Federalism Disad

Download 0.57 Mb.
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size0.57 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   56

WDW 2009 Federalism

Federalism Disad

Federalism Disad 1

1nc 3

Uniqueness – Generic Obama 5

Uniqueness - Education 7

Veterans UQ 8

Uniqueness – TANF 9

Uniqueness – Drug Programs 10

Link – Social Services 11

Crime link 12

Link – Crime 13

LINK – Federal Mandates 14

Federalism Key to stop poverty 15


Federalism not Modeled – Generic 17

Federalism not Modeled – Generic 18

Russia Won’t Model US Federalism 19

Russia Won’t Model US Federalism 20

Russian Federalism Good: Civil War 21

Russian Federalism Good: Democracy 22

Russian Federalism Good: Ethnic Conflict 23

Russian Federalism Good: Ethnic Conflict 24

Russian Federalism Good: Democracy 25

Russian Federalism Good: Terrorism 26

Russian Federalism Good: Economy 27

Russian Federalism Good: Proliferation 28

Russia Collapse Causes Prolif 29

Russian Federalism Good: Stability 30

Russian Federalism Good: Genocide 31

Indian Federalism: No Modeling 32

Indian Federalism Good - Kashmir 33

Indian Federalism Good: Ethnic Conflicts 34

Indian Federalism Good: Conflict Solvency 35

Indian Federalism Good: Economy 36

Brazil Won’t Model US Federalism 37

Generic – Latin America won’t model 38

Brazilian Federalism Good: Economy 39

Generic – Middle East won’t model 40

Iraq Won’t Model US Federalism 41

Iraqi Federalism Good: War 42

Iraqi Federalism Good: Ethnic Conflict 43

Iraqi Federalism Good: Ethnic Conflict 44

AT: Federalism Impossible in Iraq 45

Nigeria Won’t Model US Federalism 46

Nigerian Federalism Good: Stability 47

Nigerian Federalism Good: Stability 48

Nigerian Federalism Good: Stability 49

Indonesia Won’t Model US Federalism 50

Indonesian Federalism Good – Economy 51

Federalism K to Indonesian Economy 53

Federalism Good – War 54

Federalism Good – Heg 56

Federalism Good – Prevents Conflict 57

Federalism Good – Free Trade 58

Federalism Good: International Trade 59

US Federalism Good: Competiveness 60

Federalism Good: Democracy 61

Federalism Good: Tyranny 62

Tyranny Internals 64

AT Secession Scenarios 65

2AC F/L – Federalism 66

Extension to #1 – Nonunique 68


US Federalism Bad: Natural Disasters 70

Natural Disasters – Disease module 71

Disease internals 72

Federalism Bad – Natural Disasters 74

US Federalism Bad: Environment 76

US Federalism Bad: Disease, Terrorism, Disasters 77

Federalism Bad: Ethnic Conflict 78

Federalism Bad: Secession 79

AT Federalism Solves Conflicts 80

AT Terrorism 81

Federalism Modeled - Generic 82

Russia Models US Federalism 83

Russian Federalism Bad: Prolif 84

Russian Federalism Bad: Organized Crime 85

Organized Crime Bad: Economy 86

Organized Crime Bad: Bioweapons 87

Russian Federalism Bad: Nationalism 88

Russia Federalism Bad: Economy (1/2) 89

Russian Federalism Bad: Economy 91

Russian Federalism Bad: Separatism 92

AT: Russian Federalism Key to Check Disintegration 93

India Models US Federalism 94

Indian Federalism Bad: Economy 95

Indian Federalism Bad: Economy Internals 97

Indian Federalism Bad: Economy Impacts 98

Brazil Models US Federalism 99

Brazilian Federalism Bad: Economy 100

Brazil Models US Federalism 101

Brazilian Federalism Bad: Economy 102

Brazilian Federalism Bad: Economy 103

Latin America Key to Global Economy 104

Iraq Models US Federalism 105

Iraqi Federalism Bad: War 106

Iraqi Federalism Bad: Civil War 107

Iraqi Federalism Bad: Civil War 108

Nigeria Models US Federalism 109

Nigerian Federalism Bad: Oil Shocks 111

Nigerian Federalism Bad: Oil Shocks Internals 113

Nigerian Federalism Bad: Oil Shocks Internals 114

Nigerian Federalism Bad: Instability 115

Indonesia Models US Federalism 117

Indonesian Federalism Bad: Hegemony 118

Indonesian Federalism Bad: Terrorism 119

Indonesian Federalism Bad: Free Trade 120

Indonesian Federalism = Secession 122

Impact - Devolution=Conflict 123

Devolution t/ case – increases poverty 124

If you read the free trade scenario that’s in the 1nc you should probably have your US federalism modeled cards ready to go aa well.


A) Federalism high now – Obama is returning power to the states

John Dinan and Shama Gamkhar May 14th, 2009 (Dinan is a professor of political science at Wake Forest, Gamkhar is a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin)The State of American Federalism 2008–2009: The Presidential Election, the Economic Downturn, and the Consequences for Federalism” Published in Publius: The Journal of Federalism” page online: http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/pjp012 Accessed July 9, 2009.

In the early months of his presidency, Obama took a number of opportunities to revisit Bush administration positions regarding expansion of federal authority, preemption of state policy experimentation, and fiscal support for states, and the outlines of Obama's positions are starting to emerge. First, Obama has permitted greater state policy experimentation in several areas, including auto emissions standards and children's health programs. Second, Obama has been much more responsive to state fiscal interests, as evidenced most clearly by his support for a massive stimulus package containing significant state aid. Third, and as discussed in the next part of this essay, Obama has put federal power and resources in the service of a different set of policy goals, particularly regarding energy conservation and environmental protection. Obama reversed Bush administration policy in such a way as to expand state discretion in several areas. In January 2009, he directed the EPA to begin the process of reversing a December 2007 denial of a Clean Air Act waiver to California (Schwartz 2009), and in February 2009, he signed a CHIP (formerly SCHIP) reauthorization measure that Bush vetoed twice in an earlier form in 2007. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) went even further than the earlier vetoed bills in granting discretion to states to insure legal immigrants immediately rather than waiting five years. Moreover, upon signing the law, Obama directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to withdraw an August 2007 Bush administration directive preventing states from using federal CHIP funds to cover children in families making above 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). The Obama memo restored states’ ability to cover children above this income level, although federal matching funds will be reduced for states choosing for the first time to cover children in families above 300 percent of FPL (Center for Children and Families 2009). In another departure from Bush administration policy, in March 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Drug Enforcement Administration would discontinue raids on medical marijuana

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   56

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page