to determine unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the requirements of the Constitution. Appellants
proceed to argue that, even if there is a right to a public education protected by the Due Process Clause generally, the Clause comes into play only when the State subjects a student to a "severe detriment or grievous loss." The loss
of 10 days, it is said, is neither severe nor grievous and the Due Process Clause is therefore of no relevance. Appellants' argument is again refuted by our prior decisions; for in determining whether due process requirements apply
in the first place, we must look not to the "weight" but to the nature of the interest [p576] at stake. Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 570-571. Appellees were excluded from school only temporarily, it is true, but the length and
consequent severity of a deprivation, while another factor to weigh in determining the appropriate form of hearing, "is not decisive of the basic right" to a hearing of some kind. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 86 (1972). The Court's
view has been that, as long as a property deprivation is not de minimis, its gravity is irrelevant to the question whether account must be taken of the Due Process Clause. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 342 (1969)
(Harlan, J., concurring); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-379 (1971); Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 570 n. 8. A 10-day suspension from school is not de minimis, in our view, and may not be imposed in complete
disregard of the Due Process Clause. A short suspension is, of course, a far milder deprivation than expulsion. But, "education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments," Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954), and the total exclusion from the educational process for more than a trivial period, and certainly if the suspension is for 10 days, is a serious event in the life of the suspended child. Neither the property
interest in educational benefits temporarily denied nor the liberty interest in reputation, which is also implicated, is so insubstantial that suspensions may constitutionally be imposed by any procedure the school chooses, no

Once it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process is
matter how arbitrary. [n8] [p577] III "

due." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 481. We turn to that question, fully [p578] realizing, as our cases regularly do, that the interpretation and application of the Due Process Clause are intensely practical matters, and that
"[t]he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation." Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 (1961). We are also mindful of our own

Judicial interposition in the operation of the public school system of the Nation raises problems
admonition:

requiring care and restraint . . . . By and large, public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state
and local authorities. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968). There are certain benchmarks to guide us, however. Mullane
v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 [p579] (1950), a case -- often invoked by later opinions, said that [m]any controversies have raged
about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that, at a
minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to
the nature of the case. Id. at 313. "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard," Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914), a right that "has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the
matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to . . . contest." Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., supra, at 314. See also Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,

At the very minimum, therefore, students facing suspension and the consequent
168-169 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

interference with a protected property interest must be given some kind of notice and afforded some
kind of hearing . "Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified." Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233 (1864). It also appears
from our cases that the timing and content of the notice and the nature of the hearing will depend on appropriate accommodation of the competing interests involved. Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, supra, at 895; Morrissey v.
Brewer, supra, at 481. The student's interest is to avoid unfair or mistaken exclusion from the educational process, with all of its unfortunate consequences. The Due Process Clause will not shield him from suspensions properly
imposed, but it disserves both his interest and the interest of the State if his suspension is, in fact, unwarranted. The concern would be mostly academic if the disciplinary process were a totally accurate, unerring process, never
mistaken and never [p580] unfair. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and no one suggests that it is. Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and the controlling
facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial, and it should be guarded against if that may be done without prohibitive cost or interference with the educational process.
The difficulty is that our schools are vast and complex. Some modicum of discipline and order is essential if the educational function is to be performed. Events calling for discipline are frequent occurrences, and sometimes require
immediate, effective action. Suspension is considered not only to be a necessary tool to maintain order, but a valuable educational device. The prospect of imposing elaborate hearing requirements in every suspension case is
viewed with great concern, and many school authorities may well prefer the untrammeled power to act unilaterally, unhampered by rules about notice and hearing. But it would be a strange disciplinary system in an educational
institution if no communication was sought by the disciplinarian with the student in an effort to inform him of his dereliction and to let him tell his side of the story in order to make sure that an injustice is not done.

"[F]airness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights. . . ."
Secrecy is not congenial to truth-seeking, and self-righteousness gives too slender an assurance of
rightness. No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person

mkd

in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it . Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath,
supra, at 170, 171-172 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). [n9] [p581] We do not believe that school authorities must be totally free from notice and hearing requirements if their schools are to operate with acceptable efficiency.
Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice
of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Clause requires at least these rudimentary precautions against unfair or
mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school. [n10] [p582] There need be no delay between the time "notice" is given and the time of the hearing. In the great majority of cases the disciplinarian may

We hold only that, in being given an opportunity to explain his

informally discuss the alleged misconduct with the student minutes after it has occurred.

version of the facts at this discussion, the student first be told what he is accused of doing and what
the basis of the accusation is. Lower courts which have addressed the question of the nature of the procedures required in short suspension cases have reached
the same conclusion . Tate v. Board of Education, 453 F.2d 975, 979 (CA8 1972); Vail v. Board of Education, 354 F.Supp. 592, 603 (NH 1973). Since the hearing may occur almost immediately following the
misconduct, it follows that as a general rule notice and hearing should precede removal of the student from school. We agree with the District Court, however, that there are recurring situations in which prior notice and hearing
cannot be insisted upon. Students whose presence poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process may be immediately removed from school. In such cases, the necessary
notice and rudimentary hearing should follow [p583] as soon as practicable, as the District Court indicated. In holding as we do, we do not believe that we have imposed procedures on school disciplinarians which are inappropriate
in a classroom setting. Instead we have imposed requirements which are, if anything, less than a fair-minded school principal would impose upon himself in order to avoid unfair suspensions. Indeed, according to the testimony of
the principal of Marion-Franklin High School, that school had an informal procedure, remarkably similar to that which we now require, applicable to suspensions generally but which was not followed in this case. Similarly,
according to the most recent memorandum applicable to the entire CPSS, see n. 1, supra, school principals in the CPSS are now required by local rule to provide at least as much as the constitutional minimum which we have
described. We stop short of construing the Due Process Clause to require, countrywide, that hearings in connection with short suspensions must afford the student the opportunity to secure counsel, to confront and cross-examine

witnesses supporting the charge, or to call his own witnesses to verify his version of the incident. Brief disciplinary suspensions are almost countless. To impose in each such case even truncated trial-
type procedures might well overwhelm administrative facilities in many places and, by diverting resources, cost more than it would save in educational
effectiveness. Moreover, further formalizing the suspension process and escalating its formality and adversary nature may not only make it too costly as a regular disciplinary tool, but also destroy its effectiveness as part of the

On the other hand, requiring effective notice and informal hearing permitting the student to
teaching process.

