Federalism and the Sharing of Powers in the U.S. Government

Federalism Defined

• Federalism: the sharing of power between a central government and equally sovereign regional governments.
• Purpose: secure liberty while dividing powers to prevent tyranny; balance national needs with state sovereignty.
• Global context: other nations (e.g., Canada, Australia, Germany) have federal systems; unitary systems concentrate power in a central authority (e.g., United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan).
• Original system in the U.S.: the framers favored a weaker national government with strong state authority; experience under the Articles of Confederation shaped this view.
  • Articles of Confederation (late 1770s–1780s): firm league of friendship; national government derived its powers from the states.
  • States retained most authority: state constitutions, legislatures, defined crimes, and criminal courts.
• Framing focus: national concerns like regulating commerce, building roads, coining money, defending the country, and immigration.
• BIG IDEA: Federalism is established to balance liberty with a framework that divides power among multiple authorities.
• Key contrast today: national legislature expands into national needs; states seek sovereignty within their spheres.

Foundational Structures and Provisions

• The framers balanced power between Congress and the states, wary of centralized control due to the recent experience with tyranny.
• The Constitution and the Bill of Rights lay the groundwork for federalism by defining powers and limits.
• National versus state needs require cross-border consistency (e.g., weights/measurements, currency).

Constitutional Provisions That Guide Federalism

• Article I, Section 8 (Enumerated powers; Necessary and Proper Clause): Congress can legislate on military/diplomatic affairs and interstate commerce; can define crimes like counterfeiting, mail fraud, immigration violations, piracy.
• Article I, Section 9 (Powers denied to Congress; limits on Congress): e.g., slave trade restrictions before 1808; uniform treatment of states.
• Article I, Section 10 (Powers denied to the states): e.g., treaties; impairing contracts.
• Article IV (Full Faith and Credit; Privileges and Immunities; Extradition): states must recognize public acts/records of other states; states cannot discriminate against citizens from other states; extradition obligations exist for fugitives.
• Article VI (Supremacy Clause): national law is supreme over state law; when Congress acts within its constitutional powers, national laws prevail.
• Ninth Amendment: rights not listed in the Constitution are reserved to the people.
• Tenth Amendment: powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states.
• Later provisions define relations among the states and national supremacy; the interplay creates a framework of shared and divided authority.
• States retain police powers: health, safety, morals; regulate speed limits, seat belts, smoking in public places; control over elections, marriage laws, and recording deeds.
• Concurrent powers: both state and federal governments may tax, define crimes, run courts, and improve lands.

The New Republic to the New Deal (Foundations of Federalism and Early Conflicts)

• Early federal system had strong state sovereignty, but national concerns grew as the nation evolved.
• Washington era highlighted tensions between national power and states’ rights; key events:
  • Bank of the United States (1791): Hamilton argued for implied powers via the elastic/necessary and proper clause; Jefferson opposed as strict construction; Washington supported Hamilton’s view and established the Bank.
  • Whiskey Rebellion (1794): federal power asserted when militia was used to quell resistance to a federal tax; showcased growing federal authority and alarm among Jeffersonians.
  • Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts (late 1790s): federal measures restricting dissent and deporting foreigners; sparked debates over civil liberties.
• Jeffersonians and Anti-Federalists advanced a compact theory: the states formed the national government by contract; argued for states’ rights and skepticism toward federal overreach.
• Nullification doctrine emerged: states could declare federal law void if it exceeded constitutional authority; culminated in tensions leading to the Civil War era; after the war, nullification as a doctrine waned.
• The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established a strong federal role in defining the balance of power and ensuring supremacy of federal law when within constitutional powers.

