AP Government & Politics | Federalism: Comprehensive Study Notes
Federalism: Comprehensive Study Notes
- Big Idea of Federalism
- Federalism is the sharing of power between a central government and equally sovereign regional governments.
- It aims to secure liberty while dividing powers among multiple authorities.
- Today, many nations are federal (e.g., Canada, Australia, Germany); others are unitary (e.g., United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan).
- In the original American system, states had more authority than the national government; the Articles of Confederation created a firm league of friendship among states, with national powers derived from the states.
- The framers debated where power should lie to balance national needs with state sovereignty; modern practice shows a blurring line between state and national jurisdictions and ongoing efforts to restore state authority.
Constitutional Provisions That Guide Federalism
- Article I, Section 8 (Enumerated powers; Necessary and Proper clause)
- Grants Congress powers including: to coin money, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, tax, punish counterfeiting, regulate immigration, etc.
- Elastic/Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress to take appropriate means to execute its delegated powers.
- ext{Enumerated powers of Congress, including the necessary and proper clause}
- Article I, Section 9 (Powers denied to Congress)
- Historical limits such as not regulating slave trade before 1808; restrictions on federal power.
- ext{Powers denied Congress; no regulating slave trade before 1808; states to be treated uniformly}
- Article I, Section 10 (Powers denied to the states)
- Prohibits states from entering treaties, impairing contracts, etc.
- ext{Powers denied to the states, such as treaties; impairing contracts}
- Article IV (Full Faith and Credit; Privileges and Immunities; Extradition)
- Full faith and credit requires states to recognize public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.
- Privileges and immunities clause guarantees citizens’ rights across states; variations have been limited by the Supreme Court.
- Extradition requires returning fugitives to the state where crime occurred.
- ext{Full faith and credit; privileges and immunities; extradition}
- Article VI (Supremacy Clause)
- National law is supreme over state law when Congress acts within its constitutional powers.
- States cannot disregard federal laws even if Supreme Court has not yet ruled on constitutionality.
- ext{Supremacy of the national government}
- Tenth Amendment
- Powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people.
- Establishes reserved and concurrent powers; acknowledges states’ residual sovereignty.
- ext{Powers not delegated to the federal government reserved by the states}
- Key concepts explained
- Delegated (expressed) powers: listed in Article I, Section 8.
- Reserved powers: not listed; belong to states (Tenth Amendment).
- Concurrent powers: shared by both federal and state governments (e.g., taxation, defining crimes, court systems, land development).
The New Republic to the New Deal
- Founding era: Washington’s presidency and Federalist era
- Washington and Federalists favored a strong national government; the first Bank of the United States (1791) was established with Hamilton’s support; Jefferson opposed as a strict constructionist.
- Whiskey Rebellion (early 1790s): federal response with militia demonstrated federal power but sparked opposition among Jeffersonians.
- Early party dynamics
- Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans (led by Jefferson and later Madison) shaped early constitutional interpretation.
- Jeffersonian compact theory and nullification
- Jefferson and allies argued states formed the compact that created the national government; if federal authority oversteps, states could nullify federal laws.
- Resolutions to address perceived violations laid groundwork for later Anti-Federalist resurgence; nullification became central to Southern political thought but was never upheld in federal courts.
The Supreme Court Shapes Federalism
- John Marshall’s role
- As chief justice, Marshall established the framework for federalism through key cases.
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
- Constitutional questions: (1) Does the federal government have implied powers under the Necessary and Proper (elastic) clause? (2) Is a state allowed to tax a federal institution?
- Decision: Yes to both; the Court held that Congress has implied powers and that federal law is supreme (Article VI) over state law when acting within constitutional powers.
- Key reasoning: The Constitution grants certain powers; the elastic clause allows means to execute them; the supremacy clause ensures national laws override conflicting state laws.
- Impact: Broadened federal power through implied powers; established that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” established limits on state taxation of federal entities.
- Aftermath: McCulloch v. Maryland, along with Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), solidified a strong federal role in commerce and national policy.
- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) nuances
- Expanded federal authority over interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause; laid groundwork for later federal regulation of economic activity.
- Dual Federalism and Selective Exclusiveness
- Early era characterized by dual federalism: federal government supreme in its sphere; states supreme in theirs.
- Selective exclusiveness: only Congress may regulate certain inter-state/commercial matters; states retain authority over internal commerce.
- Progressive era shifts: increased federal regulation of commerce, labor, and protective measures emerged; the 16th and 17th Amendments expanded federal reach and restructured accountability.
