Federalism is seen as in balance now---education reform remains largely under

state control
Jacob 17 (Brian A. Jacob, Nonresident Senior Fellow - Economic Studies, Center on Children
and Families, February 2, 2017, How the U.S. Department of Education can foster education
reform in the era of Trump and ESSA published in the Brooking Institute)

The current administration has vowed to leave education matters up to the states, continuing a movement
started with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which dramatically limited the federal governments role in school accountability. While greater
local control certainly has some benefits, it risks exacerbating the massive disparities in educational performance across states that already exists. In
2015, there was almost a 30 percentile point difference in 4th grade math proficiency rates between the top and bottom states, only some of which
can be explained by state-level social and economic factors. The massive disparity in progress is perhaps even more disturbing. Between 2003 and
2015, student proficiency rates grew by over 40 percent in some states, while remaining flat or even declining in other states. The Department of
Education (DoED) should take steps to highlight these disparities by identifying the lowest performing states and providing information on the status
and progress of all states on a variety of educational metrics. The DoED might also provide modest funding and technical assistance to help
demographically similar states work together to improve their public education systems. On the campaign trail, President Trump often called
for givingmore discretion over education policy to states and localities, critiquing Common Core and what he viewed as other
instances of federal overreach. In her recent confirmation hearing, President Trumps nominee for Education SecretaryBetsy DeVos
repeatedly argued for leaving education matters up to the states. And this desire for local control is not limited to the current administration. In 2015,
Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with strong bipartisan support. This legislation replaced the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) system
of school accountability with a more narrowly tailored and flexible approach to school reform. Instead of requiring all schools to meet annual
performance targets, ESSA requires states to focus on a small set of low-performing schools and gives them considerable latitude to design the
interventions they deem appropriate. In discussing ESSA, chair of the Senate Education Committee Lamar Alexander claimed, The department was in
effect acting as a national school board for the 42 states with waivers100,000 schools. The states were doing fine until the federal government stuck
its nose into itSo it was important to get the balls back in the hands of the people who really should have it. But the evidence suggests that not all
states are doing fine. Indeed, there are massive disparities across states in terms of current student performance, and these differences are not merely
a factor of the social and economic conditions in the state. All states have been actively engaged in efforts to turnaround failing schools, but the
effectiveness of such efforts has varied dramatically across jurisdictions. Public education will (and should) always be driven
predominantly by local actorsteachers, administrators, school board members, and state legislators. Even under NCLB, states and districts
had a mostly unfettered ability to run schools as they saw fit. But with autonomy comes the potential for greater disparity, as more capable, focused,
and well-resourced states pull even further ahead of those with less capacity, fewer resources, and greater political dysfunction.

Education is the key component of the federalism balance federal education

action legitimizes overreach across the board
Feulner 10 (Edwin, PhD @ Edinburgh, founder and president of Heritage Foundation,
"Solutions for America: Re-embracing Federalism", 8/17/10, Accessed 6/27/17)
In the American plan of constitutional government, the national government was never supposed to have all of the power or make all of the decisions.
Indeed, most powers of government were located, and the decisions that affect citizens day-to-day lives were to be
made, at the state level. This relationship was turned on its head over the course of the 20th century. Ever-increasing amounts of
regulations and laws emanating from the federal government have centralized and bureaucratized political rule in America,
undermining the balance of federalism and threatening self-government. Changing the Dynamic. The best path toward
achieving the goal of decentralizing government power starts with practical but significant reforms that will change the

dynamic in key policy matters. There are several areas that in recent decades have become federal government concerns but are better dealt
with at the state and local levels of government. Five areas are especially ripe for this kind of reform. Education. We must restore the

preeminent role of the states in establishing the education priorities that are best suited to their own citizens needs. States should

have the freedom to opt out of federal education programs and assume full responsibility, free of stifling federal mandates, to direct their

education funding and policy. States should be able to consolidate federal funding and direct it to any educational purpose that is lawful under
state statute. In exchange for freedom from federal mandates, states should provide increased transparency about performance standards and be able
to show results in terms of student achievement over time.
States need environmental federalism to prevent unchecked climate change
Plumer 17 (Brad Plumer is a reporter covering climate change, energy policy and other
environmental issues for the New York Times climate team. How Can U.S. States Fight Climate
Change if Trump Quits the Paris Accord? published in the New York Times on September 20,
2017.)

