Ch 3 Federalism and the Separation of Powers
Introduction: Dividing Power
Quote by James Madison: "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Dividing power is seen as a measure to restrict government authority and to guard against tyranny of the majority.
Federalism: The division of power between the national government and the states.
Separation of Powers: The division of power among different branches of government.
Dividing Power: Pros and Cons
Pros:
Can protect citizens' liberties.
Encourages moderation and compromise in policymaking.
Cons:
Introduces numerous roadblocks and veto points.
May lead to gridlock and policy paralysis, particularly in a polarized political environment.
Who Does What? Federalism and Institutional Jurisdictions
Federalism: Divides powers and functions between the national and state governments.
Each level of government possesses significant sovereignty (independent political authority).
Prior to the Constitution, almost all policies impacting Americans were determined by state legislatures.
The Constitution fundamentally changed this relationship.
Federalism Today
Discussion prompt: What examples do you see of federalism in American government and policy today?
Why Keep the States?
Some framers advocated for a stronger national government, but faced resistance from state politicians.
State-level politicians were reluctant to cede power due to strong state identities versus national identity.
Historical context influenced the retention of power by states under the Constitution.
Federalism in the Constitution: Who Decides What
The Constitution:
Assigns jurisdiction to different levels of government.
Grants few powers to the national government, reserving the rest to the states.
The Powers of the National Government
Specific powers explicitly granted to the federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Implied Powers: Derived from the necessary and proper clause, allowing for further powers for the national government.
Supremacy Clause: Establishes that all national laws and treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land."
The Powers of the State Governments
Tenth Amendment: Guarantees a significant role for states.
Reserved Powers: Powers not delegated to the national government and not denied to the states.
Concurrent Powers: Powers shared by both state and national governments, with conflicts generally resolved in favor of the federal government.
States have vast policy power, particularly through coercion, such as the use of eminent domain.
States also exercise police power, enabling regulation in areas like health, safety, and morals.
Analyzing the Evidence
Voter ID Laws: Examines the implementation of voter ID laws starting in 2006 and their effects on turnout.
Demographics: Comparison of possession of driver's licenses and passports among racial groups, highlighting disparities that affect voting.
Notably, white Americans are more likely to possess valid IDs.
Consequences for historically marginalized groups are significant due to low turnout rates.
Comparing Gun Laws and Abortion Laws
Maps showing the variation in gun laws and abortion laws by state in 2024 illustrate the differences in policy approaches across states.
State vs. Federal Constitutional and Institutional Structures
Similarities:
Written constitutions and three branches of government, with a bicameral legislature (except Nebraska).
Differences:
State constitutions are often lengthy and flexible.
Many states have plural executives and judges that are elected, which can lead to political influence.
Civic Engagement
Many citizens lack awareness of their state governments and processes.
Consequences:
Can lead to the federal government encroaching on traditional state powers.
State legislatures may become vulnerable to interest group pressure.
States' Obligations to One Another
Full Faith and Credit Clause: States must recognize actions and decisions from other states as legal and proper.
Comity Clause: States cannot discriminate against residents of other states or grant special privileges to their residents.
Limitations on the States
The full faith and credit clause and the comity clause limit state powers.
States cannot make agreements with each other without federal approval (e.g. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey).
States and Local Government
State legislatures utilize local governments to execute police power.
Local governments are created by state legislatures and the state determines their powers.
States hold the authority to abolish local municipalities.
Local Government and the Constitution
Local governments do not have powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.
Most states provide larger cities with home rule, ensuring state noninterference in local affairs.
Local and state governments often compete and cooperate.
The Slow Growth of the National Government’s Power
Prior to the 1930s, state and local governments held the majority of important powers.
Dual Federalism: Utilizes a strict separation of duties and operations between different levels of government, likened to layer cake federalism, prevailing until 1937.
Exceptional Cases Establish National Power (to the 1930s)
Supreme Court decisions early on increased federal power:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established federal power to use implied powers under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Reinforced federal authority.
Commerce Clause: Delegates power to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states.
States’ Rights Dominate
A coalition favoring states’ rights dominated Congress before the Civil War and reacted against slow federal power expansion.
Post-Civil War, this coalition remained strong, resisting federal regulation over areas like commercial fraud and unsafe working conditions.
Moving toward Cooperative Federalism
President Franklin D. Roosevelt aimed to expand national power to regulate the economy for the New Deal's success.
His policies led to significant conflict with the federal judiciary.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937): Marked a shift where the Court upheld federal regulation of commercial activities.
The distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce began to lessen during this time.
Cooperative Federalism and Grants-in-Aid: Institutions Shape Policies
Cooperative federalism began in the 1930s, characterized by supportive relations between the federal government and state/local governments, also known as marble-cake federalism.
Grants-in-Aid: Funds allocated by Congress to motivate states and localities to pursue specific goals.
Federal and State/Local Spending, 1930–2020
Historical trends indicate that federal spending significantly increased during the New Deal and World War II, remaining above pre-war levels.
By 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, federal spending reached 30% of GDP.
Types of Grants-in-Aid
Categorical Grants-in-Aid: Specifically earmarked for certain policy categories (e.g., education, crime prevention).