give his version of the events will provide a meaningful hedge against erroneous action . At least the disciplinarian will be
alerted to the existence of disputes about facts and arguments [p584] about cause and effect. He may then determine himself to summon the accuser, permit cross-examination, and allow the student to present his own witnesses.
In more difficult cases, he may permit counsel. In any event, his discretion will be more informed and we think the risk of error substantially reduced. Requiring that there be at least an informal give-and-take between student and
disciplinarian, preferably prior to the suspension, will add little to the factfinding function where the disciplinarian himself has witnessed the conduct forming the basis for the charge. But things are not always as they seem to be,
and the student will at least have the opportunity to characterize his conduct and put it in what he deems the proper context.
 dumas
What does it mean to be a problem? Education policy focused on redressing
disproportionate inequality doesnt come to terms with signification of black
incoherence that authorizes psychic and material violence.
Dumas 15 (Michael J, Michael J. Dumas is an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley in the Graduate School of
Education and the African American Studies Department. He earned a Ph.D. in Urban Education with an emphasis in social and educational
policy studies from The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Against the Dark: Antiblackness in Education Policy and Discourse.
Theory Into Practice, 12/7. 55:1. P 11-19//shree)

I argue that analyses

of racial(ised) discourse and policy processes in education must grapple with cultural
disregard for and disgust with blackness. This article explains how a theorization of antiblackness allows one
to more precisely identify and respond to racism in education discourse and in the formation and
implementation of education policy . I contend that deeply embedded within racialized policy discourses is not merely a
concern about disproportionality or inequality , but also a concern with the bodies of Black people, the signification of
(their) Blackness , and the threat posed by the Black to the educational well-being of other students .
Using school (de)segregation as an example, I demonstrate how policy discourse is informed by antiblackness, and consider what an awareness
of antiblackness means for educational policy and practice. Arecent issue of National Geographic celebrated the changing face of America in
which race is no longer so Black and white (Funderman, 2013 Funderburg, L. (2013, October). The changing face of America. National
Geographic. Retrieved from http://www.ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ .. [Google Scholar] ). Featuring portraits of men, women, and children of
multiracial heritage, the story points to the year 2060, when the US Census Bureau estimates that white
people will no
longer be the majority of the nation's population. These images, then, represent an imaginedand ideal(ized)
future, in which Americans are so mixed that race becomes meaningless, or at least, more fluid. If we can't slot
people into familiar categories, the accompanying article explained, perhaps we'll be forced to reconsider existing definitions of race and
identity, presumptions about who is us and who is them (Funderburg, 2013). If these portraits represent the us, then the United States will
be a country completely rid of dark-skinned Black people: Most of the 25 people featured are light in complexion and not one is darker than the
proverbial brown paper bag (Kerr, 2006 Kerr, A. E. (2006). The paper bag principle: Class, colorism & rumor and case of Black Washington DC.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. ). In this nation that has ostensibly advanced beyond Black and white, it is the
Black that becomes anachronistic, an impediment to the realization of Americans' national-popular imagination of who we want
to be. Even as the nation (and indeed, the world) embraces a certain kind of multiculturalism, people strain

against the dark (Gordon, 1997 Gordon, L. R. (1997). Existence in Black. New York, NY: Routledge. , 2000 Gordon, L. R. (2000). Existentia
Africana. New York, NY: Routledge. ; Kelley, 2002 Kelley, R. D. G. (2002). Freedom dreams: The Black radical imagination. Boston, MA: Beacon. ;
Sexton, 2008 Sexton, J. (2008). Amalgamation schemes: Antiblackness and the critique of multiracialism. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota. , 2010 Sexton, J. (2010). People-of-color-blindness notes on the afterlife of slavery. Social Text, 28, 3156. [CrossRef], [CSA], [Google
Scholar] ; Wilderson, 2010 Wilderson, III, F. B. (2010). Red, white & Black: Cinema and the structure of US antagonisms. Durham, NC: Duke
University. [CrossRef] ). In this context, Black youth, families, and communities struggle to make sense of what are widely
regarded in Black cultural spaces as cases of (anti-)Black suffering and death: the killings of Oscar
Grant and, more recently, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, John Crawford, Mike Brown, and Akai Gurley;
Marlene Pinnock, the 51-year-old Black grandmother, punched repeatedly in the face by a white California Highway Patrol officer;
Jordan Davis, age 17, sitting in the back seat of a car with a group of friends, shot dead by a white man who believed they were playing rap
(that is, Black) music too loud; Renisha McBride, age 19, shot and killed through a locked door by a white homeowner who said he feared
for his life. In schools across the nation, recent stories attest to this anti-Black social imagination: A teacher in
Illinois repeatedly referred to two Black students as nigger, even after they asked him not to (Malm,
2014). In Florida, school officials warned a young Black girl that she needed to either straighten or cut
off her naturally curly hair, or face expulsion (Munzenrieder, 2013 Munzenrieder, K. (2013, November 26). Orlando-area
Christian school threatens to kick out Black girl over her natural hair . Miami New Times. Retrieved from
http://www.blogs.miaminewtimes.com/ .. [Google Scholar] ). And in New York, a school principal called Black teachers
gorillas and derided their big lips and nappy hair (Klein, 2013 Klein, R. (2013, July 10). NYC principal accused of
making racist remarks, calling Black teacher gorillas. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com. . [Google Scholar] ).
Although most educational researchers and practitioners would acknowledge all of these stories as
lamentable examples of racism or (multi)cultural insensitivity (or in more critical scholarship, as the
enactment of white supremacy), thus far there has been little theorizing in education on the specificity
of anti-Black racism, or what I contend is the broader terrain of antiblackness. Intellectual inquiry on
antiblackness, which is mostly situated in comparative literature, philosophy, performance studies, and cultural studies, insists that Black
humanity is, as Frank Wilderson asserted, a paradigmatic impossibility because to be Black is to be the very antithesis of a Human subject
(2010 Wilderson, III, F. B. (2010). Red, white & Black: Cinema and the structure of US antagonisms. Durham, NC: Duke University. [CrossRef] , p.
9). Antiblackness scholarship, so necessarily motivated by the question of Black suffering, interrogates the psychic and
material assault on Black flesh , the constant surveillance and mutilation and murder of Black people
(Alexander, 1994 Alexander, E. (1994). Can you be BLACK and look at this?: Reading the Rodney King video(s). Public Culture, 7, 7794.
[CrossRef], [Web of Science ], [Google Scholar] ; Tillet, 2012 Tillet, S. (2012). Sites of slavery: Citizenship and racial democracy in the post-civil
rights imagination. Durham, NC: Duke University. [CrossRef] ). It also grapples with the position of the Black person as socially deadthat is
denied humanity and thus ineligible for full citizenship and regard within the polity (Patterson, 1982 Patterson, O. (1982). Slavery and social
death. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. ). And in all the theorizing on antiblackness, there is a concern with what it means to have one's very existence
as Black constructed as problemfor white people, for the public (good), for the nation-state, and even as a problem for (the celebration of)
racial difference (Gordon, 1997 Gordon, L. R. (1997). Existence in Black. New York, NY: Routledge. , 2000 Gordon, L. R. (2000). Existentia
Africana. New York, NY: Routledge. ; Melamed, 2011 Melamed, J. (2011). Represent and destroy: Rationalizing violence in the new racial
capitalism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. [CrossRef] ). Inspired by this theoretical work on antiblackness, I argue here that any
incisive analyses of racial(ized) discourse and policy processes in education must grapple with cultural disregard for and disgust with blackness. I
aim to explain how a theorization of antiblackness allows one to more precisely identify and respond to racism in education discourse and in
the formation and implementation of education policy. Briefly, I contend that deeply and inextricably embedded within racialized policy
discourses is not merely a general and generalizable concern about disproportionality or inequality, but also, fundamentally and quite
specifically, a concern with the bodies of Black people, the signification of (their) blackness, and the threat posed by the Black to the
educational well-being of other students. I begin with an, albeit brief, discussion of the scholarship on antiblackness, highlighting a number of
themes and commitments in this interdisciplinary body of work. Then,
using school (de)segregation as an example, I
demonstrate how policy discourse is informed by antiblackness, and conclude with some brief
discussion of what an awareness of antiblackness means for educational practice, and for the survival
and well-being of the Black children and communities we serve.
2nc
 k
Their framework is a new link it forecloses the possibility of a radical anti-racist politics
Bhattacharyya 13 [2013, Gargi Bhattacharyya is a Race and Ethnicity Prof @ Aston University, How
can we live with ourselves? Universities and the attempt to reconcile learning and doing, Ethnic and
Racial Studies, Vol. 36, No. 9, 1411-1428]