The Supreme Court Shapes Federalism

• John Marshall’s question at the Virginia ratifying convention foreshadowed a powerful federal judiciary:
  • The federal judiciary would declare void any law that transgresses the Constitution.
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): landmark case on implied powers and supremacy of federal law.
  • Constitutional Question: Does the federal government have implied powers and supremacy under the elastic (necessary and proper) clause and the supremacy clause?
  • Decision: Yes (unanimous, 6:0) – the federal government can exercise implied powers to carry out enumerated powers, and federal law is supreme over state law.
  • Facts: Maryland attempted to tax a federally chartered bank in Baltimore (McCulloch, the Bank’s cashier); Maryland taxed banks not incorporated by the state. The case raised two questions: (1) Can Congress create a bank? (2) Can a state tax a federal institution?
  • Reasoning: Article I, Section 8 enumerates powers but does not explicitly grant a bank; however, the power to coin money, borrow money, regulate commerce, etc., plus the Necessary and Proper (Elastic) Clause justifies a bank as an appropriate means to execute those powers. The Court interpreted the elastic clause as allowing Congress to use any means necessary and proper to execute its constitutional duties.
  • Supremacy and national sovereignty: The Court asserted that the federal government’s powers derive from the people, not from a single state; the federal government’s laws are supreme within the powers conferred by the Constitution.
  • On the power to tax: The Court declared that the power to tax involves the power to destroy, ruling against Maryland’s tax on the federal bank.
  • Consequences: Expanded implied powers; federal supremacy when acting within enumerated/implicit powers; reinforced that states cannot undermine national institutions.
• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): early expansion of Congress’s commerce power; federal authority over interstate commerce reinforced; helped anchor federal power in economic regulation.
• The results of McCulloch and Gibbons helped frame the ongoing balance between national power and state sovereignty, and set the stage for later debates over the scope of the Commerce Clause and federal regulatory power.

Dual Federalism, Selective Exclusiveness, and the Rise of National Power

• Dual Federalism (layer cake): the national government is supreme within its sphere (Article I powers); states are supreme within their own sphere (police powers and domestic concerns).
• Selective Exclusiveness: a doctrine that recognizes that Congress may regulate interstate commerce, while states retain authority over internal commerce; federal authority is not absolute or exclusive in all areas.
• Early 19th to early 20th centuries: commerce regulation was limited; local/regional matters remained primarily within state control.
• Progressive Era shifts (late 19th–early 20th centuries):
  • Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) – expanded national revenue and federal reach (trusted to fund nationwide programs).
  • Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of senators) – changed the relationship between the states and the federal government.
  • Increased federal regulation of safety, health, and morals began to move from state to national control.
• Federal expansion via the Commerce Clause: the federal government used interstate commerce authority to regulate a broad range of activities (e.g., railroad regulation, labor standards, anti-monopoly laws).
• Early federal regulatory acts and cases illustrating expansion and pushback:
  • Mann Act (1910): prohibited transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes (anti-prostitution).
  • Automobile Theft Act (1915): criminalized interstate transportation of stolen cars.
  • Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): struck down federal child labor regulation as exceeding interstate commerce authority (manufacturing regulation not clearly commerce-based).
  • By the 1920s, Holmes’s reasoning suggested that activity linked across state lines (e.g., production-to-commerce sequences) could fall under federal authority.
• The New Deal era (1930s) marks a turning point: the Supreme Court began to uphold broader federal regulation under the interstate commerce power, especially in economic regulation and labor standards (e.g., Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938).
• Post-New Deal reality: Congress has won more battles than states in asserting commerce-related authority, but not unbounded; Lopez v. United States (1995) shows limits to federal power under the commerce clause, reinforcing state sovereignty in certain contexts.

