Federalism Policy Issue

  F​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​ederalism Policy Issue The topic of federalism remains as contentious today as it was at the nation’s founding when the issue of state’s rights versus national government responsibility to the whole, has been debated and fought over (literally and figuratively). The issue of centralization versus decentralization has taken a number of specific forms. Your task is to choose from among five scenarios (details will be available in Bridges) and write a position paper arguing your perspective on the issue. There is no specific page limit for this assignment, however, to write a thorough argument your paper should be at least five pages (not including the bibliography), typewritten, 12-font, and double-spaced. The topic of federalism remains as contentious today as it was at the nation’s founding when the issue of state’s rights versus central government responsibility to the whole, has been debated and fought over (literally and figuratively). The issue of centralization versus decentralization has taken a number of specific forms. Your task is to choose from among the five scenarios listed below, and write a position paper arguing your perspective on the issue. Please back up your perspective with research from the textbook( Intergovernmental Relations in Transition by Carl W. Ste berg and David K. Hamilton) and other sources that will help underscore your argument. Remember that position papers also include the opposing view. You must attempt to explain why proponents of the opposing view do not make the stronger argument based on the evidence you provide. There is no right or wrong position on any one of the issues below. There is no specific page limit for this assignment however, to write a thorough argument, your paper should be at least five pages long (not including the bibliography), typewritten, 12-font, and double-spaced. This assignment is due at class time by Tuesday, June 29th posted in the Bridges file drop. Issue #1: Is it right for the national government to use its financial strength to pressure states into passing legislation to comply with national laws or mandates by threatening ​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​to withhold subsidies – or are such pressures an abuse of the federal system? For example, from January 1974 to April 1987, federal law withheld federal highway trust funds to states that had speed limits above 55 mph. (The law was later amended to allow speeds up to 65 mph on rural interstate highways before it was repealed in 1995.) Issue #2: Should the national government intervene by enforcing the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage the law of the land on those 13 states that have not legalized same-sex marriage and have instead enacted “Defense of Marriage” Acts. While the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges made the laws of those states null and void, what are the implications for keeping the laws of those states as they stand? Also, three states that have legalized gay marriage (Kansas, Missouri and Alabama), have also placed restrictions in the laws’ implementation. Should they or any other state be allowed to impose restricting provisions to the federal law? We also see restrictions imposed by several states on laws pertaining to abortion. What are some arguments made by those states that allow them to interpret federal law in ways that they see fit? Issue #3: Should the Commerce Clause be interpreted broadly, granting the federal government much power to regulate the economy – or should it be interpreted as narrowly as possible to keep the government from interfering with the rights of business owners? Decisions by the Supreme Court through the years have not been consistent on this issue and the relationship between the federal government and subnational actors has more often than not been legislated rather than adjudicated. Issue #4: Should the federal government have a role in setting national policies for public education – or should that be left entirely to the states? Issue #5: Why is the Affordable Care Act of 2010 continually being challenged by states and by conservative legislators of Congress? What are some of the arguments as to why the Affordable Care Act should be abolished in spite of the fact that it has survived over 2000 attempts at various levels of g​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​overnment to kill it?