In Britain also there has been a move away from radical imagination in the politics of race,
towards either highly institutionalized activity designed to measure and correct
differential outcomes, or to ethnic particularity that challenges racism faced by a particular group but rarely links this
activity to other struggles or a vision of an alternative society. However necessary these forms of
organization may be because institutional outcomes continue to harden inequality between groups and mobilization
needs to take place where people are, building on the affiliations that make sense to them the loss of a larger vision
and set of aspirations diminishes what anti-racist politics can be . Kelly (2002, p. xii) goes on to specify
the loss that arises from too exclusive a focus on matters of institutional detail or immediate
politicking: Without new visions we dont know what to build, only what to knock down. We
not only end up confused, rudderless, and cynical, but we forget that making a revolution is not
a series of clever maneuvers and tactics but a process that can and must transform us. This
new revolutionary subject is unlikely to emerge from the mundane techniques of
management that have come to typify useful research in the field of racism. In response to
the formulation of recent research funding in the UK, research in the field of race and racism that connects with users has
tended towards the technical. Much of this is shaped by the demand that research demonstrate its own impact, that is, shows
its usefulness to an audience beyond academia, often before any findings are made and in order for time and money to be
allocated.6 For the
field of race and ethnic studies, this demand brings a model of
knowledge as technique often management technique. Whether racism is seen to arise from communicational
barriers between groups or from flawed institutional practices, the solution is presented as alternative practices do this and
others will adapt their behaviour in these ways. If this were the extent of the imaginative failure, things would not be too bad.
After all, universities rarely include the most exciting of ideas until the excitement can be rewritten as tradition. Sometimes
banishment from the academy can help to get a different and more energetic audience for ideas that aspire to change our world.
However, the politics of race seems to be institutionalized in an even more tightly confined logic in the spaces outside the
academy. There may be a widespread recognition that racism demands an institutional response, but this is ripped away from
any larger political narrative altogether. As a result, the
attempts by scholars to address a public
also tend to be limited by the narrow demands of such technical or legalistic
approaches to what anti-racism can and should be. There is a dilemma here. For scholars who
wish to connect with so called practitioners and who, perhaps, consider this world of equalities practice as
their public research is likely to become focused around these questions of technical
organization. Of course, many of us still seek to document and explore the complexity of racism and its impact in the world
but the focus for this endeavour becomes segmented by institutional focus and, often, a
rush to make recommendations. Access to research funding in Britain, increasingly the only route to creating
space for scholarly work, demands that research delivers this impact of immediate and usable advice. At the same time, the
public of practitioners a group here that is overwhelmingly concentrated in organizations tasked with delivering services to
diverse populations, whether through statutory services or the third sector appear to understand the role of the intellectual only
as this kind of technical adviser.7 Useful research becomes only
this research that can enable
alternative and potentially more effective operation of bureaucratic practices of one
kind or another. This framing of anti-racist research transforms the kind of politics that can be
imagined for this intellectual endeavour. This is anti-racism as a matter of organizational
adaptation, not any wider social transformation. Perhaps some believe that
 transformation occurs through the collective impact of these many small
organizational changes that has certainly been the unspoken implication of anti- racist work since the Lawrence
Enquiry but, whatever the benefits of improved institutional practices, if these in fact have been
achieved, this approach abandons any sense of political movement . We may be producing work that
connects with a public, but the aspirations of both scholars and public seem less than they were.

The links prove that the aff draws lines of legality refuse that oscillation between
inside and outside
Edkins and Pin-Fat 05. Jenny Edkins, professor of international politics at Prifysgol Aberystwyth
University (in Wales) and Veronique Pin-Fat, senior lecturer in politics at Manchester Universit,
Through the Wire: Relations of Power and Relations of Violence, Millennium - Journal of International
Studies 2005 34: pg. 14

One potential form of challenge to sovereign power consists of a refusal to draw any lines between
zoe- and bios, inside and outside.59 As we have shown, sovereign power does not involve a power
relation in Foucauldian terms. It is more appropriately considered to have become a form of
governance or technique of administration through relationships of violence that reduce political
subjects to mere bare or naked life. In asking for a refusal to draw lines as a possibility of challenge,
then, we are not asking for the elimination of power relations and consequently, we are not asking for
the erasure of the possibility of a mode of political being that is empowered and empowering, is free
and that speaks: quite the opposite. Following Agamben, we are suggesting that it is only through a
refusal to draw any lines at all between forms of life (and indeed, nothing less will do) that sovereign
power as a form of violence can be contested and a properly political power relation (a life of power
as potenza) reinstated. We could call this challenging the logic of sovereign power through refusal.
Our argument is that we can evade sovereign power and reinstate a form of power relation by
contesting sovereign powers assumption of the right to draw lines, that is, by contesting the
sovereign ban. Any other challenge always inevitably remains within this relationship of violence. To
move outside it (and return to a power relation) we need not only to contest its right to draw lines in
particular places, but also to resist the call to draw any lines of the sort sovereign power demands.
The grammar of sovereign power cannot be resisted by challenging or fighting over where the lines are
drawn. Whilst, of course, this is a strategy that can be deployed, it is not a challenge to sovereign power
per se as it still tacitly or even explicitly accepts that lines must be drawn somewhere (and preferably
more inclusively). Although such strategies contest the violence of sovereign powers drawing of a
particular line, they risk replicating such violence in demanding the line be drawn differently. This is
because such forms of challenge fail to refuse sovereign powers line-drawing ethos, an ethos which, as
Agamben points out, renders us all now homines sacri or bare life. Taking Agambens conclusion on
board, we now turn to look at how the assumption of bare life can produce forms of challenge.
Agamben puts it in terms of a transformation: This biopolitical body that is bare life must itself instead
be transformed into the site for the constitution and installation of a form of life that is wholly
exhausted in bare life and a bios that is only its own zoe-.... If we give the name form-of-life to this being
that is only its own bare existence and to this life that, being its own form, remains inseparable from it
we will witness the emergence of a field of research beyond the terrain defined by the intersection of
politics and philosophy, medico-biological sciences and jurisprudence.60
1nr
tax
 ov
Tax Cuts key to prevent econ decline
Kudlow 12/24 Trump Must Spend His Political Capital on Tax Cuts Now Larry Kudlow is a senior
contributor at CNBC, and also co-author with Brian Domitrovic of the new book JFK and the Reagan
Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity, December 24, 2016,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/12/24/trump_must_spend_his_political_capital_on_ta
x_cuts_now_102482.html