The Federal Grant Program and Intergovernmental Spending

• Federal grants as a primary tool for intergovernmental coordination: Congress distributes federal tax revenues to states to address nationwide concerns (education, safety, civil rights, environment).
• Grants-in-aid: conditions attached to funds to achieve national objectives; famous forms include:
  • Categorical grants: funds with strings (specific purposes; detailed requirements).
  • Block grants: larger sums with fewer strings; allow broader state/local discretion.
  • Revenue sharing (no-strings grants): funds given with minimal restrictions.
• History of grants and their evolution:
  • Early grants supported militia, land for colleges (e.g., Morrill Land-Grant Act, 1862).
  • 20th century expansion to environment, education, unemployment, highways, welfare, and health care.
  • 1916: grants used to fund road construction as cars became central to commerce.
  • The growth of federal grants broadened federal influence and local implementation.
• The rise of block grants (1960s–1970s) under Democratic leadership: Partnership for Health (1966), Safe Streets (1968).
• Nixon era (late 1960s–early 1970s): push for decentralization and devolution; proposed megagrants but failed; general revenue sharing (1972) provided significant, broadly available funds with fewer strings.
• The marble cake metaphor: federal and state lines become intermingled due to the flow of federal money and shared programs; differs from the classic layered cake view.
• Congressional oversight concerns: block grants reduced Congress’s ability to direct specific local outcomes and credit to individual representatives; concerns about accountability and control.
• Mandates with strings vs unfunded mandates: mandates require compliance with federal directives, sometimes tied to funding; unfunded mandates restrict or regulate without providing funding.
• Critical late-20th-century mandates and acts:
  • Clean Air Act Amendments; Americans with Disabilities Act; Civil Rights Restoration Act; Family and Medical Leave Act; National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter Act).
  • These acts imposed nationwide standards and required state compliance, often with funding implications.
• Devolution and fiscal shifts (1990s): majority public opinion supported state control over education and health but also supported federal funding to address nationwide concerns.

Contemporary Federalism: Devolution, Mandates, and Policy Debates

• Devolution trend (1990s): conservatives sought to push authority back to states; Newt Gingrich and Contract with America argued for scaling back federal programs.
• Key reforms under Bill Clinton and Congress:
  • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (1995): limited Congress’s ability to impose unfunded mandates on states.
  • Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996): restructured welfare (block grants to states for welfare programs, e.g., Medicaid) and reduced federal welfare responsibilities.
• The essential political dynamic: the federal government pays for many state functions via conditional grants; states accept funds to address local concerns but must comply with federal guidelines.
• The South Dakota v. Dole case (described in the text as 1996): legality of conditioning highway funds on the drinking age; the Court upheld Congress’s power to set conditions on federal dollars if the conditions meet criteria (general welfare, related to national interests, not unconstitutional).
• Mandates with strings and unfunded mandates continue to shape intergovernmental relations:
  • Federal mandates often address civil rights, environmental standards, and other nationwide goals; budgets and compliance costs are a major consideration for state budgets.
• Environmental policy as a site of executive–judicial clashes:
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created in the 1970s; EO agencies regulate emissions, hazardous substances, and environmental protections.
  • Major conflicts include mercury emission limits and cost-benefit considerations; Supreme Court sometimes limits agency power (e.g., 2015 ruling undermining EPA regulation by weighing costs too heavily or requiring consideration of economic impacts).
  • International climate agreements: Kyoto Protocol (1997) and Paris Agreement (2015) illustrate federal attempts to lead climate policy; U.S. participation has varied with presidential administrations.
  • State action in climate policy: California’s cap-and-trade program (expansion through 2030) demonstrates state-level innovation and resistance to federal withdrawal.