- National concerns and state obligations
- The growth of federal power through commerce-related regulation and the use of federal grants to address national concerns.
- The Sixteenth Amendment established the federal income tax; the Seventeenth Amendment made senators answerable to the people rather than state legislatures.
- The rise of federal programs addressing safety, health, and civil rights through regulation and grants.
- The New Deal and beyond
- The Great Depression catalyzed a dramatic expansion of federal power under interstate commerce authority and social welfare programs.
- Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) initially restricted federal regulation of manufacturing; later decisions overturned this view as commerce and production were deemed interconnected, expanding federal reach.
- By mid-20th century, Congress used the commerce power to implement national standards (e.g., minimum wage under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938).
- Evolution summary
- Two centuries of constitutional interpretation produced a shift from dual to cooperative/fiscal federalism; national power increased, especially in matters with cross-border implications.
- Yet the Lopez case later reined in Congressional reach under the commerce clause, signaling ongoing debates about federal limits.
Federal Grant Program and Intergovernmental Policy Making
- Grants-in-aid as a core tool
- The federal government funds state and local activities to address national concerns (safety, crime, education, civil rights).
- Revenue sharing, cooperative federalism, and fiscal federalism describe how funds are distributed and conditions attached.
- Grants vary, with some tied to specific objectives (categorical grants) and others offering more discretion (block grants).
- The growth of grants historically
- Early 20th century: grants supported militia, infrastructure, and later education.
- 1916 onwards: road construction; federal revenue and spending expanded under New Deal and Great Society programs.
- Block grants and devolution debates
- 1960s–1970s: block grants introduced to give states more discretion; critics argued they reduced federal oversight and credit-claim opportunities for lawmakers.
- 1970s–1980s: Nixon proposed megagrants; some federal programs consolidated, but many strings and conditions persisted.
- 1980s–1990s: shift toward devolution favored by conservatives; unfunded mandates reform sought to limit the federal government’s reach into state budgets.
- Marble cake federalism
- The metaphor for increasingly intertwined federal, state, and local responsibilities; lines between levels are blurred by overlapping grants and collaborative programs.
- Notable mandates and funding dynamics
- Mandates can be funded or unfunded; federal statutes require state actions (e.g., Clean Air Act, ADA, Civil Rights Restoration Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, National Voter Registration Act).
- The costs of mandates (e.g., EPA limits on emissions) have significant budgetary implications for states and localities.
- No Child Left Behind and education policy
- NCLB (2002) increased federal role in education, with accountability and testing requirements and funding incentives.
- By 2015, ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) returned more control to states while maintaining federal oversight to protect disadvantaged students.
- Race to the Top (2009) promoted national standards; Common Core debates highlighted concerns about loss of local control.
- Devolution in the 1990s
- The era of devolution emphasized returning powers and funding responsibility to states and localities (e.g., Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act).
Education Policy and Federalism in Practice
- National goals vs. state management
- Education moved to a national priority in the 1960s due to civil rights progress and Cold War competition.
- Civil rights enforcement and environmental concerns spurred federal involvement through funding and standards.
- 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
- Aimed to reduce poverty-related disparities; provided federal resources with local discretion in spending.
- Department of Education evolution
- 1965: ESEA funding increased federal role; 1979–1980s: creation of the Department of Education.
- 2010s onward
- ESSA (2015) gave states more control over standards while keeping federal approval for plans.
- Ongoing debates on Common Core and national standards versus local control.
Think Like a Political Scientist: Interpreting Quantitative Data
How to read charts/graphs/tables
- Examine title, labels, purpose, units (constant vs real dollars; thousands/millions/billions).
- Identify patterns, trends, and potential reasons for changes.
- Consider data limitations and alternative representations.
Exercise: Total Federal Outlays for State and Local Grants, 1955–1985 (in billions of constant dollars)
- 1955: 24.4; share: 4.7 ext{%}
- 1960: 45.3; share: 7.6 ext{%}
- 1965: 65.9; share: 9.2 ext{%}
- 1970: 123.7; share: 12.3 ext{%}
- 1975: 186.8; share: 15.0 ext{%}
- 1980: 227.0; share: 15.5 ext{%}
- 1985: 189.6; share: 11.2 ext{%}
- Source: OMB Historical Tables, FY 2014
Discussion prompts
- What explanations could account for these increases/decreases over time?
- What events/priorities might explain the changes (e.g., Great Society programs, economic cycles)?
- What limitations might exist in the data (scope, aging of data, inflation adjustments)?