Trump Must Spend His Political Capital on Tax Cuts Now President-elect Donald Trump's transition continues to go smoothly. Better than
smoothly. Confidently. More than confidently. Transcendently. And to top it all off, the Dow is up 9 percent since the election, while economic-sensitive small-caps
have jumped nearly 16 percent. These are signs of Trump confidence. Hard-nosed investment manager Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates and a non-
political guy, expects the Trump years to be as transformational as the Reagan-Thatcher years. Dalio says the Trump era could "ignite animal spirits" and "shift the
environment from one that makes profit-makers villains with limited power to one that makes them heroes with significant power." That's as good a summary as I
have found. Since the election, I have argued that the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton war against business will come to an end, and that America will once again
reward success, not punish it. And while the Left has demonized Trump's cabinet appointees as a terrible group of successful business people, free-market
capitalists such as myself regard this group as very good indeed. Why shouldn't the president surround himself with successful people? Wealthy folks have no need
to steal or engage in corruption. Their business success demonstrates that they know how to achieve goals and convince skeptics that good deals can be made to
the benefit of both sides. Isn't this just what America needs? And most of these folks aren't political. They won't be afraid to reach across the aisle for bipartisan
solutions. And that includes Mr. Trump himself. For many of his years he was a Democrat. Just like Ronald Reagan. Just like me. I've always loved Winston Churchill's
comment that "If you're not a socialist in your twenties, you have no heart. But if you're not a capitalist in your thirties, you have no mind." In our new book, JFK and
the Reagan Revolution, Brian Domitrovic and I explain how the two great pro-growth tax-cutting presidents -- JFK the Democrat, Ronald Reagan the Republican --
used civility and respect to communicate key ideas in a bipartisan effort that yielded terrific results for American prosperity. So far, this has been the Trump way.
Not only has he conducted himself with great civility, beginning with his Oval Office meeting with President Obama, he has sought an inclusive approach wherever

with less than a month until the inauguration , it is crucial that Mr. Trump
possible, irrespective of party. Yet

embarks on immediate bipartisan efforts to strengthen the economy. It was the number-one election-year issue.
And despite strong post-election increases in business and consumer-confidence -- along with the stock rally -

- the economy is weakening yet again. Measured year-to-year, real GDP is rising only 1.7 percent. Business

fixed investment continues to decline. Productivity is flat. Consumer spending has barely risen
in the last two months, while both auto production and sales are slumping. Non-financial
domestic profits have declined year-to-year for the last six quarters. Of all these factors the slump in
business fixed investment is the most harmful. If you go back in history, across the four long post-
war recoveries of the '60s, '80s, and '90s, BFI averaged nearly 7 percent. In the Obama
recovery, BFI was only 4 percent. Over the past two years, it has been flat. Using a back-of-the-envelope rule of
thumb, if the JFK/Ronald Reagan/Bill Clinton investment performance were in place now, our economy would be growing at 3 rather than 2 percent. A big

difference. That's why pro-growth tax reform is so important. It is reported that Mr. Trump will immediately move to overturn
costly Obama regulations, especially on small business. This is good. It will add to growth. But the big decision will be whether to repeal and rewrite Obamacare or
enact tax reform as the first order of legislative business. Replacing Obamacare is hugely important, both to improve our health-care system and remove the

tax reform -- with low marginal corporate rates for large and
economic drag of its taxing, spending, and regulating. But business

small companies, easy repatriation, and immediate expensing for new investment -- will have an
enormously positive impact on the weakest part of our economy , namely business investment.
That's where we'll see 3 or 4 percent growth, higher productivity, more and better paying jobs,
and fatter family pocketbooks. If there were a way to combine a two-year budget resolution with reconciliation instructions (51 Senate votes) to
reform health care and taxes in one full sweep, that would be ideal. However , if tax reform (be it business or individual) comes second, and

the start dates are postponed until 2018, then businesses and consumers will postpone economic
activity. That could make 2017 a much weaker economic story than confidence surveys and the
recent stock market suggest. There's a great transition going on, but the economy needs immediate attention . Tax
reform is the key .
Global economic collapse turns the case causes food crisis, economic hardships, and
increases poverty
Klare, 9 (Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at Hampshire College,
March 19, 2009 The Second Shockwave http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-
second-shockwave_b_176358.html)

While theeconomic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial countries and may reach bottom in the not-too-distant future,
it's
only beginning to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the earliest effects
of the global meltdown. Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market in the United States and the resulting
disintegration of financial products derived from the "securitization" of questionable mortgages, most developing nations were unaffected by the early stages
of the meltdown, for the simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But now, as the wealthier nations cease investing in the developing world or
acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance. On top of this, conditions are deteriorating at a time when severe drought is affecting many
key food-producing regions and poor farmers lack the wherewithal to buy seeds, fertilizers, and fuel. The
likely result: A looming food
crisis in many areas hit hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now, concern over the human impact
of the global crisis has largely been focused -- understandably so -- on unemployment and economic hardship in the
United States, Europe, and former Soviet Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant closings, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures
on families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage has been devoted to the meltdown's impact on people in the developing world.
As the crisis spreads to the poorer countries, however, it's likely that people in these areas will experience hardships every bit as
severe as those in the wealthier countries -- and, in many cases, far worse. The greatest worry is that most of the gains achieved in eradicating

