AP Government & Politics

Unit 1

Federalism System of government where political

authority divided between national (federal) government, and its political subdivisions.

In this system, national and state govt’s each have defined powers, with some being share by both and some being denied both.

Types of Governments1. Democracy: literally means

"rule by the people.” The people govern.

2. Republic: Literal democracy is impossible in political system containing more than a few people. All "democracies" are really republics. In a republic, people elect representatives to make and enforce laws.

3. Monarchy: rule by a king/queen. Sometimes king called an "emperor," especially if there is a large empire, such as China before 1911. No large monarchies today. UK is really a republic because queen has virtually no political power.

4. Aristocracy: rule by wealthy, educated people. Many monarchies have really been ruled by aristocrats.

5. Dictatorship: rule by one person or a group of people. Very few dictators admit they are dictators; almost always claim to be leaders of democracies. Dictator may be 1 person, such as Castro in Cuba or a group of people, such as the Communist Party in China.

6. Democratic Republic: Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic and is not a republic. Usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China."

Three Ways Power is Shared Between National Government and States/Sub-Units

UnitaryOne strong national government

Example: Great Britain Most of world uses this type

ConfederalStrong states or regions with weak national

government Example: Articles of Confederation, the Confederacy

Federal*Strong central government that shares power

with states or regions Example: US

FederalismFinal authority divided between sub-units

and a center.Refers to apportioning of power between

federal government and states. In federal system, national government

holds significant power, but smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. EX: US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil

True or False??Most governments in the world have both

state and national governments, as in the U.S..

True or False??The powers of the state and national

governments were clearly established in the Constitution.

True or False??Under federalism, states surrender their

power to the national government.

True or False??The Framers themselves had a hard time

agreeing on what was meant by federalism.

True or False??The nature of federalism has remained

consistent throughout U.S. History.

True or False??The complexity of federalism tends to

discourage citizen participation in government.

DiscussWhat reasons exist for the states to continue

exercising independent power?

DiscussThe speed limits vary across the nation’s

roads and highways. Could the national government legally intervene

to rectify these conflicting state laws ? Should it?

DiscussGay marriage is allowed in 13 states

(Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Maryland, Maine, Washington, Delaware, California, Rhode Island, Minnesota) and Washington, D.C.The Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants

same-sex marriage.Could the national government legally intervene

to rectify the conflicting state laws ? Should it?

DiscussCertain areas in Nevada permit prostitution.

Could the national government legally intervene to forbid such practices?

Should it?

DiscussAlaska and Colorado have held referendums

concerning the private possession of small amounts of marijuana. Could the national government legally

intervene to forbid such practices? Should it?

DiscussCalifornia has laws allowing for the

distribution and use concerning the medical marijuana. Could the national government legally

intervene to forbid such practices? Should it?

DiscussGeorgia, Texas, and other states have laws

that allow the death penalty. Massachusetts and others have laws forbidding it. Could the national government legally

intervene to rectify these conflicting state laws ?

Should it?

Federalism Terms to Know

Dual FederalismCooperative Federalism

AKA Creative Federalism

New Federalism

Models of Federal Governments

Cooperative Federalism

Dual Federalism

Dual FederalismFed. And state governments co-equalsConstitution interpreted very narrowly.Fed. limited to only powers explicitly listed

Ex: 10th Amendment, Supremacy Clause,

Necessary and Proper Clause, and Commerce Clause.

Dual Federalism

AKA…“Layer Cake Federalism"

Examples of Dual Federalism

Laissez faire or hands off businessGilded Age

Dred Scott decision

States can decide about slave laws

Jim Crow laws

States can decide about segregation/integration

Plessey v Ferguson

Dual Federalism

Switch from Dual to Cooperative Federalism

Steady from New Deal to late 20th century.Dual federalism not completely dead, but

branches of government operate under cooperative federalism.

Dual Federalism

Cooperative Federalism

Fed. gov supreme over statesBroad interpretation exemplified by

Necessary and Proper Clause aka Elastic Clause.

AKA…“Marble Cake Federalism"

Examples of Cooperative Federalism

New DealGovernment programs to end Great

DepressionGreat Society

Government programs to end discrimination AND to provide for those less fortunate

NCLB and Race to the TopFederal government regulation and grants

concerning K-12 education

Cooperative Federalism & Grants

Explosion of grants reached beyond states

Established intergovernmental links at all levels, often bypassing states entirely.AKA “picket fence federalism" AKA Creative Federalism

Started with Morrill Land Grant of 1862Fed. gave each state 30,000 acres of public

land for each representative in Congress$$$ from sale of lands establish/support

agricultural and mechanical arts colleges (UGA, Texas A & M, Michigan State…)

New FederalismDevolutionary objective: attempt to

limit powers of fed. gov to impose its policies on statesIdea began starting with Nixon and Reagan

Included decentralization of national programs to regions

Included efforts to reduce national control over grants-in-aid programs

Revise character of federal involvement in general welfare spending. 

Federal Mandates (the stick)

Direct state/local governments to comply with rules/regulationsFederal Clean Air Act

Sometimes mandates may not make up full costs of program.

Unfunded Mandate Endangered Species Act (1973)NO CHOICE but to follow whether or not money is supplied by feds

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Prevented Congress from passing

costly federal programs along to states with at least debate on how to fund them

Devolution Origin—designed to make it more difficult for fed. government to make state/local governments pay for programs and projects that it refuses to pay for itself. Proven to be case of promises unfulfilled

Federal Grants (the carrot)Fed. government transfers

payments/shares revenues with lower levels of government via federal grants. It’s all about the money!!!!Who has it (the national government)Who wants it (the states) And who gets it (the states who jump through

the right hoops)Federal governments use power to enforce

national rules/standards by opening and closing its “purse strings” for states

Revenue SharingTransfer of tax revenue to states

Congress gave an annual amount of federal tax revenue to states and their cities, counties and townships.

