Federalism Defined and Contrasted
Federalism Defined and Contrasted
Federalism creates 2 autonomous levels of government
The people elect both levels
Nation government handles country-wide and foreign affairs
State government handles local problems
Requires the 2 governments to cooperate to work
Constitution that requires both governments to agree on change
In the US government, the 3 branches are effective in both the state government and the national government
For either of the levels of government to get things done it requires the cooperation of the other
Problems between the state and federal governments are resolved by the courts usually the Supreme court
Subnational governments are always represented in the upper house of the national legislature, enabling regional interests to influence national lawmaking
unitary system makes subnational governments dependent on the national government, where significant authority is concentrated
Devolution - power gradually being decentralized
Federalism and the Constitution
Enumerated powers of the national legislature, Article 1 Section 8, define the jurisdictional boundaries within which the federal government has authority, gave Congress the authority to specific powers over national and foreign affairs
Elastic / Necessary and Proper Clause - end of Article 1 Section 8, Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying”
State powers were not listed in the Constitution, implying that everything outside of the Constitution was state Jurisdiction
Fought for the Bill Of Rights when it came time to ratify the constitution
Concurrent Powers - Overlapping powers
Article I, Sections 9 and 10, and several constitutional amendments restrict federal and state authority.
the government cannot suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which enables someone in custody to petition a judge to determine whether that person’s detention is legal; pass a bill of attainder, a legislative action declaring someone guilty without a trial; or enact an ex post facto law, which criminalizes an act retroactively
States are also limited Article 1 Section 10 says states can’t interact with other countries on certain matters, 14th Amendment says you can’t take away the constitutional rights of the people
supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution regulates relationships between the federal and state governments by declaring that the Constitution and federal law are the supreme law of the land
Article IV, Section 1, referred to as the full faith and credit clause or the comity clause, requires the states to accept court decisions, public acts, and contracts of other states
The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV asserts that states are prohibited from discriminating against out-of-staters by denying them such guarantees as access to courts, legal protection, property rights, and travel rights
THE DISTRIBUTION OF FINANCES
Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 authorized Congress to impose income taxes without apportioning it among the states based on population
Federal grants - the federal government gives money to state and local governments and these do not have to be repaid
Most of the money in both governments comes from taxes, and 30% of state money comes from federal grants
3.2 The Evolution of American Federalism
The struggle between national power and state power
Hamilton wanted to create a national bank, he thought it was fully within Congress’ authority
Bank Charter expired in 1811 and wasn’t renewed because the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans blocked it
Madison created the second bank after economic problems after the War of 1812
Problems occurred when the second bank refused to pay the state-imposed taxes of Maryland
The court case went to the Supreme Court where the federal government won under the necessary and proper clause
The second ruling of the case said that they couldn’t tax because of the Supremacy Clause implying the principle of National Supremacy
Gibbons V. Ogden, the court interpreted the commerce clause to see if the federal government had sole authority over the licensing of steamboats operating between NY and NJ
Supreme Court favored the national government saying interstate commerce means intercourse among states, the national government had a ruling over navigation, and second ruling federal law trumped NY state license monopoly law
nullification—that states had the right to reject national laws they deemed unconstitutional
Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government lacked the authority to ban slavery in the territories
Dual Federalism
dual federalism, the states, and national government exercise exclusive authority in distinctly delineated spheres of jurisdiction
Industrialization changed the landscape of the US, one of its effects was the concentration of market power, no way to ensure fairness
Commerce Act of 1887, which created the Interstate Commerce Commission
national regulatory capacity was broadened by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 which made it illegal to monopolize or attempt to monopolize and conspire in restraining commerce
In 1895, in United States v. E. C. Knight, the Supreme Court ruled that the national government lacked the authority to regulate manufacturing
The court argued national governments' regulatory authority only applied to commercial activities
Some states wanted to regulate working conditions
Bakeshop Act of 1897, which prohibited bakery employees from working more than sixty hours a week
In Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled this state regulation that capped work hours unconstitutional, because it violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Right of individuals to work however much they want
COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM
The great depression brought economic hardships
Unemployment rate reached 25 percent
Cooperative federalism was born of necessity and lasted well into the twentieth century as the national and state governments each found it beneficial
Both levels worked together to solve national problems
The court struck down key pillars of the New Deal—the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act
Lyndon Johnson expanded the national government's role, Medicaid, medicare, school nutrition programs
This era broadened federal powers in concurrent and state policy domains
a nationalization of politics emerged as a result of federal legislative activism aimed at addressing national problems such as marketplace inefficiencies, social and political inequality, and poverty
The second lasting attribute is the flexibility that states and local authorities were given in the implementation of federal social welfare programs
NEW FEDERALISM
Reversing the process of nationalization, to restore the state’s prominence in policy areas into which the federal government had moved in the past
Decentralization of policies enhances administrative efficiency
general revenue-sharing programs were created that distributed funds to the state and local governments with minimal restrictions on how the money was spent
Reagan met opposition to his ideas, so they were inconsistent
9/11 brought back central federal power
3.3 Intergovernmental Relationships
Grants
The national government has used grants to influence state actions
Categorical grants are federal transfers formulated to limit recipients’ discretion in the use of funds and subject them to strict administrative criteria that guide project selection, performance, and financial oversight, among other things
Block grants come with less stringent federal administrative conditions and provide recipients more flexibility over how to spend grant funds
The funding for grants has grown significantly over the last 70 years
The national government prefers categorical grants
that elected officials who sponsor these categorical grants can take credit for their positive outcomes
categorical grants afford federal officials greater command over grant program performance
Reagen’s devolution revolution led to an increase in block grants
creeping categorization - a process in which the national government places new administrative requirements on state and local governments or supplants block grants with new categorical grants
UNFUNDED MANDATES
Unfunded mandates are federal laws and regulations that impose obligations on state and local governments without fully compensating them for the administrative costs they incur
Used increasingly since the 1960s to promote national objectives in policy areas such as the environment, civil rights, education, and homeland security
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act allows the federal government to withhold grants for racial discrimination
Backlash from states lead to UMRA
UMRA restrains national government use of mandates by subject rules that impose unfunded requirements on stata na local governments to greater procedural scrutiny
Mandates have continued to rise, especially costly for state and local authorities
3.4 Competitive Federalism Today
Contending Issues
Immigration federalism started as states claimed roles in immigration policy in the late 1990s, restricting undocumented immigrants' access to services.
