Category Archives: Federalism

What isradicalfederalism, what would it look like and should Labour champion it? This is what Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, West Yorkshire mayor Tracy Brabin, Welsh Labours Mick Antoniw MS and Professor Nicola McEwen discussed this week at a panel event by LabourList and UK in a Changing Europe.

Scottish Labours Anas Sarwar said: Whether we call it radical federalism or not, lets push for further devolution, not as some kind of quick political fix, but because we mean it and we are truly the champions of devolution.

He warned people against seeing Scotland as some kind of monolith where all the views are the same in all parts of Scotland, when in fact we actually need to push power out of Holyrood into local communities.

He said Scottish Labours position on the constitution should not be seen as a compromise, saying: If we present it as a compromise, then I think it wont feel like were truly arguing for something because we truly believed it or we thought it was going to make a meaningful difference.

Sarwar shared his view that Labour has a culture issue around devolution, factionalism and defeatism. If theres any factional bullshit, keep it out of Scotland. Weve got enough problems of our own, he told the event.

If you want to do factionalism, do it somewhere else, not Scotland. And if you want to factionalism elsewhere, keep the constitution out of it, because the only people that helps is our opposition.

Tracy Brabin, the Labour mayor of West Yorkshire first elected in May, said: Im very excited about devolution, I know its going to be fundamental for our partys future as we rebuild trust.

She explained When I talk about strangers in Whitehall and Westminster making decisions about people in West Yorkshires lives, not knowing or understanding them, actually that could be said too for some colleagues in the Labour Party.

In response to a question on an English parliament, she said: Honestly, this is not what the people of Yorkshire are wanting from me. She added that this is not going to be a priority for me at this moment and she would prefer to talk about the powers mayors could potentially be campaigning for.

Brabin, who is on the board of Labours constitutional commission headed by Gordon Brown, said the former Prime Minister is talking about having a representation for the regional mayors in the House of Lords, which she described as quite exciting.

Mick Antoniw, the MS for Pontypridd, the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution who is part of the Radical Federalism collective, also spoke. He will soon be overseeing a constitutional commission in Wales, to launched within the coming weeks.

I actually think we have across the UK a crisis in our democracy when 40% of people dont vote in general elections. 50% dont vote in Welsh parliamentary elections, and 60% dont vote in council elections, the Senedd Member said.

Antoniw discussed redefining what the role of Westminster is, suggesting that one of the key issues that has to be resolved is the centralisation of power and concluding that we need to start looking seriously at a bill of rights.

Nicola McEwen, a senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe, offered her views on the difference between federalism and confederalism, a Senate of the Regions and Nations as proposed by Gordon Brown, whether federalism would require a referendum and much more.

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList

Read the original post:

What is radical federalism, what would it look like and should Labour back it? - LabourList

In the U.S. Senate, a filibuster is a tactic employed by opponents of a proposed law to prevent the measures final passage. The most common practice is extending debate to stall a vote.

Emmet Bondurant, a lawyer for antitrust litigation, thinks the filibuster is unconstitutional.

In a 2011 article in the Harvard Law Schools Journal on Legislation, Bondurant laid out his case for why the filibuster crosses constitutional red lines. Here is some history:

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated. One change it made was to delete the previous question motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used.

Senators were gentlemen and knew when to stop talking. That was then (LOL).

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was used which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution.

Far from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate, Bondurant writes.

And even then, filibusters were a rare occurrence. Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130. But thats changed. Today, 60 votes are required for just about everything.

At the core of Bondurants argument is a very simple claim: This isnt what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. The Framers rejected that idea.

The Framers, famously wary of tyranny of the majority, devised a system of governance to protect minority rights and promote deliberation without a filibuster. The Federalist Papers outline how checks and balances, federalism, and other structural mechanisms prevent abuses of power, suppression of minority interests, and reckless government action. The Framers clearly feared tyrannical majorities and an overly powerful legislature. However, even they deemed a supermajority cloture requirement unnecessary, undermining the argument that the filibuster enhances the Senates intended function.

