NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN STATES
PLAN: The state governments will adopt the affirmative plan and the federal government will not. Normal state means.
CONTENTION ONE: NON-TOPICAL
The counterplan is at the state level, while the federal level is specified in the resolution.
CONTENTION TWO: COMPETITION
A. NET BENEFITS: THE DISADVANTAGES DO NOT LINK TO THE STATE COUNTERPLAN.
B. TEXTUALLY COMPETITIVE: YOU CANNOT ADOPT THE TEXT OF THE PLAN AND THE TEXT OF THE COUNTERPLAN AT THE SAME TIME.
C. NET BENEFITS: THE STATES SHOULD CONTROL PRIVACY REGULATION
STATES SHOULD CONTROL PRIVACY REGULATION
The Buffalo News May 30, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE, Pg. 2H TITLE: DON'T SLIGHT PRIVACY IN FEDERALISM CASE // acs-EE2001
The primary issue of how the authority to govern is allocated under our constitutional system of federalism between state and national levels is, of course, complex. There may be reasons that this activity could be reserved for the states without federal interference.
D. NET BENEFITS: UPHOLDING THE TENTH AMENDMENT SECURES THE ADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM
10TH AMENDMENT RESERVATION OF POWER TO THE STATES IS THE BASIS OF FEDERALISM
James J. Kilpatrick, The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 01, 1999, SECTION: OPINION Pg. B-6: TITLE: Determining our right to privacy // acs-VT2001
Every word of the 10th Amendment carries a weight of fundamental principle. Here is the foundation of federalism. The federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not vest a particular power in Congress, the courts or the executive branch, the power does not exist -- or rather, the power remains with the states " respectively."
E. NET BENEFITS: WE CAN PROTECT PRIVACY WITHOUT THE PROBLEMS OF FEDERAL REGULATION
PRIVACY YES, BUT FEDERAL REGULATION NO
The Washington Post, November 18, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A40 TITLE: Privacy and the Court // acs-EE2001
But it is hard to object to the principle that personal information that one is essentially compelled to produce should not be sold without the individual's consent; we have supported privacy restrictions for license information at the state level.
Far less clear is why such a rule should be imposed nationally, rather than letting states carve out their own privacy regimes.
F. WE ASSURE FEDERALISM BY PICKING THE RIGHT AGENT THE STATES
THE FEDERALISM ISSUE IS NOT ONE OF BALANCE, BUT SELECTING THE RIGHT AGENT TO ACCOMPLISH A TASK
The Washington Post January 14, 2000, SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A26, TITLE: The Court and Federalism // acs-EE2001
THE BALANCE of power between the federal government and the states -- the subject that preoccupied the Supreme Court this week -- is one of the enduring tensions in the structure of American government. In recent decades, liberals have tended to be enthusiastic about the use of federal power, especially to protect the rights of minorities and the interests of the poor. Conservatives have urged invigoration of the states as a way of limiting the reach of the federal government. But the debate about how to strike the constitutional balance shouldn't break down along political lines. The proper question is whether the justices are letting policy issues be addressed by the appropriate level of government, rather than which level is likely to deliver a particular favored outcome.
CONTENTION THREE: THE ADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM
A. FEDERALISM IS KEY TO DEMOCRACY
John Kincaid, Spring 1995; Publius, "Values and value tradeoffs in federalism," EE2001-hxm P.
As Tocqueville observed, this modern form of federalism made democracy more viable and secure on both a large and a small scale. It did so on a large scale by establishing, through the consent of the people of the constituent states, a strong but still limited general government possessing constitutionally delegated powers to be exercised in the general interest of the whole polity. This general government is, as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 15, a real government because it possesses direct authority over individuals within its sphere of power. Under the Articles of Confederation of 1781, the general government could not touch the person of the citizen; it could act only through the constituent governments. Furthermore, under the new federal Constitution, citizens elected members of the U.S. House of Representatives and indirectly elected the president, while each state legislature selected two members of the U.S. Senate. Hence, James Madison called the new federalism of 1787 "neither wholly national nor wholly federal" (i.e., confederal).
B. FEDERALISM IS ESSENTIAL TO SUBVERT SOCIAL TYRANNY AND TO FOSTER MOVEMENTS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
Steven G. Calabresi, December 1995; MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, "A government of limited and enumerated powers," EE2001-hxm P.
Movements for social change and even U.S. presidential campaigns usually commence from some regional or state base and then spread across the country. This phenomenon should not surprise us. The constitutionally indestructible states do play a useful role in lowering the costs of organizing to fight for change or to resist tyranny.(104) Federalism is about more than constitutionally mandated decentralization, as important as it is that decentralization be mandated constitutionally and not merely an act of grace from our national overlords in Washington. Federalism is also about the fear of concentrated national power and the grave abuses of individual and minority rights to which that power can be put. This is why the advocates of federalism, ancient and modern, always have defended it as preserving liberty and protecting against tyranny. The advocates of federalism are right, and Rubin and Feely are wrong.