Evaluate the view that the US is no longer federal today

Introduction

• federalism is a structure if government in which power is divided between a national government and state governments

Paragraph Focus

• Para 1 = Encroachment of Federal Government

• Para 2 = Constitution

Para 1 - Weaker Argument = No Longer Federal

• it can be argued that the US is no longer federal as there has been significant expansion of federal power in areas of policy traditionally controlled by the states

• this period can be defined as ‘zig-zag federalism’, where the federal government’s role has been expanded in some areas

• for example, George George W. Bush’s 2002 No Child Left Behind Act Introduced major changes to education policy

• this shows that that government ha been overstepping there powers and encroaching on states in order to achieve improved national provision and unity in standards

• this can also bee seen in Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill (2021), which allocated $1.2 trillion in spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure

Para 1 - Stronger Argument = Still Federal Today

• it can be argued that the US does remain federal today as states retain significant control over policy

• this can be seen in the significant variation in abortion policy since Dobbs v. Jackson’s Health Organisation (202w), after which states were given full control over regulating abortion

• for example, Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama have implemented near total abortion bans with no exceptions for rape or incest

• in contrast, Vermont and Michigan amended their states constitutions to explicitly protect abortion rights

• this shows

Para 1 - Judgment

• Clearly the argument that the US is no longer federal is weaker to an extent

• Clearly the argument that the US is still federal is stronger to an extent

Para 2 - Weaker Argument = No Longer Federal

• it can be argued that the constitution hasn’t effectively protected federalism

• Both the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause, gives congress the power to regulate commerce among several states

• this has been interpreted by SCOTUS as giving Congress broad regulatory power over the US

• this shows that SCOTUS broad interpretation of Congress implied powers has facilitated a significant growth in federal power

• this can be seen as stretching federal power beyond the founding fathers’ original intention

• the q96r Civil Rights Act, for example, used the commerce clause ti end racial segregation in hotels and other accommodation

Para 2 - Stronger Argument - Still Federal Today

• it can be argued that the US does remain federal today as federalism is effectively protected by the constitution

• the 10th Amendment clearly protects the power of states by stating that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states

• when the federal government seeks to overstep powers in the constitution, the courts often step in to protect state power

• this can be seen in United States v. Lopez (1995), when SCOTUS set limits on Congress’ use of the commerce clause

• this shows that there are clear limits to implied powers of Congress and that SCOTUS has upheld federalism

Para 2 - Judgement

• clearly the argument that the US is no longer federal today is weaker to a large extent as

• clearly the argument that the US is still federal today is stronger to a large extent as

Para 3 - Weaker Argument = No Longer Federal

• it can be argued that the US is no longer federal today as states are relient on the federal governmnent for around a quarter of their income

• this allows the federal govermnet to control state policy, particularly through categorical grants which specify how money should be spent

• this can be seen in the Affordable Care Act, which required states to expand Medicaid provision or lose existing funding for Medicaid programmes

Para 3 - Stronger Argument = Still Federal

• it can be argued that the US remains federal today as the majority of money spent by states raised through state and local taxes

• the SCOTUS can often step in to protect federalism and the power of states

• for example, the Affordable Care Act’s provision that required states to expand Medicaid provision or lose existing federal funding for Medicaid programmes was struck down by SCOTUS

• this can also be seen in 2017, when Trump’s executive order that withheld federal grants from sanctuary states was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS

• this means that shows that SCOTUS limits the federal government’s power to coerce states

Para 3 - Judgement

• clearly the argument that the US is no longer federal is weaker to a large extent

• clearly the argument that the US is still federal is stronger to a large extent