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton attacked the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.

In Federal 58, James Madison asserted, In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.

The Constitution prescribes only six instances in which Congress would require more than a majority vote:

1) Impeaching the president

3) Overriding a presidential veto of a bill or order

4) Ratifying treaties and amending the Constitution

5) Established rule of construction

6) To declare a president disabled to carry out duties

Also, the majority vote played into another principle: the compromise over proper representation.

Today, with the filibuster, 21 of the 50 states, representing a fraction of the population, can assemble the 41 votes to stop a majority in the Senate. The supermajority vote requirement, Bondurant argues, upsets the Constitutions Great Compromise carefully crafted balance between the large states and the small states.

Theres also a precedent for the Supreme Court to review congressional rules.

In 1892, in United States v. Ballin, the Supreme Court held that while the Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings, it may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.

Today the filibuster is being used to massage voter suppression, disenfranchisement and election subversion.

We are now faced with the reality that again senators representing a small percentage of Americans can hold hostage the will of the people.

Yes, the filibuster is unconstitutional, Mr. Manchin (D-W.V.) and Ms. Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Editors Note: Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of the Murray Ledger & Times.

Original post:

Is the filibuster unconstitutional? | Opinion | murrayledger.com - Murray Ledger and Times

The need to restructure Nigeria is daily dawning despite the recalcitrance of the free riders in authority. Flowing with the tide and putting the country on strong political footing and path to social progress will benefit all. This sense was recently indicted in the judgment of the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt. Precisely on August 9, 2021, the court ruled that the Rivers State government, not the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) has the right to collect Value Added Tax (VAT) and Personal Income Tax (PIT) in Rivers State. The presiding Justice Stephen Dalyop Pam consequently issued an order of perpetual injunction restraining FIRS and the Attorney General of the Federation, both first and second defendants in the suit, from collecting, demanding, threatening, and intimidating residents of Rivers State to pay to FIRS, PIT and VAT. The court, which granted all the 11 reliefs bordering on fiscal federalism sought by the Rivers State government, held that it was unconstitutional for the FIRS to demand and collect VAT, Withholding Tax, Education Tax and Technology levy in Rivers State or any other state of the federation, for the reason that the constitutional powers and competence of the Federal Government is limited to taxation of incomes, profits and capital gains, without VAT or any other species of sales, or levy other as engrossed in items 58 and 59 of the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution as amended.

The point should be made that this aspect of testing the fiscal federalism component of the Nigerian federal structure atomised by the players at the central government had come under legal scrutiny before. In October 2019, the FHC in The Registered Trustees of Hotel Owners and Managers Association of Lagos v. AG of the Federation & Others over the validity of the Hotel Occupancy and Restaurant Consumption Law of Lagos State upheld the powers of Lagos State to charge and collect Consumption Tax from hotels, restaurants and event centres within the state based on the content and spirit of the 1999 Constitution as amended and therefore restrained FIRS from imposing VAT on goods and services consumed in hotels, restaurants and event centres covered by the law of Lagos State government. Similarly, in December 2020, in the case of Ukala v. FIRS,the FHC expressly held that the National Assembly had no power to enact the VAT Act, in a determination of the powers of the Federal Government to make laws concerning taxation other than taxation of incomes, profits and capital gains as engrossed in the constitution. For that reason, there was no constitutional basis for the imposition, demand, and collection of VAT by the FIRS based on the constitutional powers of FIRS to do so.

Given the consequential nature of the judgment, the Rivers State government has since formally engrossed its law to rake in resources within its residual powers. However, sundry commentators have pointed to the implication of this development. Concerns have been expressed that the Federal Government would lose billions of naira in tax revenue as the bandwagon effect would make other states follow the Rivers example in ways that could compound its liquidity amidst plummeting crude prices and the volatility of oil futures. By some statistics, at a 7.5 per cent VAT rate, Nigeria might have raked in 2.5 trillion from VAT in the last18 months- January 2020 to June 2021.