Education Policy and National Goals

• Education moved to the national agenda beginning in the 1960s due to civil rights goals and Cold War competition; the federal role expanded in education programs.
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965: aimed to reduce poverty-related educational disparities; initial federal funding and broad discretion for local use; federal role increased without heavy centralized control.
• Federal funding by Johnson’s administration: by the end of his term, federal aid to education through HEW totaled 4 billion.
• Department of Education: established in the 1980s–1990s to centralize federal education policy; by 1980s–1990s, education remained a hot political issue with debates over federal vs state control.
• No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002): major expansion of federal role in education with accountability measures, annual testing, and sanctions for underperforming schools; criticisms included heavy federal intrusion and funding being a small portion of total education spending (roughly 8 ext{%} of total funding).
  • Core ideas: highly qualified teachers; proven teaching methods; annual yearly progress (AYP); potential sanctions or restructuring for underperforming schools.
• Race to the Top (2009): incentives for states to adopt new national standards or develop state standards aimed at college/career readiness.
• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015): replaced NCLB with a more state-centered approach, giving states broader authority to set standards while maintaining federal protections for disadvantaged students; DOE approval still required for state plans.
• No consensus on the balance between national standards and state/local control; ongoing debates about Common Core:
  • Common Core controversy: many states adopted standards but faced pushback from groups worried about centralized national standards undermining local control.

Key Supreme Court Decisions and their Impacts

• United States v. Lopez (1995): major limit on the Commerce Clause authority.
  • Question: Does Congress have authority under the Commerce Clause to outlaw guns near schools?
  • Decision: No (5–4) – Congress cannot regulate possession of a firearm in a local school zone as it does not substantially affect interstate commerce.
  • Rationale: A gun near a school is not an economic activity with a clear interstate impact; the majority emphasized state sovereignty and limited federal reach in this domain.
  • Significance: Marked a shift in federalism, reaffirming state authority in areas with limited or indirect links to interstate commerce.
  • Related interpretations: Concurring opinions and dissents debated the extent of the Commerce Clause and the nature of commerce; set stage for later cases exploring commerce limits.
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) [see above] established implied powers and supremacy of federal law; Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal regulatory power over interstate commerce.
• These cases underpin the ongoing debate over the balance of federal and state power, shaping subsequent federal regulatory actions, court interpretations, and the boundaries of congressional authority.

Policy Making and the Sharing of Powers (Think as a Political Scientist)

• The policy process under federalism is inherently collaborative and contested, with multiple actors (federal, state, local, courts, and private sector) shaping outcomes.
• Environmental policy as a case study: executive initiatives (presidential leadership, agency action) often collide with judicial checks and balances; legislative action through Congress uses funding and mandates to drive policy.
  • Roosevelt’s conservation era demonstrated executive action via national stewardship; later environmental statutes (NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act) centralized regulatory authority and required intergovernmental cooperation.
  • Conflicts over climate policy, emissions, and costs show how federalism can slow or shape policy depending on who wields authority and how much funding is at stake.
• Education policy illustrates federalism’s bargaining: federal funding with strings can push national priorities while allowing local flexibility; debates over Common Core reflect tensions between national standards and local autonomy.
• The role of grants: grants-in-aid, block grants, and revenue sharing provide the federal government significant leverage to influence state and local policy without direct mandates.
• The political dynamics of federalism involve:
  • Balancing national needs with state sovereignty and local autonomy.
  • Managing the trade-offs between uniform national policy and diverse local circumstances.
  • Responding to shifting political majorities and evolving interpretations of constitutional powers.

Concrete Data and Illustrative Trends

• Intergovernmental finance trend (1955–1985): Total federal outlays for state and local grants (in billions of constant dollars) and share of total federal outlays:
  • 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{%}
• Interpretation: Grants to states increased substantially from the 1950s to 1980s, then declined in 1985, reflecting shifting policy priorities and funding structures.
• Considerations: possible data limitations include inflation corrections, sectoral coverage nuances (state vs local components), and changing accounting practices over time.
• Visual representation caveats: charts may not capture interstate variations, program-specific funding shifts, or qualitative effects of grants on state autonomy.

Returning Authority to the States: No Longer Big Government?

