AP Gov- Federalism Test (Chapter 3)

Federalism

A system in which power is divided between the national and state governments

Concurrent Powers

Powers granted to both states and the federal government in the Constitution

-Ex: Levy taxes, borrow money, regulate banks and corporations, pass and enforce laws, operate the court systems.

Dillon's Rule

Local jurisdictions are more restricted in their powers ("creatures of the states"- they exist at the states' pleasure)

McCulloch v. Maryland background

The case centered around the Second Bank of the United States

-Question whether Congress has the authority to charter a national bank

-several states, including Maryland, passed laws to tax the Second Bank of the United States

-Bank officals in Maryland refused to pay the state tax

McCulloch v. Maryland decision

1. Marshall reasoned that the right to establish the bank was a valid implied power of Congress while not enumerated. This means that Congress is not limited but its expressed powers.

2. Marshall and the Court also found in favor of the national government when it came to being taxed by the states (state government have no rights to tax the federal government)

Selective Incorporation

The process through which the supreme court applies fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights to the States on a case-by-case basis

Grant-in-Aid

Federal money provided to states to implement public policy objectives

Fiscal federalism

The federal government's use of grants-in-aid to influence policies in the states

categorical grants

Grants-in-aid provided to States with specific provisions on their use (strings attached)

1. May involve that state, local, regional authority provided matching funds

2. May provide specific instructions on how these funds are to be used

3. May be awarded per formulas that allocate according to population, need, and income

-States are not required to accept these funds but when they do, they accept the national regulations.

-Once a state establishes a program based on categorical, it depends on future funds for existence

The old "carrot and stick"

carry out national policy objective and threaten states with the withholding of funds if they fail to meet national government regulation or objectives.

-Inherent problems: uncertainty of funds, coercion, brides to follow national objectives, loss of authority

Unfunded Mandates

Federalism requirements that states must follow without being provided with funding

Supports of Categorical grants

1. Redistributing money between states can reduce inequality among the states.

2. Money provided by the national government can help to improve the lives of people living in these states that wouldn't be possible without national help.

Opposers of categorical grant

Some saw this as overreaching by the national government

- Richard Nixon sought to return some power and authority to the states

Block Grants

a type of grant-in-aid programs that gives states officials more authority in the disbursement of federal funds.

Revenue Sharing

when the federal government apportions tax money to the states with no strings attached

Devolution

Returning more authority to state and local governments

-Ex: Clinton signed the Personal Responsibilities and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996, which devolved social welfare programs back to the states

LBJ-Great Society

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, meant to provide greater educational opportunities especially for students who live in low-income areas.

-Provided federal grant money for the states to create programs to reduce dropout rates and improve schools

No Child Left Behind Act

controversial because it allocated grant money if the states agreed to give standardized assessment tests to students at certain grade levels. The testing was criticized by many constituency groups

Every Student Succeeds Act

Created more flexibility in setting educational standards but retained mandatory standardized testing

Arguements of Federal Educational Acts

-Supports of state control over education argued that the federal government has overstepped its boundaries with assertion that education is strictly a state issue

-Others argued that students shouldn't be educationally disadvantaged based upon the states that they live in

United States v. Lopez Background

- Alfonso Lopez brought an unloaded handgun (and ammunition) to school to sell to another student.

- The state charges were dropped, and Lopez was charged with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

-Lopez wanted the federal charges dropped because Congress did not have the power to regulate public schools.

-The lower court denied the motion insisting that these actions were covered under the Gun-Free School Zones Act as these institutions were related to interstate commerce.

United States v. Lopez Decision

In a 5 - 4 decision, The Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision agreeing that the possession of a gun in a school zone did not constitute an economic activity that would substantially affect interstate commerce.

-"slippery slope" argument - any activity could be commercial

-This decision also reaffirms the Tenth Amendment - state power is protected.

-It reverses the trend of giving more power to the federal government, reaffirming state police powers.