In 2020, the total VAT collection was put at N1.53 trillion. Well, a window is still open to the Federal Government through FIRS administration of VAT in the FCT and non-import foreign VAT from the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) on international trade. Truly, since the advent of the VAT regime in 1993, VAT has generated a lot of revenue for the central government. In the last three years alone, VAT has contributed1.108 trillion,1.19 trillion, and1.5 trillion respectively.

Nevertheless, fiscal federalism is to be preferred to free-riding at the centre. This is exactly what we have been advocating for 44 weeks in this serial on federalism as the answer The point was well made by Kenneth Wheare, an Australian academic in his classic, Federal Governmentthat you have no federalism without fiscal autonomy. This has been unconscionably undermined by the free-booters at the centre with a mindset to privatising Nigeria as a feudal estate.This is unacceptable!

Indeed, experts have noted that the reliance on transfers and grants from central government to finance sub-national government expenditure creates an incentive for sub-national governments to blow up expenditure and engage in recurrent negotiations with the central government for more money, a somewhat Oliver Twist syndrome. This is precisely the matter with us that has entrenched free-riding in a context where central funds are derived from unearned income, namely, the exploitation of natural resources distributable among the national and sub-national governments. This practice has proven destructive to the political stability of the country. Let the component governments enjoy financial autonomy and drive development within their respective jurisdictions.

After all, federalism is the answer, and its negation is a recipe for state collapse. So, the jurisprudential significance of the judicial pronouncement on VAT and PIT in Port Harcourt, capital of Rivers State should not be wasted by the authorities in Abuja who dont seem to know that it is only where the law rules that we call a government, not where man rules.

View post:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 44 - Guardian

In recent weeks, Gov. Ron DeSantisRon DeSantisOvernight Health Care: Biden given inconclusive intel report on COVID-19 origin Judge blocks DeSantis from banning school mask mandates Walensky: Schools not following CDC guidance seeing 'large-scale' outbreaks MORE (R) of Florida and several other Republican governors have embraced policies that will increase the spread of COVID not only in their states but in other states as well. For example, DeSantis promulgated an executive order blocking private businesses from requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination, thereby reducing incentives for individuals to get vaccinated. And he threatened school districts with funding cuts if they follow the CDC guidelines and require children to wear masks.

To justify such policies, DeSantis, as well as Gov. Gregg Abbott(R) of Texas and Gov. Henry McMaster(R) of South Carolina, have wrapped themselves in the mantle of federalism. But actions such as these betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what federalism means.

Two key principles define American federalism. First, states can generally pursue policies favored by their people, even if other states prefer different policies. But, second, states cannot pursue policies that seriously harm other states.

DeSantis misunderstands federalism by focusing exclusively on the first principle while ignoring the second one. Justifying his COVID policies on vaccinations and masks, DeSantissaid that Florida is a free state, and we will empower our people, adding that he will not allow the Biden administration to commandeer the rights and freedoms of Floridians. Similarly, with respect to his threat on school district funding, his office stated, Governor DeSantis believes that parents know whats best for their children; therefore, parents in Florida are empowered to make their own choices with regards to masking.

There are good reasons for questioning DeSantiss policies and their justifications, even from a Florida-centric perspective. Businesses might accurately believe that vaccination requirements will result in more customers and higher revenues. And, while parents might know what is best for their children, transmission in schools threatens everyone with whom children come into contact, including immunocompromised people.

Yet, if the negative consequences were confined to Floridas borders, federalism would be on DeSantiss side (and the citizens of Florida would have an appropriate remedy at the ballot box).

COVID infections that start in Florida, however, do not stay in Florida.

That is why DeSantiss actions violate federalisms second principle. Due to interstate mobility, infections resulting from inadequate policies in Florida will harm other states, burdening their healthcare systems, increasing their healthcare costs, and worsening the wellbeing of their citizens and the state of their economies. The costs of preventable COVID hospitalizations will also be borne by all Americans. And because there is now evidence of breakthrough infections, states that succeeded at getting their residents vaccinated can nonetheless be harmed by the actions of states that fail to take simple actions to discourage COVIDs spread.

