Federal Government Address

This chapter discusses the federalism principle as articulated in Art. 20 of the Grundgesetz (GG). It first examines the Federal Constitutional Court's jurisprudence concerning the idea that the federal government is an ‘entire state’ (Gesamtstaat). In particular, it considers the doctrine of the ‘tripartite federal state’ (‘entire state’ of the Federal Republic of Germany — federal government — states) and shows that the federal government is the entire state based on the doctrine of the ‘bipartite federal state’. It also explores the notion that the federal government is the ‘community of states’, the community of the federal government and the states, and the homogeneity of the federal and state governments. Finally, it explains the principle of loyalty to the federal state and the ensuing requirement of ‘federalism-friendly conduct’.

Reviewed by: Antigay Bias in Role-Model Occupations by E. Gary Spitko Sandra F. Sperino (bio) E. Gary Spitko, Antigay Bias in Role-Model Occupations (University of Pennsylvania Press 2017), ISBN 978-08-12248-70-8, 272pages. In Antigay Bias in Role Model Occupations, Professor E. Gary Spitko discusses how employers regularly exclude people from role model occupations based on their sexual orientation and why such exclusion matters. The book’s central theme is “that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with particular respect to role-model occupations has served as a means to exclude gay people from the public social spaces that identify and teach whom our society respects and whom members of society should seek to emulate.”1 This book comes at an important time and makes a real contribution to the existing literature on anti-discrimination law. In the United States, Title VII is the federal law that prohibits discrimination because of sex. There is currently a circuit split about whether Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation. In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana,2 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses sexual orientation discrimination. However, several other circuit courts have held that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.3 While there is a rich literature about why federal law should prohibit employment discrimination, Professor Spitko provides another compelling reason. His book demonstrates how employers have long excluded gay people from being lawyers, from serving in the military, from being teachers, and from playing professional sports once their sexual orientation became known. Professor Spitko convincingly argues that excluding people from these role model occupations has a host of consequences, including making it difficult for gay people to see themselves in role model occupations [End Page 986] and robbing them of the opportunities to publicly demonstrate the qualities that people often associate with role models. As Professor Spitko notes: For the contemporary gay aspiring lawyer, politician, or athlete, therefore, a ‘lavender ceiling’ caps expectations. It is impossible to know and difficult even to imagine what the other side of that lavender ceiling looks like. For the straight person as well, the lack of such gay pioneering role models hems in the concept of what it means to be gay.4 Many of the examples Professor Spitko examines are cases in which federal, state, and local governments prohibited individuals from serving in role model occupations because of their sexual orientation. The book tells the story of a woman who was fired from a job as a state lawyer because she married another woman. It details how the military excluded people from serving. It also discusses how local governments discriminated against gay teachers. Thus, the book shows how the government played a significant role in denying opportunity and also in creating the social norms about what kinds of people belong in certain jobs of authority. The government’s critical role in creating a climate of exclusion, calls for a special response from it to remedy its past role. As Spitko notes, “Gay people . . . have long been targeted for employment discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or sexual behavior. In the United States, the federal government was for many years the most prominent perpetrator of this discrimination.”5 Federal and local governments also maintained for decades that gay people were not fit for these role model occupations and made many arguments to support this claim. These arguments were enshrined in court cases and other government records. Spitko notes that while many people are aware of the “Red Scare” and the federal government’s efforts to exclude Communists from employment, they know very little about the “Lavender Scare.” Quoting from the book, “By the 1960s, the federal government had fired thousands of employees because of their alleged homosexuality and had denied employment to thousands more applicants on the same grounds.”6 A 1953 federal executive order that expressly listed sexual perversion as a basis for denying federal employment blocked employment in the private sector for openly gay individuals who needed a federal security clearance. Professor Spitko also critiques...