WASHINGTON In the months since President Trump

declared that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate
deal, 14 state governors have vowed to continue upholding the agreement and press ahead with policies to fight global
warming. Now some numbers are emerging. On Wednesday, three governors in the United States Climate Alliance Jerry Brown of California,
Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, and Jay Inslee of Washington unveiled a new studyby the research firm Rhodium Group that said the 14 alliance
states were on pace to meet their share of the Obama administrations pledge under the Paris accord, thanks in
part to local mandates on renewable energy and electric vehicles. Within the climate alliance, most of the efforts to date

have focused on cleaning up electric grids. Collectively, emissions from electricity in the alliance states are expected to drop

by half between 2005 and 2025, the Rhodium Group analysis found. For their part, the alliance states are trying to overcome these hurdles.
New York, for instance, is trying to nurture energy innovation on a small scale through a state "green bank" that helps companies bring riskier new
technologies to market. While this is no substitute for basic energy research at the national labs, state officials say it can help
advance
incremental innovation around technologies that are closer to market. States also face the risk that the Trump

administration could try to thwart their efforts. Officials in California, for instance, are preparing to challenge

any effort by the federal government to pre-empt their electric vehicle mandate on automakers. The ultimate
significance of these state efforts, Dr. Victor said, may be to help prevent international climate efforts from

collapsing, by reassuring other countries that the United States has not totally abandoned the issue. Now that
the rest of the world is over the initial reaction to Trump, theyre trying to figure out whats still real and whats not in U.S. policy, he said. And these
states can offer a starting point for other countries to gauge U.S. climate action, even when whats happening in Washington is chaotic.

Warming causes extinction action now is key to control impacts we win on

magnitude and probability
Roberts 13 (Citing the World Bank Reviews compilation of climate studies - 4 degree
projected warming, cant adapt - heat wave related deaths, forest fires, crop production, water
wars, ocean acidity, sea level rise, climate migrants, biodiversity loss. "If you arent alarmed
about climate, you arent paying attention", January 10, 2013 in grist.org)
We know weve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict
catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end
of the century. What would 4 degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, itll get hot: Projections for a 4C world
show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely
to become the new normal summer in a 4C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly
experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be
substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East,
and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the
warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9C warmer than todays warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe
impacts, causing heat-related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4C world have not
been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive

capacities of many societies and natural systems. [my emphasis] Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to
an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean, leading to levels of acidity unparalleled in Earths history.
Thats bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large
fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5C global warming. The regional extinction
of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well
before 4C is reached, would have profound consequences for their dependent species and for the people who
depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by
2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries. That rise wont be spread evenly, even within regions and countries regions
close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would significantly exacerbate existing water
scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be
newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth. Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected
by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In
Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5C to 2C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be
expected to be even more severe in a 4C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In a 4C world, climate change seems
likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity.
Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a
transition of the Earths ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the
provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.)
New research also indicates a rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms. So food will be tough. All this will add up to large-scale
displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems. Given the
uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4C world is possible. Theres a small but non-trivial chance of
advanced civilization breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6 degrees by the end of the century, a

level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the
line, though we dont know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible
for centuries to come. That
would mean handing our grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic,
denuded world, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade.
 CASE
It would also be extremely disadvantageous for Russia 5 reasons they could
not and would not risk confrontation, even nuclear [BLUE]
Margossian 14 Maral Margossian, political journalist for the Daily Collegian. March 27, 2014
"Five reasons why Russia wont start World War III" dailycollegian.com/2014/03/27/five-
reasons-why-russia-wont-start-world-war-iii/

The recent events in Eastern Europe involving Russia and Ukraine have spawned, at their most extreme,
apocalyptic claims. Here are five reasons why Russia wont start World War III, or any other war
for that matter: 1. The world is MAD. The end of World War II ushered the world into a precarious atomic age that
characterized the international atmosphere during the Cold War. Luckily, the Cold War never
escalated to nuclear war. Why? Because of mutually assured destruction (or MAD). Russia
knows that if it pushes that big red button, we have our own even bigger, redder button to push
in retaliation. The odds of a nuclear war with Russia are extremely unlikely. 2. The impact of
economic sanctions on the Russian economy is far too crippling [damaging] for Russia to fund a
war. As a part of a globalized world, economic sanctions are more than mere slaps on the wrist. Already the
sanctions imposed on Russia have begun to take their toll. The West has yet to attack Russias strongest economic assets, but the declining

strength of the Russian economy puts Putin far from a position to wage a world war. 3. Putins
actions demonstrate his longing for Russias glory days before the fall of the Soviet Union. His annexation of
Crimea is more out of fear than strength. Putin feels threatened by Russias changing role in
world affairs and is using Crimea to tell the world that Russia still matters. 4. Russia is already
seen as the big bad wolf of Europe. Though Putin may have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his involvement in
the Syrian chemical weapons deal, Russias popularity among many Western countries is not very high. The recent

suspension of Russia from the G8 group is a symbolic action that demonstrates that Russia will
have to face a united front of world powers if it chooses to start a war. 5. There is just too much
at stake. War between Ukraine and Russia is one thing; Russias military is large enough and strong
enough to easily defeat Ukraine. However, if Russia decides to take further aggressive action, it must also

contend with surrounding European Union member nations and their potential involvement in
the war. Moreover, Russias involvement in other international affairs will be affected. For example, the ongoing effort to
normalize relations between Iran and the rest of the world will be jeopardized, considering
Russia is involved in those efforts. Crimea may have symbolic meaning close to the hearts of
Russians, but it isnt worth risking the domino effect of events that can potentially occur. So, those
of you who feel abnormally unsettled by the recent turn of events can rest easy. While Russias actions cant be brushed aside and should be taken
seriously, the chances of this confrontation escalating to a great war are slim assuming these countries act
rationally.