- How might alternative representations (percent of GDP, per-capita grants) change interpretation?
Returning Authority to the States: Federalism in the Late 20th Century
- Post–New Deal fiscal federalism and New Federalism
- Reagan (1981) advocated returning power to states and scaling back federal authority.
- Emphasis on distinguishing powers between federal and state governments.
- Grants in the 1980s and beyond
- States came to rely on federal funds; strings and guidelines constrained state discretion.
- National drinking age: National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 used grant conditions to influence state laws; challenged in South Dakota v. Dole (1992) but Congress prevailed when conditions meet legal standards.
- Mandates and regulatory expansion
- Notable unfunded and funded mandates shaped by civil rights, environmental, and labor laws.
- Major acts: Clean Air Act Amendments, Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Restoration Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, National Voter Registration Act.
- Devolution and policy reforms in the 1990s–2000s
- 1990s polls showed demand for more education and environmental spending, yet a desire for local control.
- 1994 Contract with America led to reforms: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; welfare reform (PRWORA).
- Clinton’s 1996 address: “The era of big government is over.”
- The shift from “cake” to “marble cake” federalism
- Marble cake federalism: overlapping responsibilities across levels; private sector participation and cross-cutting programs.
Environment and Federalism
- Theodore Roosevelt and the conservation era
- President Roosevelt expanded federal stewardship with national parks and monuments; used executive authority to protect lands due to Congress’ slow pace.
- Environmental regulation and clashes between branches
- NEPA requires environmental impact statements; EPA established Clean Air Act (1970) and Clean Water Act (1972); Endangered Species Act empowered federal protection of species.
- Love Canal disaster spurred Superfund, funding cleanup costs to be paid by polluters.
- EPA vs. Supreme Court clashes (e.g., 2012 EPA limits on mercury emissions; 2015 Supreme Court ruling that cost considerations must be weighed in regulatory actions).
- Climate change governance
- Kyoto Protocol (1997) sought broad emissions reductions; U.S. failed to ratify due to Senate opposition.
- Paris Agreement (2015) aimed at global emission reductions; U.S. participation became a political issue under subsequent administrations; policy actions included executive orders and state initiatives (e.g., California cap-and-trade).
- State-led initiatives persisted (California’s cap-and-trade program extended to 2030).
Supreme Court Decisions on Federalism (Must-Know)
- MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819)
- Question: Do Congress have implied powers and does the supremacy clause apply?
- Decision: Yes; implied powers exist; federal law is supreme when acting within constitutional authority.
- Facts: Maryland attempted to tax a federal bank; McCulloch refused; case challenged whether Congress could create a bank and whether a state could tax it.
- Reasoning: Elastic clause (Need for legitimate end within Constitution) and Supremacy Clause; “The power to tax involves the power to destroy” (state taxation of federal institutions is unconstitutional).
- Impact: Expanded federal power and established supremacy of federal law over state law in areas of delegated powers.
- UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (1995)
- Question: Does Congress have authority under the commerce clause to outlaw guns near schools?
- Decision: No; Lopez struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act as exceeding Congress’s commerce power.
- Facts: Lopez carried a handgun into a high school; charged under federal statute; challenged constitutionality.
- Reasoning: The majority argued that possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce; required a direct link to interstate commerce.
- Dissent/Concurrences: Concurring opinions emphasized different angles on commerce and state control; some argued for broader interpretation if activity substantially affects commerce.
- Aftermath: Congress revised the act to tie enforcement more clearly to interstate commerce.
- Related cases and ongoing dialogue
- Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): broad interpretation of interstate commerce as a federal power; contrasts with Lopez’s limits.
- Lopez demonstrates that Congress cannot regulate every aspect of human activity under the commerce power; federalism continues to evolve.
National Goals, State Management, and Education Policy
- Public school governance and national priorities
- Creation of national goals while preserving state control of school management.
- 1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) increased federal role with targeted support for under-resourced schools; federal money with discretion on spending.
- 1980s–1990s: emergence of the Department of Education; debates over the level of federal involvement remained central.
- No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) and Aftermath
- Aimed to raise accountability and student achievement; required annual testing and progress criteria; substantial funding but critics argued it overreached and was poorly funded (roughly 8% of total funding for education was federal).
- Viewed by some as expanding federal power over education; supporters argued it raised standards and equity.
- Race to the Top and Common Core
- 2009: Race to the Top incentivized states to adopt higher standards; Common Core debate reflected tensions about local control vs. national standards.