Reviewed by: Slavery in the American Republic: Developing the Federal Government, 1791-1861 by David F. Ericson Richard R. John (bio) Keywords Slavery, Federal government, Politics, State development Slavery in the American Republic: Developing the Federal Government, 1791-1861. By David F. Ericson. (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2011. Pp. ix, 298. Cloth, $37.50.) The relationship of slavery and American politics is a historical perennial. In Slavery in the American Republic, political scientist David F. Ericson joins the discussion by emphasizing the positive role that the presence of slavery in the American republic played the development of the federal government. In the "traditional narrative," Ericson contends, slavery had little to do with the development of the American state, or, at most, slowed its rise (17). Ericson finds this narrative mistaken. The mordant warnings of slaveholders John Randolph and Nathanial Macon that federal public-works spending might establish precedents that could doom the "peculiar institution" were overblown and unrepresentative. More characteristic was the long involvement of the army in the Second Seminole War, a conflict that, in Ericson's view, was less about land hunger or anti-Native American prejudice than the elimination of a popular haven for escaped slaves. To make his point, Ericson proposes a number of counterfactuals that take the form of a syllogism: no slavery, less (federal) government. Ericson freely concedes that his linkage of slavery and federal public policy is not exactly novel. Indeed, it is not altogether obvious how many historians, as opposed to political scientists, he would lump together in the "traditional" category. Don E. Fehrenbacher's The Slaveholding Republic (Oxford, UK, 2001) covered many of the same topics with greater authority, while Robin E. Einhorn's American Taxation, American Slavery (Chicago, 2006) deftly probed the relationship of slavery [End Page 368] and federal taxation. Ericson's innovation, rather, is to demonstrate quantitatively that slavery hastened "state development," a term of art for political scientists that Ericson equates not with the capacity of the state to attain specific goals, as earlier political scientists contended, but, rather, with the ability of federal officeholders to operate independently of constituent pressure. Ericson opens his narrative in 1791, a convenient starting point, since it permits him to sidestep the vexed debate over the relationship of slavery to the federal Constitution. Following an opening chapter in which he distinguishes his approach from the various "politics and history" scholars (2) who persist in downplaying the power of the federal government in the early republic, Ericson devotes chapters to the cost of federal government involvement in the suppression of the international slave trade, the relocation of ex-slaves in Liberia, the capture of fugitive slaves, slavery-related military ventures, and the employment of slaves by the federal government. In the 1791-1861 period, Erickson contends, lawmakers devoted 2.8 percent of federal expenditures ($51 million) to slavery-related tasks. Of this total, over half—$30 million—went to the prosecution of the Second Seminole War, with an additional $10 million for Texas debt relief—an expenditure that he throws into the mix even though he is agnostic as to whether slaveholder-driven land hunger precipitated the Mexican-American War. While Ericson displays considerable ingenuity in number crunching, his interest extends beyond the merely quantitative. How, he asks, did the presence of slavery hasten changes in state behavior that "in turn" led to state development (16)? To answer this question, he ventures a number of speculative claims. Proslavery federal activism, Ericson posits, probably increased the legitimacy of the federal government in the slaveholding states; the hiring of slaves at the Norfolk, Virginia, navy yard almost certainly emboldened middle-level federal administrators to invent novel protocols that increased their autonomy vis à vis their superiors; and the frequent deployment of the military to defend slaveholders' property rights explains the "fit" between the trajectory of state development in the United States and Europe (106). The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 posed a special interpretative challenge, since it perversely underscored the integral relationship of slavery to the expanding mandate of the federal government in the realm of civil rights: "The federal enforcement of the constitutional rights of Southern slaveholders to the return of their...