By 2005, 25 states had 39 immigration-related laws, increasing to 288 laws by 2014 across 43 states and DC.
Arizona's SB 1070 in 2010 aimed for "attrition by enforcement," causing division among supporters and human rights advocates.
A poll found that 81% of Latino voters in Arizona opposed SB 1070.
In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court struck down most of SB 1070 but upheld the "show me your papers" provision, warning against racial profiling.
Justice Kennedy reaffirmed the federal government’s broad authority over immigration based on Congress' powers.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, allowed states to decide on same-sex marriage and defined marriage as between a man and woman, denying federal benefits to same-sex couples.
By 2006, 27 states had constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, despite Massachusetts legalizing it in 2004.
In United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court ruled the federal government couldn't define marriage, reinforcing state authority.
After Windsor, 36 states and DC recognized same-sex marriage by 2015.
The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) based on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
Federal courts were key in resolving disputes between state and federal authorities on immigration and marriage equality.
Strategizing About New Issues
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was founded in 1980 after a woman’s daughter was killed by a drunk driver, aiming to raise the drinking age and impose tougher penalties.
MADD struggled to succeed at the state level due to economic interests in maintaining lower drinking ages; states benefited from luring youth from neighboring states.
MADD redirected efforts to Congress, leading to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) in 1984, which threatened to cut federal highway funds for states that didn’t raise the legal drinking age to 21.
After a legal battle, all states complied with the NMDAA by 1988.
The U.S. federal system allows interest groups like MADD to engage in "venue shopping," selecting the most advantageous governmental level and branch for their policy goals.
Anti-abortion advocates provide another example of venue shopping; after struggling to enact restrictive legislation at the federal level post-Roe v. Wade, they focused on state legislatures, achieving greater success.
By 2015, thirty-eight states required parental involvement in minors' abortion decisions, and forty-six states allowed healthcare providers to refuse to participate in abortions.
As of 2013, 56% of women of childbearing age lived in states with abortion restrictions, up from 31% in 2000.
3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Federalism
The benefits of federalism
Federalism promotes policy innovation, and political participation, and accommodates diverse opinions.
Justice Louis Brandeis noted that states can act as "laboratories" for social and economic experiments without risking the entire country.
States have historically inspired national policies, such as child labor laws from New Deal initiatives and women’s voting rights granted by some states before the Nineteenth Amendment.
California has led in environmental policies like fuel emission standards.
Health insurance exchanges in states like Connecticut and Kentucky have served as models for others.
Federalism allows for multiple government levels, meaning if one fails to achieve a policy goal, another may succeed, encouraging public participation.
The system of checks and balances prevents uniform federal policies, allowing states and local communities to address issues based on their citizens' specific needs.
Differences in state policies reflect public viewpoints, seen in areas like abortion access, alcohol distribution, gun control, and social welfare benefits.
THE DRAWBACKS OF FEDERALISM
Federalism has drawbacks, including economic disparities, race-to-the-bottom dynamics, and challenges in addressing national issues.
Economic differences across states significantly impact citizens' well-being, with Maryland having the highest median household income in 2017 at $80,776 and West Virginia the lowest at $43,469.
School funding disparities are stark; New York spent $22,366 per student in 2016, while Utah spent only $6,953.
Access to healthcare, along with costs and quality, also varies greatly between states, leading advocates of social justice to argue that federalism obstructs efforts to reduce these disparities.
The race-to-the-bottom strategy allows states to attract businesses by lowering taxes and regulations, often at the expense of worker safety and pay.
Some states have underfunded unemployment insurance programs due to payroll tax reductions, and as of January 2019, fourteen states opted not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, fearing increased public spending.
The Constitution's federal design and checks and balances can hinder federal responses to national issues, as seen with President Roosevelt’s New Deal being challenged in the Supreme Court.
President Obama’s Affordable Care Act faced legal challenges from some states but has been mostly supported by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's 2013 decision to strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 weakened federal oversight of voting rights, particularly in states with histories of racial discrimination.