More ominously, the longer that large swaths of people remain unvaccinated, the higher the probability that mutations will occur, potentially leading to new variants of the COVID virus that might fully evade existing vaccines. Policies like DeSantiss ban on businesses vaccination requirements make it more likely that fully vaccinated people will require booster shots, which would add greatly to the burdens of states that have achieved high vaccination rates.

The Supreme Court has provided a remedy for the violations of federalisms second principle. States seriously harmed by the actions of other states can sue directly in the Supreme Court to enjoin the harm.

In 1906, the Court held that it had the power to hear a lawsuit by Missouri seeking to prevent Illinois from constructing a channel that would have caused sewage to flow into Missouri, potentially exposing its citizens to typhoid fever and other diseases. Over the years, the Court has heard many similar cases, involving the emissions of noxious gases, discharges of polluted water, and dumping of garbage. A states interest in protecting its residents from a spreading virus are no different than its interest in protecting them from pollution.

Given this well-established case law, any state harmed by the actions of states like Florida could file an action in the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, such proceedings take years to resolve and therefore might not provide a timely remedy. But courts are not the only institution responsible for safeguarding the Constitution, of which of the structure of federalism is a key component. All branches of government share this responsibility.

Congress has a great deal of skin in this game, given the enormous federal expenditures to develop vaccines and address the economic consequences of COVID. Floridas spike in cases is already diverting federal resources such as ventilators. Some Republican leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a physician, have issued strong statements urging vaccination, contrary to the approach of DeSantis and other like-minded Republican governors. And even if Congress does not act, the Executive Branch can exercise its discretion over federal funds or take other measures to mitigate adverse interstate consequences. Consistent with this responsibility, President BidenJoe BidenFather of slain Marine: 'Biden turned his back on him' US conducts military strike against ISIS-K planner Pentagon official holds first talks with Chinese military under Biden: report MORE has already indicated that he would replace any school funding DeSantis cuts over mask mandates, take legal action against governors who stand in the way of such local mandates, and cut off federal aid to nursing homes that dont require their staff to be vaccinated.

DeSantis recently told President Biden that he did not want to hear a blip about COVID from you, adding: Why dont you do your job? Contrary to DeSantiss rude suggestion, opposing governors actions when they inflict serious harms on other states, and thereby defending the Constitution (including federalisms second principle) is precisely the Presidents job.

Richard L. Revesz is the AnBryce Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus at New York University School of Law.

See the original post:

Some governors are mismanaging COVID and misunderstanding Federalism | TheHill - The Hill

Formulation of the new National Education Policy (NEP) is a live example of cooperative federalism to achieve a common goal of making India a global hub of knowledge, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said on Tuesday.

Pradhan was addressing the launch of a booklet detailing initiatives taken in one year since the the roll out of the NEP.

"NEP is a guiding philosophy to transform the hopes and aspirations of millions of youth to reality and making India self-reliant. Formulation of NEP is also a live example of cooperative federalism to achieve a common goal of making India a global hub of knowledge. When we look back at the progress of NEP, we get more confident about the future of our students," he said.

"Education is not merely a competition to acquire degrees, but is a transformative tool to leverage knowledge for character building and eventually nation building. The government is working to facilitate upgradation of infrastructure in schools, such as ensuring that internet reaches village schools across the country," he added.

Besides the booklet of achievements, the minister also launched initiatives such as NIPUN Bharat FLN tools and resources on DIKSHA; Virtual School of NIOS; alternate academic calendar of NCERT and released "Priya", an accessibility booklet developed by the NCERT and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities.

"Priya -The Accessibility Warrior", which is the outcome of collaborative efforts of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Department of School Education and Literacy.

It provides glimpses into the world of a girl named Priya who met with an accident and could not walk, due to a plastered leg. The story depicts how she manages to participate in all activities at school, and in the process learns the importance of accessibility. Priya, therefore, takes the pledge of being an accessibility warrior. The comic book is also available with Indian Sign Language (ISL) explanatory videos.