This study examines how the Alberta government used litigation--the Alberta Exported Gas Tax Reference--as part of its efforts to combat the federal government's National Energy Program (NEP) in the early 1980s; in doing so, the study posits some general theories of government use of strategic litigation and highlights the need for further research in this area. While the increased use of strategic litigation by interest groups as a political tactic since the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights has attracted considerable attention from Canadian scholars, little attention has been given to studying strategic litigation by government actors. This is conspicuous given Alan Cairns' seminal reminder that both the federal and provincial governments use a variety of methods to protect and expand their jurisdiction of constitutional responsibilities (Cairns 1977, 700-706). Strategic litigation is one method used by governments in their quest for political and constitutional advantage. Using the reference mechanism, which allows governments in Canada to ask the courts for advisory opinions, the Alberta government launched a constitutional challenge to the NEP's natural gas export tax. This use of strategic litigation paid off in March 1981 with a unanimous ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal that declared the federal tax on provincially-owned exported natural gas unconstitutional (Reference Re Proposed Federal Tax on Exported Natural Gas). The decision gave the Alberta government new legal resources that were subsequently parlayed into political resources when the Alberta government used the decision to help negotiate a better energy deal with Ottawa. Background The introduction of the National Energy Program (NEP) in the October 1980 federal budget followed a series of unsuccessful meetings between Alberta and the federal Liberal government to arrive at a mutually agreeable energy These discussions focussed on the price at which oil and natural gas products should be sold and the appropriate distribution of economic rents (between Ottawa, the producing provinces and industry) generated by oil and gas sales. Pricing, revenue sharing and, ultimately, control of natural resources were not new issues--they had plagued relations between Alberta and the federal government after the oil price shocks in 1973 and 1979 (Doern and Toner 1985). Never before, however, had they been so bitterly contested. These contentious negotiations are better appreciated and understood by placing them in the larger Canadian constitutional and political context. As Cairns notes, One way in which Canada is unusual as a federation is the degree of power of the provincial governments over natural resource policy. (1992, 55). Whereas the clause in the U.S. has been interpreted to give the federal government a wide range of power over natural resources, Canadian provinces have asserted their right to control natural resource management by relying especially on Section 109 of the constitution, which stipulates that All Lands, Mines, Minerals and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada shall belong to the several Provinces ... (1) However, the federal government in Canada has justified its influence in natural resource policy by its constitutional power to regulate trade and commerce and to raise money by any mode or system of taxation. Given these federal and provincial constitutional powers and the constitutional prohibition against one level of government taxing the other level (section 125), along with the reality that resource management, trade, and taxation are interdependent, there is potential for conflict (Cairns 1992, 56-57). Not surprisingly, prior to the 1970s, there were periodic disputes between the federal government and the provinces over natural resources. For a variety of reasons, though, these disputes were not as persistent or vitriolic as they were in the 1970s and early 1980s, when rising oil and gas prices would lead to the clash between energy producing provinces, particularly Alberta, and the federal government (Cairns 1992, 60-64). …

Little over a decade ago, a well-known US economist and practicing political scientist, Alice Rivlin, argued that the time had come (again) to rethink dividing the job of public policy between federal and state government (Rivlin 1992a, 1992b). She argued that reopening in the 1990s “the more than 200 year-old question of the desirable division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government” (1992b: 315) was necessary because (1) the federal government’s attention should be focused primarily on global interdependence; (2) policies needed to revitalize the economy should come from states; (3) states are competent and responsive enough to take on this task, and (4) the current system leads to citizen confusion over which level of government does what. She asserted that the federal government “has taken on too much responsibility and should return some of its functions to the states. A clearer division of responsibilities between states and the federal government could make both levels operate more effectively.” (1992a: 82). She proposed that the federal government take responsibility for health care financing, the states take charge of a “productivity” agenda of reforms in education and skills training, child care, housing, infrastructure and economic development, and states work together to adopt a common tax as a way of stabilizing and improving their financing role.

Mandating by the federal government on state governments and by the federal and state governments on local governments has become a significant political-institutional and intergovernmental in the United States. Recent research shows that both state and federal mandates which affect local governments are numerous and are expanding rapidly in quantity, range, and scope, and that the practice of mandating has reached the point where the parameters of choice for local governments have been significantly constrained.* In fact, evidence is beginning to accumulate that mandates serve as the most important determinant of local government expenditures and as the single most important influence on local government policy making. Whether this is good or bad depends on the values of the observer. According to some observers, mandating is a phenomenon which is transforming, fundamentally, and for the worse, the very structure and character of American federalism. To others, the issue represents a phony campaign against national policy guidance and useful regulation which protects and enhances life and guides the various spheres of government along together toward essential societal objectives. No matter what one's attitude toward the issue, the fact remains that there has been a substantial change over the last decade in the impact of federal and state governments on local governments. As long ago as 1972, Norton Long pointed out that localities were becoming increasingly unwalled and increasingly unable to shape directly the scope and scale of their activities or to control the necessary devices to ensure the ability to manage a range of more and more difficult local problems.' Since 1972, the penetration of local governments by the federal and state governments through a combination of grants-in-aid and mandating processes has completed the unwalling. Conditions of aid plus directly mandated requirements have multiplied exponentially and have, together, increasingly constrained local policy choices. The research described here attempts to examine the mandate half of this phenomenon. The research did four things: (1) it developed a typology of mandates and inventoried the number and growth of federal and state mandates which affect local governments,

