AFFIRMATIVE – COUNTERPLAN – STATES/FEDERALISM

AFFIRMATIVE — COUNTERPLAN — STATES/FEDERALISM — ANSWERS 38

NOT UNIQUE — STATES RIGHTS FEDERALISM IS DEAD ALREADY

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY BUTTING INTO STATES' BUSINESS AT EVERY LEVEL

Michael Grunwald, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, October 24, 1999, SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A01 TITLE: In Legislative Tide, State Power Ebbs; Federalization Has Few Friends but Many Votes // acs-EE2001

But to Michael Bird, a lobbyist for the National Conference of State Legislatures, the problem is not that Congress is butting into some things; it's that it's butting into almost everything.

"It's the same old story: People in Washington think they know what's best for states," Bird said. "They beat their breasts about devolution all the time, but whenever they don't like the way states do something, they step in and do it their way. It's so hypocritical."

EXISTING PATTERNS OIF FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION HAS STRANGLED STATES POWER

But states'-rights advocates say that in recent years, the scourge of unfunded federal mandates has been replaced by the straitjacket of direct federal preemption. Sometimes the federal intrusion is blatant, as in the recent congressional move overturning the legalization of medical marijuana in the District, or the three-year moratorium that prohibits states from taxing the Internet. Sometimes they are more subtle, such as an obscure provision Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) tucked into a transportation bill directing states to take steps to protect the privacy of driver's license records.

GIVING POWER TO THE STATES IS ALL RHETORIC, AND POLICY ACTIONS ALL GO AGAINST IT

"Everybody up here is constantly saying we should send power out of Washington, but we hardly ever do," complained Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a former two-term governor who spent 32 years in local, county and state government before coming to Congress this year. "I keep trying to get that across to people. It's just impossible to get anyone to listen."

BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ALLOWING A STRING OF INITIATIVES TO UNDERMINE STATE LEVEL AUTHORITY

Lawmakers of both parties all seem to support state power in theory, but critics complain that most of them can't help trying to interfere when they don't like the way states are using it.

The assisted suicide ban, for example, would overturn a controversial Oregon law. The so-called Patients Bill of Rights could preempt health-care statutes in dozens of states. The juvenile justice bill, best known for its gun control measures, also would force states to prosecute more adolescents as adults and federalize a variety of crimes extending well beyond graphic footwear videos.

And those aren't the only examples of "preemption" -- that is, when the federal government does something to supersede a state law. The House Judiciary Committee last week passed a bill making electronic signatures valid nationwide, regardless of state laws. An $ 82.6 billion domestic budget bill stalled over GOP efforts to eliminate needle exchange programs in the District. And a House subcommittee prepared to take up a national electricity deregulation bill that could supersede at least 26 state deregulation plans; a group called Citizens for State Power responded with ads featuring a federal electricity regulator in a sheriff's hat pointing a gun at consumers.

A STRING OF FEDERAL INITIATIVES ARE ALREADY TRAMPLING STATES RIGHTS TO POWER IN A FEDERALIST SYSTEM

There was a typical menagerie of legislation on Capitol Hill last week. The Senate passed a "partial-birth" abortion ban; the House prepared to take up an assisted suicide ban. Behind the scenes, major battles raged over managed-care restrictions and an overhaul of the juvenile justice system. As usual, Congress addressed issues of great import, such as a massive overhaul of the financial services system, and not-so-great import, such as a "foot fetish" bill making it a federal crime to sell videotapes of animals being tortured with stiletto heels.

But there is one thing those initiatives have in common: They all would expand federal power at the expense of states. Members of Congress still talk a lot about states' rights, about "a devolution of power" to their beloved "laboratories of democracy," but when it comes to actual legislation, a counterdevolution is well underway.

BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE BEEN ACTING TO REDUCE THE POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENTS VS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

In fact, the congressional push to dictate state policies has been a bipartisan effort.

It is mostly Republicans pushing to override states on e-signatures, late-term abortion, assisted suicide and legislation to protect private property owners from public "takings." Democrats have been the main advocates of federal child care standards, federal privacy protections and a federal initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers. The parties cooperated on one preemptive bill insulating businesses from lawsuits over the Y2K computer bug, and another superseding state and local laws deemed hostile to religious groups.

FEDERALISM CURRENTLY MEANS FEDERAL DOMINANCE

William Safire The New York Times January 30, 2000, SECTION: Section 6; Page 20; TITLE: On Language; Federalism // acs-EE2001

I care not what semantic course others may take; as for me, give me current meaning or give me death. Time for the Supremes to bow to the inexorability of common usage, a kind of 10th Amendment of language change. Most people take federalism to mean "dominated by the federal government," much as the empire-building Hamilton intended. In this, Chief Justice Rehnquist is behind the times.