The minister, while launching the Virtual School of National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), said that this school is a new model of learning and is an example of how leveraging technology and innovation can facilitate greater inclusion in education. The school is first-of-its-kind initiative in the country which will provide advanced digital learning platforms through Virtual Live Classrooms and Virtual Labs.

Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar said that accessibility opens doorways to opportunity and growth, thus, reinstating the importance of creating an accessible environment for everyone. He further said that awareness and a sensitised community are the essential fuels driving any revolutionary change.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Read the original:

Formulation of NEP live example of cooperative federalism: Pradhan - Business Standard

Again, like demonetization, the abrupt lockdown left everyone unprepared, the states the most. Migrant workers and small businesses suffered the most.

Fact is, by the time the second Covid wave hit, everything about Covid-management appeared to be controlled by the Centre, from providing oxygen to assuring steady supplies of essential medications. The states and the people at large were left to fend for themselves. This wasnt the federalism envisaged by BR Ambedkar and others who were instrumental in drafting our Constitution.

True, India has a federal structure like the United States, Australia and Canada. But the Modi Governments omissions and commissions, not to speak of its intentions, have put paid to the vision of the founding fathers of the Constitution of India. The federal structure they chose was one to ensure diversity in unity. A centralised federalism that largely stood the test of time. The system in which governments at both national and state levels functioned in their respective jurisdictions.

On the whole the system lasted. But its wilting these days. The Indian federation is called the holding together federation there are two tiers of government: at the national, and the state levels. Except that the Union government has more powers. And those bigger powers are coming in handy to today's rulers to ride roughshod over the aspirations of the states. The benefits of the states having powers greater than the

Centre are many. Most of all, the checks and balances ingrained in a truly federal system ensures that the Centre doesn't get so powerful that it leads to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, or one!

(IPA Service)

Views are personal

The rest is here:

Modis authoritarianism has obliterated precept of federalism as envisaged by founding fathers of Constitution - National Herald

A wide range of federal statutes reach conduct overseas. When those statutes include private rights of action, Americans may find themselves with claims against defendants with fewif anyties to the U.S.

Since the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Daimler v. Bauman cut back states authority to hale non-resident corporations into court for conduct unrelated to their activities in-state, many have assumed that these would-be plaintiffs are out of luck.

Now, in Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, the Fifth Circuit has decided to take a second look at the question of whether and how that rule applies when federal courts hear federal-law claims against corporations based abroad.

Federal courts personal jurisdiction usually depends on the long-arm statutes of the states in which they sit. Those statutes are subject to the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause, which limits states jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to situations where the claims against them arise from, or relate to, their in-state conduct.

But federal law has its own long-arm provisions, governed by the Fifth Amendment, that are intended to fill in where state law leaves gaps.

Although the Fifth and 14th Amendments Due Process clauses are worded identically, the Supreme Court has gone out of its way, in cases like Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, to leave open whether the clauses impose the same constraints. And the government has argued, most recently last term in Ford v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., that the U.S.s unique constitutional prerogatives and powers permit the exercise of federal judicial power in ways that have no analogue at the state level.

Yet most federal appellate courts, including the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, Federal, and D.C. circuits, have assumed or held without much analysis that federal service-of-process provisions are subject to the same limits as their state-law counterparts. The only difference they have recognized is that litigants proceeding under federal service-of-process provisions can aggregate defendants contacts with the U.S. as a whole, instead of any single state.

Its worth asking why. After all, a central justification for the focus on forum contacts under the 14th Amendment is the need to protect interstate federalism. But federalism is beside the point when a federal court hears federal-law claims against, say, a foreign terrorist organization that injures Americans traveling abroad or a foreign company that traffics in overseas property confiscated from U.S. citizens. And its not clear how much the inconvenience that litigating here imposes on non-resident foreign defendants should weigh against the judgment of Congress that Americans should be able to bring claims based on foreign conduct.

These are among the questions the full Fifth Circuit will consider when it rehears Douglass.