Regulation of assisted reproductive technologies in the United States

INTRODUCTION Litigating takings claims under the U.S. Constitution involves pitfalls not encountered in ordinary constitutional litigation. With respect to takings claims against the federal government, just compensation can ordinarily be awarded only by the Court of Federal Claims (CFC), an court located in Washington, D.C. (1) The CFC, however, has no authority to grant equitable or declaratory relief. (2) Consequently, claimants who wish to advance claims enforced by injunctions or declaratory judgments (for example, that the government action was arbitrary and capricious) must seek relief in an Article III court. This means claimants must often split their claims between two courts, giving rise to tricky questions of timing and preclusion. If they file in the wrong court, or get the sequencing wrong, consideration of the takings claim may be foreclosed. (3) Congress could clean up the mess by rewriting the relevant jurisdictional statutes, but has failed to act. (4) With respect to federal takings claims against state and local governments, the Supreme Court has held that such claims must be initially presented to state courts before they can be heard in federal court. (5) Any legal and factual issues that are resolved by the state courts, however, cannot be relitigated in a subsequent challenge in federal court. (6) Since federal and state takings clauses are generally interpreted the same way, this gives rise to what has been aptly called a trap. (7) Although federal constitutional claims ordinarily can be tried in federal court under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983, (8) takings claims, because they must be initially presented to state courts, are generally barred from being considered by any federal court other than the U.S. Supreme Court on certiorari from the final state court decision, which is rarely granted. This Essay argues that these pitfalls of litigating federal takings claims rest, in significant part, on an erroneous understanding about the scope of federal judicial authority under the Takings Clause. Starting from the premises that the Constitution does not prohibit takings but only requires that they be compensated, (9) and that compensation can be awarded only in a court in which the government has waived its sovereign immunity, (10) the Supreme Court has concluded--sometimes--that federal courts of general jurisdiction have no authority to consider takings claims as long as an action for compensation is available elsewhere. On other occasions however--and usually without acknowledging the inconsistency--the Court has reviewed takings claims without requiring that they first be submitted to the court having authority to award just compensation. The latter line of authority, although poorly theorized by the Court, is the correct one. There is no rule of law that prevents federal courts of general jurisdiction from adjudicating claims that arise under the Takings Clause --as long as they confine themselves to the question whether there has been a taking that entitles the owner to compensation. Given sovereign immunity, however, any actual award of compensation against the federal government or one of the states (as opposed to a local government) must be made by a court having jurisdiction to render such a judgment. The vehicle for allowing federal courts to consider takings claims, even if they have no authority to award just compensation, is what I call an anticipatory remedy. (11) The primary type of remedy I have in mind is a declaratory judgment, authorized by the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934. (12) In appropriate circumstances, federal courts of general jurisdiction should be able to entertain claims that a federal or state government unit is proposing to engage in action that would constitute a taking, and if so, to issue a declaration that compensation would be required if the government persists. Anticipatory remedies could also take other forms besides declaratory judgments. …

Under neo-liberalism, commodification has emerged as a major issue of concern for those studying immigration and immigrants. The term ‘commodification’ refers to market relations where services are bought and sold. According to Burke, commodification under neo-liberalism shows ‘an increasing reliance on the market’ for the financing or delivery of services (Burke, 2000: 180). This is certainly true for Canada, where both federal and provincial governments increasingly rely on the global market for a constant supply of domestics, especially from the Philippines, for childcare and eldercare financed by private employers. Social democrats expect domestics’ work to be a regulated arena. However, in Canada the absence of government regulations as well as the lack of private bonds and obligations has created an unregulated, neglected area where labourers are mostly at the mercy of their employers. Immigration statistics from 2001 show that under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP), about 4,000 workers entered Canada in 2000. The Vancouver Philippine Women Centre newsletter brings this statistic to life: ‘As of 1996, there were over 50,000 Filipino women in Canada who entered as domestic workers under the Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP). Over 6,000 of these women work in the Lower Mainland area and most are between the ages of 20–35 with at least a two-year university level education’ (The Centre Update, 1996: 1–2). This chapter explores the socio-economic relationships between employers and female im/migrant employees in a private but commodified social sector, i.e., the family/household, in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The BC government’s labour regulations are either inadequate or non-existent, and the federal government’s controlled immigration rules make female im/migrant workers vulnerable in several ways and place them in exploitative situations. In 1992, the federal government, through the LCP, endorsed a two-tier immigration system. Those who are well educated, skilled, and privileged in wealth (i.e., entrepreneurs) are welcomed to Canada as independent immigrants and enjoy social rights and entitlements immediately. Im/migrants who lack these qualifications enter Canada as