poverty over the last decade or so will be wiped out, forcing tens or hundreds of millions of people from the
working class and the lower rungs of the middle class back into the penury from which they escaped.
Equally worrisome is the risk of food scarcity in these areas, resulting in widespread malnutrition, hunger, and starvation. All this is sure to
produce vast human misery, sickness, and death, but could also result in social and political unrest of various sorts, including riot, rebellion, and ethnic strife.
The president, Congress, or the mainstream media are not, for the most part, discussing these perils. As before, public interest remains focused on the ways in
which the crisis is affecting the United States and the other major industrial powers. But the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and U.S.
intelligence officials, in three recent reports, are paying increased attention to the prospect of a second economic shockwave, this time affecting the
developing world.Sinking Back Into Penury In late February, the World Bank staff prepared a background paper for the Group of 20 (G-20) finance ministers
meeting held near London on March 13 and 14. Entitled "Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing Countries Are Coping with the Global Crisis," it provides
a preliminary assessment of the meltdown's impact on low-income countries (LICs). The picture, though still hazy, is one of deepening gloom. Most LICs were
shielded from the initial impact of the sudden blockage in private capital flows because they have such limited access to such markets. "But while slower to
emerge," the report notes, "the impact of the crisis on LICs has been no less significant as the effects have spread through other channels." For example,
"many LIC governments rely on disproportionately on revenue from commodity exports, the prices of which have declined sharply along with global demand."
Likewise, foreign direct investment is falling, particularly in the natural resource sectors. On top of this, remittances from immigrants in the wealthier countries
to their families back home have dropped, erasing an important source of income to poor communities. Add all this up, and it's likely that "the

slowdown in growth will likely deepen the deprivation of the existing poor." In many LICs, moreover, "large
numbers of people are clustered just above the poverty line and are therefore particularly vulnerable
to economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis grows, more and more of these
people will lose their jobs or their other sources of income (such as those all-important remittances) and so be pushed from
above the poverty line to beneath it. The resulting outcome: "The economic crisis is projected to increase poverty by

around 46 million people in 2009."

 uq
Will Pass: Resolution will reach Senate floor but this little room to wiggle
Elis 10/5 Niv Ellis, Reporter from the Hill, Senate panel advances budget, a key step for tax reform,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/354115-senate-panel-advances-budget-a-key-step-for-tax-reform

The Senate Budget Committee on Thursday advanced a budget resolution that would help pave the
way for Republicans to pass a tax reform bill without Democratic support. The resolution passed 12-
11 along strict party lines and is expected to be taken up on the Senate floor in two weeks. The Senate
is not in session next week. Though the budget ostensibly lays out spending plans for the fiscal year, the
budget documents central purpose, as reflected by the committees debate, was to open the
reconciliation process for tax reform, which will allow Republicans to avoid a Democratic filibuster.
The resolution will allow the tax plan to add up to $1.5 trillion to the deficit over the course of a decade.
Our nation needs a simpler, fairer, and more transparent tax system that will leave more dollars in the
pockets of working families, said committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). This budget will put in
motion a process for pro-growth reform that will cut taxes on American families and job creators by a
net $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The resolution keeps overall spending levels steady from 2017, unlike its
counterpart in the House, which cuts nondefense spending by $5 billion and increases defense spending
by $72 billion. The House version, which passed on the House floor earlier in the day, did not include the
$1.5 trillion in deficit allowances. Instead, it demanded $203 billion in deficit reduction from various
committees, expected in the form of cuts to programs such as nutritional assistance, education and
welfare. The differences between the two versions of the budget will have to be worked out in a
conference committee before tax reform can proceed. Without any major legislative victories to date,
Republicans are eager to move ahead. As far as spending, Congress extended 2017 funding levels into
the first three months of the fiscal year, which began on Sunday. The funding will continue until Dec. 8,
by which point Democrats and Republicans will have to agree to a new spending deal. Failure to act
would lead to a government shutdown. Much of the Senate panel's debate Thursday centered on the
tax reform plan, as well as budget provisions that would see cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. This
Republican budget is, in my view, is the most unfair and destructive budget in American history, said
ranking member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The budget resolution includes a path to balance over the course
of a decade, which includes $473 billion in cuts from Medicares current spending path over a decade
and about $1 trillion from Medicare over the same period. In order to pay for these huge tax breaks for
millionaires and billionaires, this Republican budget makes savage cuts to the life-and-death programs
that mean so much to ordinary Americans, Sanders added. The resolution does not carry force of law,
however, something Enzi frequently pointed out. Its passage would not enact cuts, nor provide
instructions in the reconciliation to carry them out. Democrats were also unsuccessful in defeating a
provision on Congressional Budget Office scores. The budget scraps a recent rule requiring at least 28
hours between a CBO score and a vote on legislation that originated in committee. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-
Wi.), who had pushed for the reconciliation instructions to also pave the way for another attempt to
repeal Obamacare, chose not to introduce an amendment of that nature in the end.
Tax Reform will pass- Trump getting Dems on board
Bolton 10/13- Alexander Bolton, correspondent at the Hill, GOP eyes big prize for tax bill: Manchin's vote,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/355238-gop-eyes-big-prize-for-tax-bill-manchins-vote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is making a bid for the support of Sen. Joe Manchin
(W.Va.), a prominent centrist Democrat, on tax reform. McConnell invited Manchin to his office shortly
before the Columbus Day recess to talk about tax legislation, among other issues. Manchin, who is
running for reelection next year in a state that President Trump won in a landslide, is one of GOPs top
targets as they seek bipartisan support for their No. 1 legislative priority. Last month, Trump invited
Manchin and two other centrist Democrats, Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), to the
White House for a bipartisan working dinner to talk about taxes. Donnelly and Heitkamp are also up for
reelection next year in states won by Trump. Manchin says he told McConnell he could support a tax-
reform bill as long as it doesnt add too much to the deficit, aligning himself with Sen. Bob Corker (R-
Tenn.). Corker says the legislation should not add a penny to the deficit under a special dynamic
scoring model that takes into account economic growth projected from tax reform. That deficit bothers
us. It really bothers us. So you got to find a combination that works, thats reasonable, responsible for
our kids and grandkids and really works, Manchin said after the meeting. Manchin wants to modify
Trumps tax plan by setting the corporate tax rate at 25 percent and setting the rate for pass-through
businesses at 30 percent. Trump and GOP leaders have proposed putting the corporate and pass-
through rates at 20 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Manchin says money stashed overseas should
be taxed at 10 percent; Trumps tax plan didnt propose a rate for accumulated foreign earnings. My
concern is I really think that 20 percent is too low 25 percent corporate is good, Manchin said,
summarizing his discussion with McConnell. Ten percent [for] repatriation, 30 percent [for] pass-
throughs. We just talked back and forth to see if theres flexibility and movement, he said. McConnell
has also reached out to Donnelly. The GOP leader spoke briefly to him on the Senate floor recently,
according to a person familiar with the discussion. Donnelly has told the leader that he is willing to
continue discussing ideas on tax reform. The Indiana senator also traveled with Trump to Indianapolis
last month for his speech on tax reform and pressed the president during their White House dinner to
support his proposal to combat the outsourcing of American jobs. But Senate Republican aides see
Manchin, who is the most prominent of the three centrist Democrats and who has an amiable
relationship with Trump, as the big prize.