U.S. hegemony in theory and practice undermines global

stability.
Gunnar 17 - (Ulson Gunnar, New York-based geopolitical analyst, 5-2-2017, "US foreign
policy: Hegemony or stability, not both", https://www.sott.net/article/347032-US-foreign-
policy-Hegemony-or-stability-not-both, DOA: 5-2-2017) //Snowball
US foreign policy has for decades been predicated on achieving and maintaining global peace, security and
stability. In reality, it has for over a century constituted an overreaching desire to achieve and
maintain global hegemony. And where US efforts focus on achieving hegemony, division and
destruction follow. From the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and from Southeast Asia to the Korean Peninsula, US
intervention politically or militarily all but guarantee escalating tensions, uncertain futures,
socioeconomic instability and even armed conflict. The Middle East and North Africa US efforts in the
Middle East since the conclusion of the first World War have focused on dividing the region, cultivating
sectarian animosity and pitting neighbors against one another in vicious, unending combat.
During the 50s and 60s, the US pitted its regional proxy, Israel, against its Arab neighbors. In the 1980's the
US armed both the Iraqis and the Iranians amid a destructive 8 year long war. Today, the US
props up Persian Gulf states who in turn are fueling regional, even global terrorism that has destabilized
or entirely dismembered entire nations. And from the Middle East and North Africa, waves of refugees have
reverberated outward affecting adjacent regions who have so far been spared from the chaos directly. In
Syria, the United States poses as a central player in restoring stability to the conflict stricken nation. In reality, it was the
US itself that trained activists years ahead of the so called Arab Spring, as well as funneled money
into the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups to serve as militant proxies after the protests were
finally underway. Today, militant groups operating under the banners of Al Qaeda and its various
affiliates are almost exclusively funded, armed and trained by the Persian Gulf states through
which the US launders its own support to these groups through. Thus, while the US poses as an agent of
stability in Syria, it is the central player intentionally creating and perpetuating chaos. Likewise, the
North African state of Libya has been rendered all but destroyed, fractured into competing
regions ruled by ineffective warlords, former generals, proxies of ever sort and Persian Gulf
sponsored terrorist networks including the Islamic State. The instability in Libya has afforded the United
States, its policymakers and the special interests who sponsor their work a safe haven for
the vast infrastructure required to maintain regional proxy forces including training camps and
weapon depots. This infrastructure, since 2011, has been used as a springboard to invade Syria,
destabilize neighboring North African states and to fuel a divisive refugee crisis in nearby
Europe. Eastern Europe Since the conclusion of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has
continued to expand toward Russia's borders. Far from a defensive alliance, NATO clearly serves as
a multinational military conglomerate used as cover for expanding US hegemony
worldwide. NATO operations in far-flung Afghanistan and Libya illustrate the shape-shifting nature of its alleged mission
statement, revealing it to be but a pretext for an otherwise unjustified, aggressive front. Its expansion into Eastern Europe and
the ongoing military build-up along Russia's borders mirrors similar tensions fostered by
Nazi Germany during the 1930s. NATO's sponsorship of the violent coup which overthrew the Ukrainian
government between 2013-2014 likewise provides an example of how US "stability" often manifests itself
instead as failed states, perpetual violence and the constant threat of further escalation. Asia
Over the past 10 years, the United States has attempted to "pivot" itself back toward Asia. While
claiming this "pivot" represented an American effort to maintain stability across Asia-Pacific, proclamations from the
US State Department itself smacked of literal imperialism. An article published in Foreign Policy titled,
"America's Pacific Century," was penned by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all but admitting this. The United
States is not an Asian nation, yet despite this obvious fact, it declared its intent to reassert
American primacy across Asia Pacific. In order to do this, the US found itself fueling political
opposition across much of Asia and more specifically, in Southeast Asia. Nations like Myanmar are now
headed by regimes installed into power via decades of US political support, funding and
training. And despite pro-democracy rhetoric accompanying these regimes as they ascend into power, their
true nature is nothing short of despotic, with Myanmar's current government overseeing
systematic violence targeting ethnic minorities, the silencing of political critics and
opponents, the curtailing of free press and other flagrant abuses the US now conveniently
ignores. In nations like Thailand, US efforts to co-opt regional political orders have failed. However,
despite their failure, simmering conflicts remain, threatening sociopolitical and economic
stability both currently and in the near future. On the Korean Peninsula, America's presence
continues to drive instability. Joint military exercises with South Korea often and openly serve as
rehearsals for "decapitation" strikes against the North Korean government, fueling North Korean
paranoia and provoking continued posturing on both sides. In short, the US presence serves to
intentionally keep the neighboring states pitted against one another, undermining, not
bolstering regional stability. A similar strategy of tension is being played in the South China Sea
where the US has for two presidencies now attempted to provoke China both directly and through
the use of Japanese, Vietnamese and Philippine tensions to contest and curtail Beijing's growing military
deterrence. The endgame in the South China Sea for China is to eventually push the United States out
of the region, reducing or eliminating its capacity to target China directly, and reduce
America's ability to destabilize China's peripheries. It should be noted that destabilizing China's peripheries
(those nations bordering China) is a stated objective of US policymakers. Hegemony or Stability, Not Both Ultimately the
US seeks hegemony, not stability. Hegemony by necessity requires the division and
destruction of competitors, which in turn requires constant and ever-escalating
sociopolitical and economic instability. While the US has all but declared its intent to
establish global hegemony for decades, it uses the pretext of seeking global peace, security
and stability as cover along the way. Understanding that only through a multipolar global order
in which state sovereignty holds primacy, not multinational alliances, institutions or openly
hegemonic world powers, can a real balance of power be struck, and only through this
balance of power can real global stability be achieved. Until then, as the US seeks hegemony
over the planet, the world can expect an equal but opposite decline in stability.