All sources of funds--including federal state and local government plus patient fees and private contributions--spent for medical family planning in fiscal year 1974 are summarized. A minimum of $205 million was spent during the time for United States organized family planning services and Medicaid payments to private doctors who provided such services. About 80% of this came from the federal government; 14% was accounted for by private contributions and patient fees; 7% was provided by state and local governments. In Arkansas Mississippi North and South Dakota and Wyoming all family planning expenditures came from the federal government. Only in Alaska and California did funds from state and local governments exceed 20% of the total. In the District of Columbia about 1/2 the funds spent were from private contributions and patient fees. Federal funds were provided in the following form: 1) nearly 2/3 from project grants under Title X of the Public Health Service Act and Title V of the Social Security Act; 2) 19% from reimbursements under Medicaid; 3) 11% from Title IV-A of the Social Security Act; and 4) 5% from Title V grants to states. Charts with breakdowns by states and by type of federal funding are included. There are discrepancies in the figures used since over-reporting and under-reporting render the figures inexact.

Public finance is a crucial issue in any federation. In the system of shared public financing in Germany, no unit of government is fiscally dependent on the other. The federal and Land governments share the personal income tax, the corporation tax, and the value-added sales tax. Because the Bundesrat approves of the shares of these tax yields granted the federal and Land governments, the Lander are deeply involved in the public finance system. Fiscal equalization occurs both vertically and horizontally. The federal government provides the Lander with grantsin-aid, and also shares the financing of a number of joint tasks. The Lander share their tax yields with their local governments. Fiscal transfers also take place among the richer and poorer Lander and among the municipalities within the boundaries of individual counties. Controversy exists over the shares to be given the respective governments from the value-added tax and over fiscal equalization between the richer (South) and poorer (North) Lander.

Australian scientists lobby for antimicrobial oversight body

Research Article| February 01, 1985 An Overview of LNG Facility Siting and Licensing EDMUND J. TEXEIRA; EDMUND J. TEXEIRA California Public Utilities Commission, State Building, San Francisco, CA 94102 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar HAN L. ONG; HAN L. ONG California Public Utilities Commission, State Building, San Francisco, CA 94102 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar JASJIT S. SEKHON JASJIT S. SEKHON California Public Utilities Commission, State Building, San Francisco, CA 94102 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information EDMUND J. TEXEIRA California Public Utilities Commission, State Building, San Francisco, CA 94102 HAN L. ONG California Public Utilities Commission, State Building, San Francisco, CA 94102 JASJIT S. SEKHON California Public Utilities Commission, State Building, San Francisco, CA 94102 Publisher: Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Online Issn: 1558-9161 Print Issn: 1078-7275 © 1985 Association of Engineering Geologists Environmental & Engineering Geoscience (1985) xxii (1): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xxii.1.39 Article history First Online: 09 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation EDMUND J. TEXEIRA, HAN L. ONG, JASJIT S. SEKHON; An Overview of LNG Facility Siting and Licensing. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience 1985;; xxii (1): 39–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.xxii.1.39 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyEnvironmental & Engineering Geoscience Search Advanced Search Abstract The imported LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) is temporarily stored in large tanks at the “base-load” plants. Because of the large quantities of LNG involved and the potential hazards associated with an accidental spill, various federal, state, and local governmental agencies have adopted stringent safety regulations for siting, design, construction, and operation of these facilities. Obtaining numerous required licenses from these regulatory agencies is a lengthy and tedious process. Prior to the issuance of permits to construct and operate an LNG terminal, the project sponsors must demonstrate the need to import natural gas, financial ability to complete the project, the environmental impact of this project, and the risk level to which the public will be exposed by the project.The acceptance of a proposed LNG site by state and federal regulatory agencies is strongly influenced by the various risk levels associated with natural hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, floods, winds, tornadoes, and tsunamis. During the lengthy certification proceedings, a project sponsor is required to develop on the record that the relevant hazards are investigated in depth and the proposed mitigation measures are clearly specified so that responsible decisions regarding siting and design criteria can be made by the appropriate regulatory agency.Prior to commencing the lengthy process of certification, the project sponsor must thoroughly investigate the geological and seismic conditions, as well as population density and other requirements set forth by various local, state, and federal governmental agencies. A slight oversight in meeting any of these requirements could result in extensive regulatory delays or even denial of a permit. This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access. First Page Preview Close Modal You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.