The appeal arises from a collision in Japanese waters on June 17, 2017, between the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Fitzgerald and a cargo ship (MV ACX Crystal) chartered by a Japanese shipping company that left seven U.S. sailors dead and dozens injured. In consolidated cases, the victims and their survivors sued the company under the federal Death on the High Seas Act. They asserted personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), which allows service of process in federal-law suits where the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state.

Finding no connection between the accident and the shipping companys limited U.S. contacts, the district court dismissed the suits under Daimler. A panel of the Fifth Circuit grudgingly affirmed, devoting much of its per curiam opinion to casting doubt on circuit precedent that subjected Rule 4(k)(2) to the same 14th-Amendment standard as its state-law counterparts. The two active judges on the panel concurred, urging the full court to revisit the issue. It agreed to do so July 2.

With virtually no guidance from the Supreme Court, the case promises to take the predominantly conservative appeals court back to first principles. That could lead to interesting debates about federal power, sovereignty, and what it means to be faithful to the U.S. Constitutions text. And it could make the Fifth Circuit, which includes Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, the go-to forum for federal claims against non-resident foreign corporations.

Although its impossible to predict the outcome, it seems unlikely that the court took the case en banc just to confirm its prior precedent. The question is how far it will go.

The now-vacated panel decision gives one hint: It endorsed a compromise position suggested by an amicus brief from civil-procedure scholars that would read the Fifth Amendment to allow jurisdiction over foreign corporations for claims based on foreign conduct that is related to their U.S. operations. But the court could go further still and hold, as the governments brief in Ford suggested, that the Constitution imposes no territorial constraints on federal authority.

Whatever the result, the Supreme Court is sure to face calls to weigh in before long.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Eugene Sokoloff is counsel at MoloLamken LLP where he focuses on critical motions and appeals.

Originally posted here:

Just How Long Is the Long Arm of U.S. Jurisdiction? - Bloomberg Law

As the U.S. recovers from the pandemic, the Biden administration is working to rebuild relationships across levels of government, from the top to the bottom, that were strained during the presidency of Donald Trump.

In November 2020, Biden offered urban leaders a seat at the table in coronavirus recovery efforts, promising to avoid partisanship. Addressing the National League of Cities in March 2021, Harris praised urban leadership on COVID-19 cities like Seattle and New York were among the first to respond to the pandemic, developing testing protocols, tracking new infections and supplying equipment for hospitals and highlighted the administrations plans to help pay for improvements to local infrastructure.

The COVID-19 crisis highlighted the importance of government leaders working together.

But with the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, tensions in this shared system boiled over. Instead of collaborating, the federal government rebuffed state and local governments desperate for critical information and lifesaving supplies.

States and cities competed over medical equipment, testing capacity and supplies and other needs. Densely populated cities, many feuding with the federal government, were hardest hit.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser called successfully in 2016 for raising the districts minimum wage to $15, stepping in where the federal government had failed to act. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

It has taken steps to give local policymakers more control over the allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations, while setting national policies to hasten the availability of vaccines.

Reasserting closer relationships between the federal government and state and local partners may signal a shift toward more collaboration in general.

The federal government can use its power and position to drive change at the local level. A more collaborative relationship can help the federal government understand communities needs, leading to new policies and priorities. Close partnership may also increase awareness of federal resources that are available, helping state and local governments identify programs to better support their residents.

But as our research shows, federal dominance can also be counterproductive.

But local governments deliver the most-used public services, including schools, transportation, parks and public health. As a result, local governments are perhaps the most important in peoples daily lives.

Local governments both make and implement policy. In areas where the federal and state governments are silent or inactive, local governments often innovate to address community needs. That freedom to innovate helps local governments generate policies that can work their way up and across the federal system.

For example, despite backlash from state and national leaders, various cities like Austin, Los Angeles, Virginia Beach and Washington, D.C. have led the way on social and environmental policies, adopting and advocating for higher minimum wages, fracking limitations, sanctuaries for Second Amendment rights and reducing law enforcement violence.

Scholars have noted changes in the dynamics of these relationships throughout history. During some eras, the federal government has more power over policymaking. At other times, state and local governments exert greater influence.

