If federalism is about protecting the states, why not listen to them? In the last decade, the Supreme Court has reworked significant areas of constitutional law with the professed purpose of protecting the dignity and authority of the states, while frequently disregarding the states'' views as to what federalism is all about. The Court, according to the states, is protecting federalism too much and too little. Too much, in striking down federal law where even the states recognize that a federal role is necessary to address a national problem. Too little, in inappropriately limiting state experimentation. By listening more carefully to the States, the Supreme Court could transform its federalism jurisprudence from a source of criticism and polarization to a doctrine that should win broad support from across the political spectrum. In this important book, six distinguished authors redefine federalism and reaffirm Justice Louis Brandeis's vision of states and localities as the laboratories of democracy.

In the ongoing struggle between those favoring centralized and those favoring decentralized government, health care policy is an important issue. This book has three goals: (1) to illustrate how theories of federalism and intergovernmental relations can provide a useful framework for examining how to "divide up the job" in the health care area, (2) to assess the capacity of the states to actually implement health care policy changes, and (3) to weigh the merits of alternative visions of the future role of states and the federal government in health care policy.

Understanding federalism - the form of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system so that all maintain their political integrity - is central to the study of democratic government in the United States. Yet, many political scientists treat federalism as a set of abstract principles or a maze of budgetary transfers with little connection to real political life. This concise and engaging book boils the discussion down to its essence: federalism is about power, specifically the tug for power among and within the various levels of government. Author Larry N. Gerston examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of federalism; the various "change events" that have been involved in defining America's unique set of federal principles over time; and the vertical, horizontal, and international dimensions of federalism in the United States today. The result is a book examining the ways in which institutional political power is both diffused and concentrated in the United States.

Over the last 30 years, we have made great progress in curbing the most obvious pollution largely due to effective enforcement of federal and state environmental statutes. Now, however, there is increasing skepticism of the efficiency and even the constitutionality of our bedrock environmental laws from all branches of the federal government, including the courts. This book is the result of lively debate at the conference Alternative Grounds: Defending the Environment in an Unwelcome Judicial Climate, held on November 11, 2004, and co-sponsored by the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the Environmental Law Institute. Topics ranged from U.S. Supreme Court trends in environmental law jurisprudence, to innovative federal and state constitutional and statutory arguments that defend environmental protections, to federal provisions most vulnerable to attack on federalism, takings, and separation-of-powers grounds. This thought-provoking and insightful collection of essays provides smart, realistic solutions to the profound and complex legal challenges facing defenders of our environmental protections. With contributions by: Richard J. Lazarus, Sean H. Donahue, Paul Boudreaux, William W. Buzbee, Robert L. Glicksman, Alyson C. Flournoy, Christopher H. Schroeder, Douglas T. Kendall, Susan George, J.B. Ruhl, Donald W. Stever, and Mary Jane Angelo.

This book calls attention to the emerging issues involved in building on the edge of environmentally vulnerable places, explores why we do this, and proposes ways to mitigate its impact. The challenge of public policy is to acknowledge-and challenge-the conflicts inherent in modern planning philosophy, in the service of sensible environmental regulation.