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015)
- Replaced NCLB; states gained more authority to set standards and accountability plans, while the federal Department of Education still reviews state plans to ensure protections for disadvantaged students.
- Ongoing debate: federal role in education
- Proponents emphasize federal oversight to ensure equal access and accountability; opponents advocate for local control and skepticism of federal mandates.
Federalism Terms (Glossary)
- Americans with Disabilities Act: ensures access to public buildings and transportation for disabled individuals.
- block grants: large sums of money given to states with broad purposes and fewer strings.
- categorical grants: funds with specified purposes and often strict matching requirements.
- Clean Air Act (1970): established emission standards and regulatory framework for air quality.
- commerce clause: power to regulate interstate commerce; a central engine of federal power expansion.
- compact theory: states created the Union and can judge federal overreach based on their founding contract.
- concurrent powers: powers shared by federal and state governments (e.g., taxation, court systems).
- devolution: returning powers from the federal government to the states.
- devolution, New Federalism: policy shifts in the 1980s–1990s aimed at restoring state authority.
- dual federalism: historically, a clear division of powers between national and state governments.
- elastic clause: the Necessary and Proper Clause; allows Congress to enact laws necessary to carry out its enumerated powers.
- federalism: the constitutional division of power between national and state governments.
- grants-in-aid: federal funds given to states/localities with conditions.
- implied powers: powers not explicitly listed but inferred from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
- mandates: federal requirements that states or localities must follow.
- marble cake federalism: overlapping responsibilities across federal, state, and local levels.
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): pivotal Supreme Court case on federal supremacy and implied powers.
- No Child Left Behind Act (2002): federal education statute emphasizing accountability; later replaced by ESSA in 2015.
- nullification: states’ claim to invalidate federal laws they believe unconstitutional.
- privileges and immunities: protection against discrimination by states for out-of-state residents.
- reserved powers: powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states.
- revenue sharing: distribution of federal funds to states with broad discretion.
- selective exclusiveness: doctrine allowing federal regulation for certain national concerns while preserving state authority for others.
- supremacy clause: federal law is supreme over state laws when constitutionality is invoked.
- strict constructionist: approach to interpreting the Constitution literally and narrowly.
- tenent amendment: powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
- United States v. Lopez (1995): key case reining in federal power under the Commerce Clause.
- whiskey rebellion: early test of federal authority to enforce federal laws.
- revenue sharing: see grants-in-aid; a flexible form of fiscal federalism.
Essential Question — Synthesis
- How has federalism shaped the administration of public policy today?
- Federalism creates a system of checks and balances across three branches plus state actors, encouraging a competitive policymaking process.
- National leadership can set broad standards and fund programs that address cross-state issues (e.g., civil rights, environmental policy, public health), while states tailor implementation to local contexts.
- Federal grants (categorical vs. block) illustrate the balancing act between national goals and state autonomy; debates over strings, mandates, and unfunded mandates reveal ongoing negotiations about power, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.
- Supreme Court decisions continue to define the scope of federal power (e.g., McCulloch, Gibbons, Lopez), shaping how Congress can respond to national concerns while respecting state sovereignty.
- Education and environmental policy illustrate the dynamic interplay between local control and national priorities, with recent reforms emphasizing state flexibility under federal oversight.
Connections to Previous Lectures and Real-World Relevance
- Foundational principles: explicit enumerated powers, the supremacy of national law in constitutional authority, and the balance of power between levels of government.
- Real-world relevance: current debates over federal funding for education, climate policy, health care, and civil rights continue to test the boundaries of federalism as new national challenges arise.
- Ethical and practical implications: balancing equity (federal standards) with local autonomy; costs of mandates; distributive justice in grant programs; the role of the states in democratic accountability.
Quick Reference: Key Dates and Concepts (selected)
- 1789: Washington’s presidency; beginning of a strong national government.
- 1789–1791: First Bank of the United States established.
- 1801: Marshall becomes Chief Justice.
- 1819: McCulloch v. Maryland affirms implied powers and supremacy of federal law.
- 1824: Gibbons v. Ogden expands federal commerce power.
- 1862: Morrill Land-Grant Act promotes higher education.
- 1938: Fair Labor Standards Act expands federal reach via interstate commerce.
- 1965: ESEA expands federal role in education.
- 1980s–1990s: Reagan’s New Federalism; devolution; unfunded mandates reform.
- 1995: United States v. Lopez narrows the scope of the commerce power.
- 2002: No Child Left Behind Act increases federal role in education and accountability.
- 2015: ESSA returns control to states; Paris Agreement debates; continued environmental policy evolution.