For example, President Lyndon B. Johnsons Great Society welfare programs Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps increased the federal governments influence on state and local governments. New federal requirements mandated spending on social programs, often requiring matching funds from state and local governments. And new state and local agencies had to be established to implement federal priorities.

Federal dollars shared with local governments to fight poverty came with strings attached. Examples include requirements to meet environmental standards and adopt nondiscrimination policies.

With the advent of welfare reform in the mid-1990s, the federal government relaxed some of these requirements. As a result, state and local governments were given more flexibility over policy and spending decisions.

Our recent research indicates the balance of power in the federal system affects government performance and the safety of Americans. During the COVID-19 response, the federal government failed to partner with state and local governments. As a result, there were problems finding and delivering crucial supplies like masks and ventilators, leading to needless deaths.

President Lyndon Johnson, shown here, expanded the authority of the federal government with his Great Society programs.AP Photo

Johnsons Great Society programs expanded the authority of the federal government. Federal agencies gained the power to create and manage the details of the effort to eradicate poverty, hunger and discrimination.

President Richard Nixons new federalism sent money in so-called block grants to state and local governments to carry out different federal initiatives. This allowed local governments some power over policy design and implementation.

President Ronald Reagans pragmatic federalism emphasized privatization using private-sector organizations to deliver services and decentralization. Reagan used markets to deliver government services through competitive contracts and grants.

In more recent years, scholars have accused Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama of returning to the more coercive federalism of Johnsons Great Society. To encourage state and local governments to adopt federal priorities, federal funds under these presidents again included strings, increasing tensions between these levels of government.

Under President Trump, these tensions reached an apex. Cities clashed with the federal government over immigration policy, law enforcement violence and health care and, ultimately, over how to handle the pandemic.

With the understanding that coordination among all levels of government helps address problems more effectively, one step Biden might take is to revive the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. This commission operated from 1959 to 1996, offering presidents and federal agencies guidance on issues that spanned the federal systems layers. The commission helped address abuses of power in the federal system and strengthened partnerships between governments.

As scholars, we know that policy issues are rarely independent. Global climate change affects local transportation policies, while health care issues are often closely linked to education and agriculture.

Local governments are important players in the federal system. Over the next year, they will be critical in continued efforts to vaccinate the American public and prepare for disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.

Given the complexity of modern policy problems, renewed consideration of how all levels of government can approach such big issues could help solve them.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continued here:

The Trump Administration Feuded With State and Local Leaders over Pandemic Response Now the Biden Administr - Governing

Mohammed Mohammed Ali | Dreamstime.com

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of the Army recently announced plans for upcoming community engagements to inform their efforts to revise the definition of waters of the United States (WOTUS) to better ensure clean and safe water for all. EPA and Army are committed to developing a reasonable, effective and durable definition of WOTUS that protects public health, the environment and downstream communities while supporting economic opportunity, agriculture, and other industries.

We are committed to crafting an enduring definition of WOTUS by listening to all sides so that we can build on an inclusive foundation, said EPA administrator Michael S. Regan. Uncertainty over the definition of WOTUS has harmed our waters and the stakeholders and communities that rely on them. I look forward to engaging all parties as we move forward to provide the certainty thats needed to protect our precious natural water resources.

Our nations water resources are critical to support all of our communities, said acting assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jaime A. Pinkham. Like the EPA, the Department of the Army recognizes the importance of this effort and we are committed to meaningful engagement with Tribes, states, local governments, and stakeholders to ensure that a revised definition of WOTUS reflects the experiences of, and input received, from all communities.

The agencies intend to revise the definition of WOTUS following a process that includes two rulemakings. A forthcoming foundational rule would restore the regulations defining WOTUS that were in place for decades until 2015, with updates to be consistent with relevant Supreme Court decisions. A separate, second rulemaking process would refine this regulatory foundation and establish an updated and durable definition of waters of the United States.

