Description Week 3 Discussion Federalism — Historical Foundations Read: O’Toole pp. 33-71 A critical aspect of successfully completing this course is regular, substantive, and meaningful participation and contribution inside the weekly discussion forums. In your response to my question of the week, you must demonstrate that you have read the required readings, back your statements with facts, provide an analysis of the issue, and certainly make clear your point of view. Also, please try to post more than three sentences especially if you are responding to your fellow students. Note that you are required to comment on at three two of your fellow students’ posting. Read: O’Toole pp. 33-71 Discussion Questions or Topics: 1) Given Madison’s argument, what are the implications when it comes to developing “national” programs? What might a “federal” or “confederal” program look like? 2) With regards to Diamond, what relevance does the Framers’ intent have? Your task as an administrator is to implement a program. Does it really matter what they intended? 3) Given Grodzin’s depiction of the federal system as a marble cake, what are the implications in terms of who should have primary authority and/or jurisdiction in say addressing a terrorist attack like 9/11 or a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina 4) In presenting the Grodzins-Elazar construct, Sheiber is really trying to refute it. What is his problem with it? 5) What is the sum total of all this? In other words what do we learn from these historical foundations that may be important Jack W. Meek and Kurt Thurmaier, ed. Networked Governance: The Future of Intergovernmental Management (Washington, CQ Press, 2012) Patrick J. McGuinn, No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005 (Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 2006) Laurence J. O’Toole Jr., ed. American Intergovernmental Relations: Foundations, Perspectives, and Issues Fifth edition (Washington, CQ Press, 2007) The post In presenting the Grodzins-Elazar construct, Sheiber is really trying to refute it. What is his problem with it?