• Post-New Deal fiscal federalism saw renewed calls for returning authority to states; notable advocate: President Ronald Reagan (1981) advocating for "New Federalism" and clearer distinctions between federal powers and reserved state powers.
• Grants in the 1980s and beyond:
  • States increasingly depend on federal funds; there are strings attached and hiring guidelines; projects may require prevailing wages and compliance with federal rules, sometimes making funds less attractive.
  • A notable categorical grant in the 1980s: raising the drinking age to 21 in exchange for highway funds (National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984).
  • South Dakota v. Dole (as cited in the text) upheld Congress’s power to condition federal funding on compliant state actions when conditions meet certain criteria; this supports federal leverage over states, but with constitutional guardrails.
• Mandates and unfunded mandates:
  • Mandates impose federal directives; funding may or may not accompany the mandate.
  • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (1995) limited unfunded mandates; welfare reform and other acts (1996) shifted more responsibility to states, notably in welfare and Medicaid programs.
• Devolution and policy reorganization:
  • 1990s–2000s saw further devolution in education, welfare, and environmental policy; debates about how much federal guidance is necessary versus state autonomy persisted.
• Environmental policy in the federal/state balance:
  • The EPA and federal environmental standards often required state compliance; court challenges and cost considerations shaped the regulatory landscape.
  • States sometimes pursued independent climate policy (e.g., California’s cap-and-trade), reflecting ongoing intergovernmental complexity.

Education Policy, National Goals, and State Management (Wrap-Up)

• The national goal of an educated citizenry has repeatedly pulled federal attention into education policy since the 1960s.
• Key laws and developments:
  • ESEA (1965): federal funding for education with a focus on reducing poverty-related disparities; flexible use at the state/local level.
  • 1960s–1980s: expansion of federal role; department-level governance and accountability measures became more prominent.
  • NCLB (2002): introduced testing, teacher qualifications, accountability; criticized for funding gaps and overly prescriptive mandates.
  • Race to the Top (2009) and ESSA (2015): attempted to balance national goals with state control; ESSA gave states more leeway in standards while requiring department-level oversight and targeted protections for disadvantaged students.
• Political contention over Common Core reflects ongoing tensions between national standards and local autonomy in education policy.
• The big picture: federalism remains a living framework in which national goals are pursued through a combination of funding, mandates, and shared governance, while state and local authorities retain significant authority over day-to-day governance and implementation.

Glossary: Key Federalism Terms (Selected)

• federalism
• concurrent powers
• delegated powers
• implied powers
• enumerated powers
• elastic clause / Necessary and Proper Clause
• supremacy clause
• full faith and credit clause
• privileges and immunities clause
• Tenth Amendment
• Ninth Amendment
• police powers
• grants-in-aid
• categorical grants
• block grants
• revenue sharing
• devolution / New Federalism
• Marble Cake Federalism
• dual federalism
• cooperative federalism
• fiscal federalism
• mandates (federal mandates)
• unfunded mandates
• selective exclusiveness
• No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
• common core
• compact theory / nullification
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
• United States v. Lopez (1995)
• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
• South Dakota v. Dole (as discussed in the text)
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Reflect on the Essential Question

• Essential Question: How has federalism shaped the administration of public policy, and how do state, local, and national governments work within the federal framework today?
• Answer framework (high-level):
  • Federalism shapes policymaking by distributing power and responsibilities across three branches and the states.
  • National policies commonly rely on grants, mandates, and regulatory powers to influence state action; states retain default control over many core areas (police powers, elections, family law, local governance).
  • The balance is dynamic: court decisions, political leadership, and social/economic needs continually redefine the scope of federal power and state sovereignty.
  • Real-world relevance: environmental regulation, education policy, civil rights, healthcare, and safety programs illustrate how federalism functions in practice and how different levels of government interact to achieve national and local goals.

Note and Title

• Title: Federalism: Study Notes on the US System of Shared Sovereignty
• note: See the multiple top-level headings above for a comprehensive, structured study guide that replicates the content and nuance of the provided transcript. The notes integrate key definitions, constitutional provisions, landmark cases, historical developments, grant mechanics, and contemporary debates, with explicit references to dates, amendments, and major laws. All numbers and dates are presented in latex-friendly format where appropriate (e.g., 1789, 1819, 1964, 1965, 2002, 2015).