A durable definition of WOTUS is essential to ensuring clean and safe water in all communitiessupporting human health, animal habitat, agriculture, watersheds, flood management, local economies, and industry. Todays announcement marks an important step in the agencies efforts to restore protections and write a rule to define WOTUS that is grounded in science and the law, emphasizes effective implementation, and prioritizes collaborative partnerships with states, Tribes, local governments, and stakeholders. To help ensure that EPA and Army hear from diverse perspectives, future engagement activities will be developed in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The EPA and Army announced a series of engagement opportunities, including an opportunity for stakeholders and the public to provide written recommendations and a series of public meetings in August to hear perspectives on both rules. In addition, the agencies will initiate Federalism and Tribal consultations for the foundational rule. The agencies also intend to host a series of dialogues with state and Tribal co-regulators this fall to discuss both rulemakings.

Additionally, the previous rulemaking efforts have highlighted the regional variability of water resources and the importance of close engagement with stakeholders to understand the specifics of how they experience regulation under varying definitions of waters of the United States. To honor our commitment to listening and learning from diverse perspectives, the agencies plan to convene ten regionally focused and inclusive roundtables during the upcoming fall and winter. These roundtables will allow a full range of stakeholders to engage and discuss their experience with definitions of WOTUSincluding what has worked and what has not within their geographic areas. The roundtables will provide opportunities to discuss geographic similarities and differences, particular water resources that are characteristic of or unique to each region, and site-specific feedback about implementation.

For more information on submitting written recommendations or to register for the public meetings, see http://www.epa.gov/wotus.

Background

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the statutory objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters. One of the Acts principal tools in achieving that objective is a prohibition on the discharge of pollutants from a point source to navigable waters unless otherwise authorized under the Act. Navigable waters are defined in the Act as the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas. Thus, waters of the United States is a threshold term establishing the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The term waters of the United States is not defined by the Act but has been defined by EPA and the Army in regulations since the 1970s and jointly implemented in the agencies respective programmatic activities.

On June 9, 2021, EPA and the Department of the Army announced their intent to revise the definition of WOTUS to better protect our nations vital water resources that support public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. Upon review of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, the agencies determined that the rule is significantly reducing clean water protections.

Follow this link:

EPA, Army announce next steps for crafting definition of waters of the united states - Water Technology Online

The Biden administration laid out plans today for scrapping and replacing a contentious Trump-era Clean Water Act rule that pulled back federal protections for millions of streams and wetlands.

EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said they will follow a two-pronged approach to revoke the Trump administrations Navigable Waters Protection Rule while revising the definition of "Waters of the United States," or WOTUS, which defines which waters fall under federal protection.

The rules fate and how quickly it can be rewritten are politically explosive for President Biden. It has pitted environmental groups against developers and farmers for decades and sparked partisan fights on Capitol Hill.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan in a release said his agency is committed to crafting an "enduring" definition of WOTUS by listening to all sides, while Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said farmers and rural Americans must have a "seat at the table and a voice in this process so that the rule responds to concerns and realities on the ground."

The Trump administrations rule significantly narrowed the laws reach, pulling back what wetlands and streams were jurisdictional by about 51% and 18%, respectively (Greenwire, Jan. 23, 2020).

Conservationists have challenged the Trump rule in multiple courts across the country.

The Biden administration last month convinced judges to remand the Trump rule to EPA while it writes a new one, but not to throw it out in the interim (E&E News PM, July 15).

Sources expect EPA to issue a draft rule pulling back the Trump regulation by years end. At that time, the agency would revert to the 1986 definition of WOTUS and rely on 2008 guidance from the George W. Bush administration about how to apply that definition.

Although its not clear when EPA will issue a rule to redefine WOTUS, the agency today laid out a series of more than a half-dozen meetings for consultation and engagement from Aug. 5 to Sept. 2, including discussions about federalism and tribal consultation.

EPA and the Army Corps said the meetings would allow stakeholders and the public to provide written recommendations and weigh in on how to establish a regulatory foundation and build on that foundation to craft a "durable" definition of WOTUS.

The agencies said they also intend to host a series of talks with state and tribal co-regulators this fall to discuss both rulemakings.

More here:

EPA outlines plan to expand wetland protections - E&E News