Itll pass now because of Trumps support

Reuters 9/26/17 ("Trump shows interest in bipartisan tax reform as Obamacare repeal collapses")
President Donald Trump told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday he wants bipartisan cooperation on tax reform, as
pressure on him to produce a legislative victory on any front escalated with the collapse of the latest
Republican push to repeal Obamacare. The administration and Republicans in Congress are due to unveil a tax
plan on Wednesday. The plan has been developed over several months by six White House and congressional Republicans working
behind closed doors and with no input from Democrats. On the eve of its unveiling, Trump told members of the House of
Representatives tax committee from both parties: Ive asked lawmakers of both parties to join us to
discuss our framework. ... Its time for both parties to come together . He said lawmakers should expect a very,
very powerful document that would deliver a big tax cut for the middle class. We will cut taxes tremendously for the middle class - not just a
little bit, but tremendously, said the president, who is set to travel to Indianapolis on Wednesday to unveil the plan. Republicans, who control
the White House and both chambers of Congress have been unable to deliver a significant legislative win on any topic since Trump took office
in January. Senate Republicans admitted failure on Tuesday in their latest push to replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, popularly known as
Obamacare,, raising pressure on the party to overhaul the tax code this year, although that difficult effort has repeatedly been delayed.
Republicans and Democrats who met with Trump on Tuesday said afterward that the president
indicated an interest in working with Democrats on both tax reform and healthcare going forward. He said
you get a better deal if its bipartisan , said Representative Richard Neal, the panels top Democrat.

He flips any opposition

Elis 9/25/17 (Nev, The Hill, "week ahead in finance: big day for tax reform")
Wednesday is a big day for Republicans, with leaders expected to finally unveil the framework of their
tax reform plan, following months of speculation, negotiations and controversy. It's a high-stakes moment for a party
looking for a big legislative win and comes as a last-ditch effort to pass the GOP's other big item, ObamaCare repeal, is teetering in
the Senate. Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee are meeting Sunday and Monday to work on the blueprint. And the full
GOP House will reportedly meet on Wednesday to be briefed on the plan before its made public. The
White House is also ready to make a full court press for the plan . President Trump in his weekly address
laid out his principles for tax reform, including making the code simple, cutting taxes for the middle class, making the system
more attractive for investment and bringing back trillions in overseas earnings. Unveiling the framework will be a big step
for the so-called "Big Six," who are negotiating the deal, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady
(R-Texas), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

The balance is delicate Trump has to walk a tightrope of courting Democrats without
angering the GOP
Thomas and Lucey 9/24/17 (Ken and Catherine, "Trump aims to achieve congressional balancing
act on taxes")

President Donald Trump

says he wants to lure Democratic lawmakers to sign on to a Republican-crafted tax
overhaul plan but negotiators must deal with the reality that any handouts to Democrats could quickly
turn into turnoffs for the GOP . The White House and tax-writing Republican leaders are expected to begin filling in some of the details this
coming week on Trump's plan to simplify the tax system, a legislative priority for the president. The White House views this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
simplify taxes and cut rates, while giving Trump a much-needed victory as the Republicans struggle to overturn the Obama health care law. The
specifics
are taking shape. Trump's efforts to draw in a few Democrats could mean "you're going to lose a few
Republicans," said Mark Weinberger, CEO of the accounting firm EY. But he added: "He wants to get 51 votes period in the
Senate ... so it is possible you might lose a few Republicans and pick up a few Democrats who are in
states that Trump won." While the plan is not finalized, Trump is already planning to promote it heavily. He will travel
to Indiana on Wednesday, and aides are discussing a televised speech, according to people familiar with White House plans. People familiar with the plan being
written entirely by Republicans said the administration is considering lowering the corporate tax rate from its current 35 percent to somewhere in the low 20s. The
plan probably would seek tax cuts across the board for individuals and reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three. The administration is considering
whether to repeal the estate tax, long a Republican cause, according to these people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations still
underway. Republican leaders had promised an overhaul that would not add to the deficit. Republicans are talking about cuts whose costs would be justified by
assumptions of greater economic growth. Lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee planned to meet Sunday night and Monday to discuss taxes, and
House Republicans are set to meet privately away from the Capitol on Wednesday, according to aides familiar with the plans. The
White House
initially pushed hard to overhaul taxes with only Republican support. But in recent months, people
involved with tax discussions have found that Republican lawmakers beyond a general desire to cut
rates and simplify the tax system also have their own divisions. The result is that Trump has been unable to deliver a tax
overhaul with concrete details. "There are Republicans, there are base Republicans, there are Trump Republicans, there are progressive Democrats, there are Blue
Dog Democrats," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "There
is no way to move one way or the
other and not lose someone on the other end of the spectrum." Trump has bargained on other issues with Senate Democratic
leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. But the tax plan has been developed in private with Treasury Secretary
Steve Mnuchin, White House economic adviser Gary Cohen, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the two Republicans leading
the major tax-writing committees Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas.
 links
Expanding educational access for disadvantaged groups causes massive congressional
fights and PC drain no turns even supports perceive fed reforms as inherently
ineffective
Lamiell, 12 --- Patricia, Director Media Relations @ Teachers College, University Columbia, 2/10,
http://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2012/february/how-should-politics-influence-
education-policy/
How Should Politics Influence Education Policy? How much does national education policy make a difference in classrooms, and how
much
do national politics drive education policy in America, where schools, curricula and teaching have
been controlled at the local and state levels since the dawn of public schools? A lot, according to three
distinguished education policy analysts who took part in a panel discussion on February 8 to inaugurate the Colleges new
Education Policy and Social analysis (EPSA) Department and potentially never more so than now, as Congress

weighs reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law against the backdrop of a highly
polarized presidential campaign. The panel discussion, held in TCs Cowin Conference Center, was moderated by Jeffrey Henig,
Professor of Political Science and Education and EPSA department chair. It featured Christopher T. Cross, a former U.S. Under Secretary of
Education and current Chairman of Cross & Joftus, an education-policy consulting firm; Jack Jennings, founder and recently retired Director of
the Center on Education Policy, an education research firm; and Wendy D. Puriefoy, President of the Public Education Network (PEN), the
nations largest network of community-based school reform organizations. Prompted by Henig, the
panelistswho were welcomed by TC
President Susan Fuhrmandiscussed the often bitter and sometimes even violent disagreements on federal