Revenue sharing extremely popular w/state officials, but lost fed. support during Reagan Administration.

1987: revenue sharing replaced with block grants in smaller amounts to reduce federal deficit

2 Types of Grants-in AidBlock grants

Grants provided to states from fed. government with few strings attached

Ex: a grant for transportation but state can decide which roads will be built/where they will be located

Categorical grantsGrants provided to states from fed.

government with many strings attachedEx: a grant for roads but fed. government decides where road will go/which road can be widened

Welfare Act of 1996AKA Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act Signed August 22, 1996 (Clinton)Required work in exchange for time-limited

assistance. Law contained:

strong work requirementsperformance bonus to reward states for

moving welfare recipients into jobsstate maintenance of effort requirementscomprehensive child support enforcementsupports for families moving from welfare

to work (increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage)

Important Supreme Court Cases Concerning FederalismSouth Dakota v DoleU.S. v LopezPrintz v U.S.District of Columbia v. HellerMacDonald v ChicagoBoumediene v. BushBush v Gore

South Dakota vs. Dole (1987)Fed. government required states to

raise drinking age to 21 in order to receive highway funds

SD claimed law unconstitutional because 21st amendment gave power to states for regulating alcoholic beverages. State filed suit against Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole

Can Congress withhold federal funding in order to force a state to pass legislation it deems useful?

Decision and Importance

Decision: “Yes!”Why important? Provision designed to serve general welfare

“Non-requirement” aspect was valid exercise of Congress' spending power

United States vs. Lopez (1995)

1st modern Supreme Court case to set limits to Congress's lawmaking power.Alfonso Lopez, Jr. carried handgun and bullets

into his high school. Charged with violating Section 922(q) of Gun-Free

School Zones Act of 1990.Government believed that possession of firearm

at school falls under jurisdiction of Commerce Clause.

Decision and ImportanceCourt said, “NO!” to Commerce Clause in Lopez

Fed. government overstretched its boundariesForced states to create gun laws themselves. Why important? Interstate commerce, gun-free

school zones cannot be federally mandated (states rights)

Was this a change in the direction of Court?

Printz vs. United States (1997)Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady

seriously injured during assassination attempt Lobbied for stricter gun controls and

background checks – passed, known as “Brady Bill”

Printz (a sheriff) challenged Brady Bill charging that it violated 10th AmendmentDid the federal mandated law take it too far??

ImportanceCourt said “YES!’Ruled in favor of PrintzCongress may not require States to

administer federal regulatory program and violated 10th Amendment to Constitution Decision overturned requirements for local

enforcement of background checksWhy important? States no longer

subordinates in all power disputes involving unfunded mandates

Amendment IIWell regulated militia, being necessary to

security of a free state, right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What exactly does that mean???

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)Regarding meaning of II Amendment and

relation to gun control laws. After DC passed legislation barring

registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating all legal firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming laws violated 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Do local government have right to impose such strict laws concerning guns?

**

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Decision: No! In a 5-4 decision, Court held that 2nd

Amendment protects individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense at home.

McDonald v. Chicago, 2010

Facts of the caseSeveral suits were filed against Chicago and

Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Here, plaintiffs argued that 2nd Amendment should also apply to states.

**

McDonald v. Chicago, 2010

Ruling and Importance (5-4)Supreme Court ruled that 14th Amendment

makes 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purpose of self-defense applicable to states

Court reasoned rights that are "fundamental to Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to states through 14th Amendment.

Habeas Corpus “You have the Body”Writ of habeas corpus: judicial

mandate to prison official ordering inmate be brought to court to determine if imprisonment is lawfulPrisoners often seek release by

filing petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Filed with court by person who objects to own or another's detention or imprisonment.Petition must show that court

ordering detention/imprisonment made legal/factual error.

Boumediene v. Bush (2008):Facts of the Case: 2002: Lakhdar Boumediene and 5

other Algerian natives seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected involvement in plot to attack U.S. embassy there. U.S. gov. classified men as enemy combatants in war on terror and detained them at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO), located on land U.S. leases from Cuba.

**

Boumediene v. Bush (2008):Questions of Law1.Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be

interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

2.If so, is Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of Suspension Clause of Constitution?

3.Are detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to protection of 5th Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of Geneva Conventions?

4.Can detainees challenge adequacy of judicial review provisions of Military Commissions Act?

ImportanceNo and Yes to questions (5-4 split decision)Court ruled in favor of detainees in

each question.Procedures laid out in Detainee Treatment

Act not adequate substitutes for habeas writ.

Detainees not barred from seeking habeas or invoking Suspension Clause because had been designated as enemy combatants/held at Guantanamo Bay.

Bush v. Gore (2000)Facts of the Case: 

FL Supreme Court ordered Circuit Court manual recount of 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County.

Recount all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president)

Gov. George Bush and Richard Cheney sought emergency petition to reverse FL Supreme Court's decision.

Bush v. Gore (2000)Questions of Law: 

1.Did FL Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of Constitution by making new election law?

2.Do standardless manual recounts violate Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of Constitution?

ImportanceIn 5-4 decision Supreme Court ruled

for. Bush and Cheney 1. Yes, FL Supreme Ct. acted

incorrectlyEqual Protection clause guarantees ballots can’t be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment”

2. Yes, manual recounts were unconstitutionalRecount fair in theory, unfair in practice.

Read Your Chapters!!

(Many) More Supreme Court cases to come…