24 8page states cp aff bdl permutation generic

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: uboptimal but uniform federal judge-made regulation of foreign relations is preferable to the nonuniformity inherent in state-by-state regulation of a foreign relations issue. 213 Finally, the federal common law of foreign relations is designed to protect political branch prerogatives in foreign relations that the political branches themselves are structurally unsuited to protect. Any remaining concerns about the legitimacy or competence of the federal common law of foreign relations are thus mitigated by the political branches' ability to override judicial errors in the development of such law. b. That tanks solvency John Donahue, JFK School of Government, 1997 (Disunited States, p. 42) Even when states vary, of course, there are arguments for uniformity. Institutions and individuals who live or do business in several states face the expense, bother, and confusion of coping with different (and sometimes conflicting) rules. Inconsistencies among state laws and regulations can lead to disputes of great complexity and to resolutions of limited appeal . After taking its case all the way to the Supreme Court, for example, a cruise ship operator won the right to be sued only in Florida by aggrieved passengers who had been on a trip between Washington State and Mexico. 5|Page States CP Aff BDL No Solvency – Uniformity Ext. [___] Political polarity between states makes transportation uniformity impossible John Kincaid, Professor of Government and Public Service at Lafayette College, 2004 (‘Trends in Federalism: Continuity, Change and Polarization’, aid-BookoftheStates-2004.pdf?sequence=1) The partisan polarization evident in the 2000 presidential election and in Washington, D.C., is a new contextual trend that is increasingly shaping federalism and intergovernmental relations. In 2003, it became evident that polarization has strained the traditional bipartisanship of the Big 7 state and local associations, especially the National Governors Association (NGA), where partisan conflict led to the firing of NGA’s chief lobbyist, to reduced dues payments by some states, and to several states withdrawing from the NGA for a time. Although bipartisanship still prevails generally in these associations, continued polarization will weaken their ability to present a united front, especially on major issues that have significant impacts on both the states and the national electoral balance. This polarization has affected public, presidential, congressional and judicial responses to virtually all public policy issues and introduced fundamental philosophical differences over some long-standing federal-state practices and intergovernmental programs. The consequences of polarization were reflected, for example, in the battles that scuttled reauthorization of three major intergovernmental programs in 2003: the 1996 welfare-reform law, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The compromises needed to enact legislation under conditions of polarization will likely make some intergovernmental programs more complex and somewhat schizophrenic. This polarization also makes it impossible to resurrect bipartisan and nonpartisan intergovernmental instit...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online