versus local control of education policy that have erupted since the school desegregation battles of
the 1960s. Puriefoy told how, as a young woman, she monitored court-ordered desegregation in Boston, visiting schools and reporting back
to a federal judge whose appointment owed to the victory of Lyndon Johnson, a passionate advocate of school desegregation, in the 1964
presidential election. Reaching much further back, Puriefoy argued that desegregation surely would never have occurred had not Abraham
Lincoln freed the slaves. Federal
politics and education policy are inextricably linked , she said. The bottom line for all
three panelists: Most major changes to American schools have resulted from federal law, jurisprudence or policy.
Cross noted that Title I funding, enacted in 1965, provided extra funding for schools with economically disadvantaged children. Congress passed
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) in 1975, when the notion that
children with disabilities should be educatedlet alone integrated into classrooms with non-disabled children, as is happening nowwas a
revolutionary idea. NCLB, enacted in 2002, has had an enormous effect on how and what gets taught, in Crosss view, forcing teachers to focus
on testing at the expense of deep learning. And the Race to the Top program of the Obama administration has significantly affected spending
priorities, teaching and learning in public schools. The question of whether national policy has influenced education unquestionably has to be
answered yes, Cross said. The
reality is that almost everything that goes on is, in fact, guided by what happened
in federal policy at some point, even though people in the classroom may not recognize it. The idea that education policy is
or somehow should be apolitical simply is not borne out by history or current facts , Jennings said. A recent
case in point: If John McCain had been elected president in 2008, he, unlike President Obama, would very likely have allowed thousands of
teachers jobs to be eliminated by drastic budget cuts made necessary by the recession. And should Obama fail to win reelection this coming
fall, a
Republican president may well seek to do away with the U.S. Department of Education. Policy
should really be integrated into politics, Jennings said. If people of good will dont deal with policy, he said, decisions
will be left to those who are not equipped to make themor worse, who are simply uninterested in fairness and
equity in education. The panelists were unanimous in their criticism of NCLB, which Puriefoy said has gone horribly awry, but they
differed on what to do about it. The law has not been amended since its bipartisan passage in early 2002, and while both Democrats and
Republicans now agree it should be changed, Republicans dont want to give credit to Obama for amending it, Jennings said. Puriefoy
concurred, adding that the
environment in Congress has become much more poisonous, and it has become
more difficult to create the environment we need in order to transform education. And while education
has always been a polarizing issue , and minorities have always had to fight for access to good
education , for the first time in the countrys history, people dont believe their childrens lives will be better than
theirs, Puriefoy said. They dont believe in the ability of institutions to bring about change . So can anything be
doneand is this years presidential election an opportunity to put national education issues before voters in a way they will notice? Cross was
skeptical, but said he would like both parties to discuss education issues after the election to find common ground. Jennings suggested creating
federal-state partnerships modeled on those in Germany, but Puriefoy noted that Germany also supports children and families with programs
other than education. Schools cant be responsible on their own, she said. They need help. To Henigs final questionWhat would you like
to see in the next administration?Cross replied that the U.S. Department of Education should get rid of the silosEnglish Language
Learners, Special Education and others, which are too large, bureaucratic and costly. Jennings warned that the
incoming president
should not listen to the radical right, but instead totally rethink school financing, which is currently
based on property taxes, and fight the long tradition of anti-intellectualism in this country by pursuing a
new agenda that focuses on quality curriculum and teaching. Puriefoy called for a rededication to educating all sectors of children,
strong federal standards, and getting rid of states rights. This fragmentation in education is just unacceptable. We need a new intellectual
contract in this country, she said. Good policy follows good intention. If we resolve to educate every child in this country, regardless of ZIP
code, were goingto have to dismantle what were doing. Were not going to get there without
significant disruption.

Majority hate federal education policy compared to the statesespecially true with
Republican president (use as nb to states)
McCarthy 2016
Justin is a writer and researcher for Gallup, Majority in U.S. Prefer State Over Federal Government Power, Gallup, July 11,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/193595/majority-prefer-state-federal-government-power.aspx, Accessed 3-13

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A
majority of Americans (55%) favor the theory of government that concentrates
power in state governments, outnumbering the 37% who favor power concentrated in the federal
government. The latest update of this question -- asked only twice before, in 1936 and 1981 -- is from a June 14-23 Gallup poll. It comes as
nearly half of the states sue the federal government over its directive to grant transgender students the right to use bathrooms and locker
rooms that correspond with their gender identity. Schools that don't comply could risk losing federal funding. Americans' preference for state
power was similar in 1981 -- the first year of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who declared his support for states' rights on the prior year's
campaign trail. In contrast, Americans slightly preferred federal power in the mid-1930s, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled a
sweeping series of programs that increased the role of the federal government in Americans' lives. The current lawsuit over transgender
bathrooms, which is being brought predominantly by GOP-controlled states, is one of many battles states have fought against President Barack
Obama's administration. Obama was unsuccessful this year in defending his executive order on allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in
the U.S. but won the fight to uphold the Affordable Care Act he signed into law in his first term. Views on this question are far from politically
homogeneous. The majority of Democrats (62%) support concentrating power at the federal level , while
majorities of independents (56%) and Republicans (78%) favor concentrating power at the state level .
Democrats' preference for federal power reflects their party's underlying ideology and is likely related to
having a Democrat in the White House. Meanwhile, about two in three state governors in the U.S. are from the GOP,
and Republicans are more than four times as likely to prefer concentration of power at the state versus
the federal level.

No shielding- Court education decisions are highly controversial and derail the agenda-
--the plan causes court stripping and congressional backlash
Jennings, 15 Jack Jennings, former president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy and general
counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Lessons Learned from Federal Involvement
in Schooling, in Presidents, Congress, and the Public Schools: The Politics of Education Reform, p. 144-
145

STRONG POLICIES

When the federal government has adopted forceful policies, the effect is greater than when weaker
policies have been usedthis is common sense. The means of carrying out federal policies exist along a
continuum of forcefulness.

Supreme Court decisions are the most powerful means of ensuring action on a policy, and lower
federal court rulings are also potent. The Supreme Court's 1974 Lau ruling, which held that the San
Francisco school district violated the constitutional rights of students who were not proficient in English
because they were not afforded additional assistance to learn English, changed practices throughout
the country. Lower federal court decisions, which found violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in
school districts' treatment of children with disabilities, not only affected the defendant school districts
but more importantly spurred congressional action in writing what has come to be known today as
IDEA.

Brown v. Board of Education, although it was issued somewhat before the time frame of this book, was
tremendously important not only in desegregating the schools but also in establishing the ideal that
America should be a country for all peoples. In sharp contrast, the Supreme Court's San Antonio
Independent School District v. Rodriguez closed the federal doors to efforts to bring greater fairness in
the funding of public education. This 1973 case involved Texas's substantial reliance on local real estate
taxes to fund the schools even though that meant that property-poor school districts had much less
available for education than did property-rich school districts. The Court said that there was no remedy
at the federal level, and so sent the issue back to the states.