Family Physicians Sue to Shine Light on RUC Deliberations, Claim Specialists Skew Reimbursement Against Primary Care

Reviewed by: The 4-H Harvest: Sexuality and the State in Rural America by Gabriel N. Rosenberg Jennifer Robin Terry The 4-H Harvest: Sexuality and the State in Rural America. By Gabriel N. Rosenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016. ix + 304 pp. Cloth $55, e-book $55. Gabriel Rosenberg’s study of the origins and development of 4-H, the largest and best-known youth-serving organization in America, firmly embeds the federal government within the heart of modern agrarian life. While readers may already be familiar with the ways that the federal government insinuated itself into the American landscape through Progressive Era conservation and New Deal agricultural policies, this study explains how the 4-H youth program also provided the federal government a conduit to family farms, served to condition American youth to partner with government programs, and “functioned as a mode of governance implemented through the bodies of participating children” (3). Grounded in research from archives across the nation, this ambitious work is an institutional history of the organization, an examination of the cultural interpretations of the agrarian political economy, and an intimate look at the interconnection of the human and nonhuman biopolitical frameworks involved in modern state building. [End Page 143] Through six chronological chapters, Rosenberg’s book demonstrates how the federal government influenced American society, and eventually the world, through children and youth’s activities. As such, the 4-H program may be understood as a precursor to the sort of federal intervention that Marilyn Irvin Holt writes of in Cold War Kids: Politics and Childhood in Postwar America, 1945–1960 (2014). Rosenberg explains how the federal government, through the United States Department of Agriculture and the agricultural extension service, partnered with modern agrarian scientists, home economists, and social welfare reformers to modernize farms, combat perceived rural degeneracy, and strengthen the nation through healthy farm families. In so doing, the federal government gained acknowledgment as a cultural and scientific authority throughout rural America. Beginning in the 1910s and 1920s, Rosenberg explains, children’s agricultural programs were used to reach out to farmers and their wives who were otherwise resistant to modernization. In supporting their children’s activities, parents were then exposed to scientifically proven best practices in animal husbandry, crop cultivation, and domestic homemaking. Agricultural clubs served to bridge the gap between home and school, providing vocational training that was meant to stem the tide of population drift toward cities by reinvigorating agrarian life with modern import. 4-H projects introduced boys to capital-intensive projects that often required debt financing. This helped to condition young farmers and their families to the notion of debt for the sake of progress while it also created and strengthened ties between farmers, bankers, and retailers under the guise of community building. The clubs also trained girls in the art of modern homemaking and ostensibly infused excitement into otherwise banal activities. By the 1930s, children’s 4-H activities had become an unapologetic extension of the federal government as children were taught to assist parents in understanding the intricacies of New Deal agricultural policies, such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act. As well, Rosenberg explains, clubs became sites of heterosexual socialization in order to encourage positive eugenic efforts to curtail the crisis of reproduction that threatened to undermine rural America. Through club activities, prescriptive literature, and health contests that “scrutinized bodies and quantif[ied] copious ‘defects,’” (104) 4-H’ers learned to examine and document their health, physique, and emotional well-being just as they would score and record livestock, vegetation, or domestic projects. 4-H met the uncertainties of World War II with activities and literature that focused on rituals of belonging. Yet, it was through the organization’s patriotic literature, and at national 4-H conferences, Rosenberg writes, that the inconsistencies and contradictions of the organization’s racially discriminatory policies became starkly apparent. The club’s focus on producing young bodies suitable for labor [End Page 144] and national sacrifice centered on contrasts between healthy, white, American bodies and those of “depleted foreign bodies” (171). Rosenberg moves from the local to the global in the last chapter and epilogue. Like recent studies such as Daniel Immerwahr’s...