Expanded significantly in the 1960s.
Project Grants: Require competitive funding proposals from state and local governments.
Example: Department of Education's “Race to the Top.”
Formula Grants: Distribute funds to governments based on a formula.
Analyzing the Evidence: Categorical Grants-in-Aid
Trend Analysis: Grants-in-aid expanded dramatically in the 1960s; prompts inquiry into political trends and impacts.
Federalism in a Historical Perspective
Dual Federalism vs. Cooperative Federalism:
Dual Federalism: Layer Cake model reflecting distinct layers of government responsibilities.
Cooperative Federalism: Marble Cake model, emphasizing shared functions and cooperation between levels of government.
Regulated Federalism and National Standards
Post-1960s: Transition from cooperative federalism to regulated federalism, where the federal government mandates national standards for states.
Federal Mandates: National standards states must meet, with penalties for non-compliance like withholding grant funds.
Unfunded Mandates: Imposed national standards without accompanying funding for implementation.
State and Local Budgets Are Dependent on Federal Dollars
State and local governments' reliance on federal funding has fluctuated over time; prompts discussion on fiscal dependency on the federal government.
New Federalism and the National-State Tug-of-War
New Federalism: Advocated for increased discretion for states, championed by Presidents Nixon and Reagan.
Increased use of block grants: Federal funds provided to states with fewer restrictions.
The Policy Principle: The Patchwork of State Medicaid Programs
Division of authority between state and federal governments leads to variation in healthcare coverage.
Pros: States can customize Medicaid for individual needs.
Cons: Creates complexity and inconsistency in Medicaid across states.
The Supreme Court as Federalism’s Referee
Historically, the Supreme Court interpreted the Tenth Amendment to limit federal power, but it shifted to expand federal authority during the New Deal.
The more recent trend exhibits empowerment of states through stricter readings of the interstate commerce clause, evidenced in cases concerning gun regulation, assisted suicide, and marijuana legalization.
Supreme Court decisions have varied, with the party in power influencing outcomes.
Choose Your Cake
Discussion prompt: Analyze the pros and cons of dual versus cooperative federalism.
The Separation of Powers
Quote by James Madison: "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Separation of powers designed to limit federal power by dividing government functions among branches; mandates sharing of power among branches.
Checks and Balances: A System of Mutual Vetoes
The Constitution establishes mechanisms for each government branch to influence the others, aimed at defending against encroachments.
Each branch holds different agendas and veto powers, necessitating cooperation to achieve legislative outcomes.
Checks and Balances: Detailed Mechanisms
Checks and Balances within government branches include:
Executive over Legislative:
Presidential veto of Congressional acts.
Special sessions called by the President.
Each interprets laws passed by Congress.
Tie-breaking votes cast by the Vice President.
Judicial over Legislative: Courts can declare laws unconstitutional.
Legislative over Executive:
Congress can override vetoes and impeach presidents.
Senate can reject appointments and refuse treaties.
Investigations into presidential actions are possible.
Legislative over Judicial: Changes in federal court sizes or nominations by Congress.
Judicial over Executive: Courts can declare executive actions unconstitutional; the Chief Justice presides over presidential impeachment.
Checks and Balances Today
Examining the implications of checks and balances amid increased partisan polarization.
Legislative Supremacy
The Constitution did not allocate equal powers among all government branches.
Legislative supremacy: The legislative branch was expected to hold the most power, evidenced by Congress's exclusive control over appropriations.
Divided Government
Occurs when one party controls the presidency, and another controls Congress.
Presidential Government: Emerged over time, overshadowing legislative supremacy; presidential power fluctuates with congressional control.
The Rationality Principle at Work
Quote by James Madison: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
The structure of checks and balances showcases the rationality principle, where branches attempt to maintain or enhance their power against the others.
Example: Executive privilege allows presidents to argue against disclosing confidential adviser communications.
The Role of the Supreme Court: Establishing Decision Rules
Judicial Review: The Court's power to invalidate legislative and executive actions.
Serves as the final arbiter in disputes between Congress, the president, and between state and federal authorities.
Historically used sparingly, but became more common in recent years (e.g., habeas corpus).
A New Federal System? The Case Record, 1995–2019
Summary of key Supreme Court cases that shaped federalism:
United States v. Lopez (1995): Voided federal law prohibiting firearms in school zones.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): Respected state sovereignty, rejecting federal lawsuits against states.
Printz v. United States (1997): Voided a federal mandate for background checks on gun purchases.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): Restricted Congress's power to enforce rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Alden v. Maine (1999): Emphasized state immunity from being sued by employees.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): Upheld the Affordable Care Act, affirming federal control over healthcare policy.
Murphy v. NCAA (2018): Confirmed state rights to regulate gambling laws.
Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): Declared courts powerless against partisan gerrymandering.
Federalism and the Separation of Powers: Collective Action or Stalemate?
Federalism and separation of powers can facilitate collective action and simultaneously lead to stalemate.
The dispersion of power complicates impulsive collective action, as the desire for governmental action often exceeds its capacity to deliver due to structural separation.
Federalism in Action
Discussion prompt: Consider which policy problems might best be addressed with a uniform national solution and which might benefit from varied, state-level experimentation.