Chinas rise wont eliminate the West international organizations keep it in

check
Ikenberry 08 G. John, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and the
author of After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars, 2008 (The Rise of China and
the Future of the West, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, Available Online at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/asia/2008-01-01/rise-
china-and-future-west, Accessed 06-24-2016, AV)

The rise of China will undoubtedly be one of the great dramas of the twenty-first century. China's
extraordinary economic growth and active diplomacy are already transforming East Asia, and future decades will see even greater
increases in Chinese power and influence. But exactly
how this drama will play out is an open question. Will
China overthrow the existing order or become a part of it? And what, if anything, can the United
States do to maintain its position as China rises? Some observers believe that the American era
is coming to an end, as the Western-oriented world order is replaced by one increasingly dominated by the East. The
historian Niall Ferguson has written that the bloody twentieth century witnessed "the descent of the West" and "a reorientation of
the world" toward the East. Realists go on to note that as China gets more powerful and the United States' position erodes, two
things are likely to happen: China will try to use its growing influence to reshape the rules and institutions of the international
system to better serve its interests, and other states in the system -- especially the declining hegemon -- will start to see China as a
growing security threat. The result of these developments, they predict, will be tension, distrust, and conflict, the typical features of
a power transition. In this view, the drama of China's rise will feature an increasingly powerful China and a declining United States
locked in an epic battle over the rules and leadership of the international system. And as the world's largest country emerges not
from within but outside the established post-World War II international order, it is a drama that will end with the grand ascendance
of China and the onset of an Asian-centered world order. That
course, however, is not inevitable. The rise of China
does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition. The U.S.-Chinese power transition
can be very different from those of the past because China faces an international order that is
fundamentally different from those that past rising states confronted. China does not just face
the United States; it faces a Western-centered system that is open, integrated, and rule-based,
with wide and deep political foundations. The nuclear revolution, meanwhile, has made war among great powers
unlikely -- eliminating the major tool that rising powers have used to overturn international systems defended by declining
hegemonic states. Today's
Western order, in short, is hard to overturn and easy to join. This
unusually durable and expansive order is itself the product of farsighted U.S. leadership. After
World War II, the United States did not simply establish itself as the leading world power. It led
in the creation of universal institutions that not only invited global membership but also brought
democracies and market societies closer together. It built an order that facilitated the participation and
integration of both established great powers and newly independent states. (It is often forgotten that this postwar order was
designed in large part to reintegrate the defeated Axis states and the beleaguered Allied states into a unified international system.)
Today, China can gain full access to and thrive within this system. And if it does, China will rise,
but the Western order -- if managed properly -- will live on. As it faces an ascendant China, the
United States should remember that its leadership of the Western order allows it to shape the
environment in which China will make critical strategic choices. If it wants to preserve this leadership,
Washington must work to strengthen the rules and institutions that underpin that order -- making it even easier to join and harder
to overturn. U.S. grand strategy should be built around the motto "The road to the East runs through the West." It must sink the
roots of this order as deeply as possible, giving China greater incentives for integration than for opposition and increasing the
chances that the system will survive even after U.S. relative power has declined. The United States' "unipolar
moment" will inevitably end. If the defining struggle of the twenty-first century is between China and the United States,
China will have the advantage. If the defining struggle is between China and a revived Western system,
the West will triumph.