As powerful as they are, federal court rulings can be affected by congressional action. Over a period of
many years, the Congress enacted laws that sought to limit the Supreme Court's Swann decision,
which held that the lower federal courts could order busing of school children for the purpose of
desegregation. While enacting those laws, Congress tried not to go head-to-head with the courts, since
they could rule those laws as unconstitutional, but eventually Congress succeeded in limiting busing,
assisted by presidential appointments of judges disposed against that practice. With Title IX, Congress
changed the law after the Supreme Court ruled in Grove City that only one part of that institution of
higher education would be affected by the prohibition on discrimination against women. The Civil
Rights Restoration Act, in effect, overruled the Court's decision by clarifying congressional intent that
entire institutions were affected, not only by Title IX but also by other civil rights laws. Even though
court rulings are a powerful federal tool to execute policy, they are not necessarily the last word.
Court uniquely politicized and rulings tied to trump Blocking Garland vote changed
the game
Turow, 17 --- Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant
Attorney, member of the U.S. Senate Nominations Commission, 2/1,
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

CAN NEIL GORSUCH DE-POLITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT? Or will he make matters worse? The ultimate consequence of a
court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected, and even disobeyed, by the political majority. The nomination
of federal Appellate Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court is destined to speed up
the already rapid politicization of the court , a process that threatens to rob it of legitimacy and, sooner or later, produce open defiance of
its decisions. This has next to nothing to do with the bona fides of Judge Gorsuch, who appears to have the intellectual qualificationsa doctorate from

Oxford, no lessand the judicial experience that one, in theory, would want in a Supreme Court justice. The problem, of course, is the way

we got here. Even before Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Scalia last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
refused to allow hearings to proceed on any name that the president sent forth. Instead, McConnell said, the
nomination should belong to the next president chosen by the American people. There was virtually
no precedent for McConnells position: Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagans second term by a
Democratic Senate. Worse, by essentially proposing that the choice for a Supreme Court justice would be decided as the result of a plebiscite, McConnell

was suggesting that the court should be controlled by the voters. McConnells actions were all the more ironic because they
concerned the seat of the courts most committed originalist, as those who supposedly interpret the Constitution according to the intent and understandings of
its framers are called. In this case, the intent of the framers was pretty clear on a couple of matters. First, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: The
President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the [S]upreme Court... Lawyers, including originalists,
love plain language, and the plain language here vests the appointment power solely in the president, with the Senates role limited to advising and consenting.
By withholding any vote in committee or on the Senate floor, McConnell clearly ignored the constitutional command to offer advice or affirmation. Furthermore,

by awaiting the next presidential election, McConnell was saying that the voters deserved to decide the
direction of the court . Again, this is not what the framers of the constitution wanted. They could have easily provided for the election of judges. They
didnt. The framers envisioned the court as a less political institution on which the justices would serve for life, so that they
were not prisoners of the popular will.
 Framing
Rather than allowing morals to dictate the outcome of every situation,
consequentialism should be used so morals can be applied and considered given the
situation
Raphael, ND (Hansel Raphael, date of publication not listed, "Deontology vs Consequentialism
Reflection Paper," academia.edu,
https://www.academia.edu/3445672/Deontology_vs_Consequentialism_Reflection_Paper) //jackH

The deontological view presumes that by acting according to a categorical imperative, one necessarily
acts morally and in accordance to universal maxims. Yet, there remains the question of conflicting
imperatives and how to resolve them. There are instances when acting on categorical imperatives may
lead to negative consequences, and this complication is one where consequentialist views contend to
account for.

To illustrate using an example: Tom and Harry are good friends working in a restaurant. One
afternoon, Tom catches Harry taking food from the restaurants freezer to bring home for his big
family. Tom knows that Harry is the sole breadwinner and that his family is poor, and that Harry will
surely lose his job if Tom reports him to the boss. Should Tom tell on Harry?

The Kantian view is very clear on this: for Tom to act morally, he must report Harrys theft to the boss -
regardless of the consequences. This is because of a categorical imperative that leaves no room for
exceptions; the deontological view is of a universe that obliges all people to fulfill their moral duties in
all situations. Derived from pure reasoning, the decision to report Harry must be seen as intrinsically
good, and is one that can be applied to all rational beings as a consistently universalized maxim.

In the example, there seems to be conflict between two categorical imperatives:

1) Duty to uphold justice against theft

2) Duty and responsibilities as a friend
Since Tom cannot choose to do one without forgoing the other, on what basis should he choose to base
his moral decision on? How is one choice more justified than the other? Consequentialists offer the
answer by suggesting that the right action may be determined by focusing on the utility of each
choice, positing that the actions which effect the consequences of least suffering (or most enjoyment)
are moral ones and should be taken.

From the consequentialist point of view, it would seem moral for Tom to not report Harry since the loss
of food from the freezer is unlikely to be discovered and will not hurt a restaurant with wealthy
patrons as much as it will help Harrys hungry family. In essence, the utility of not reporting is higher
than that of reporting it.

In this case, I think that the consequentialist view is more plausible and realistic than the deontological
view. While deontology is rationally justified and can thereby be nominated as a moral law binding all
rational beings, its practice in reality is at times (as in this example) problematic because of its rigid
adherence to universal maxims.
Consequentialism, on the other hand, seems to allow for a decision more approximate to lived
experience, since people would more likely be willing to break a moral law than to be a cause of
Harrys suffering and justify it as an exception to an otherwise universal maxim.

Utilitarian calculations are inevitable and necessary for effective state policymaking
such calculations arbitrate competing rights claims and distribute scarce resources.
Heard 97 Andrew Heard, Associate Professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, 1997
(The Challenges of Utilitarianism and Relativism, Human Rights: Chimeras in Sheeps Clothing?,
Available Online at http://www.sfu.ca/ ~aheard/417/util.html, Accessed 09-22-2005)

Utilitarian challenges to the enjoyment of human rights need not occur only in such extraordinary
circumstances. Imprisonment may be justified because there is thought to be a greater good for society
that an individual be completely denied their freedom of movement and locked away. Utilitarian
calculations may also resolve disputes that arise with conflicts between different rights or the
enjoyment of the same right by different individuals. The decision faced by any government to
balance the needs of health care, education, welfare payments, and the justice system leads to tough
choices about the relative proportion of the state's budget that should be dedicated to each social
program. The distribution of state resources among these services will in the end depend on the
government's perception of the greatest good provided for that society. Also, even within one area of
spending the government will have to decide on distributing the benefits in a particular way. For
instance, there may be a need to balance expensive hospital equipment, such as CAT scanners, against
paying for nurses and hospital beds for patients undergoing general surgery. In the education system,
governments need to balance the amount spent on primary, secondary, vocational, and higher learning.
Different societies distribute their resources according their vision of the greatest good arising from
the particular needs of that society.