Federalism

Wilson Chapter 3

Klein Oak High School

Definition

• local units

• national unit

• both make final decisions

• both protected in existence

Protection of Subnationals

• constitutional

• habits, preferences, dispositions of citizens

• distribution of political power

Mechanism of Control

• largely subnational

• national government gets states to act– keeping with national policy

Good or Bad?

• Laski – states are “parasitic and poisonous”

• Riker: federalism facilitated the perpetuation of racism

• Elazar: federalism contributes to governmental strength, political flexibility, and fosters individual liberty

Good and Bad Effects

• Different political groups with different political purposes come to power in different places

• Federalist No. 10: small political units are more likely to be dominated by single political faction

Increased Political Activity

• Most obvious effect of federalism: it facilitates political mobilization

• Federalism decentralizes authority, lowering the cost of political organization at the local level

The Founding

• bold, new plan to protect personal liberty

• Founders believed that neither national nor state government would have authority over the other since power comes from people who shift support to keep them in balance

• New plan had no historical precedent

10th Amendment

• an afterthought to clarify the limits of the national government’s power

• Tenth Amendment has recently been used by the Supreme Court, giving new life to state sovereignty

Elastic Clause

• Precise definitions of powers are politically impossible due to competing interests, e.g., commerce

• Hamilton’s view: national supremacy since the Constitution was the supreme law of the land

• Jefferson’s view: states’ rights with the people as ultimate sovereign; the national government was likely to be the principal threat to individuals’ liberties

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Hamiltonian position espoused by Chief Justice John Marshall

• Could Congress charter a national bank? yes, even though this power is not explcitly in the Constitution because of the “necessary and proper” clause

• Could states tax such a federal bank? no, because national powers were supreme and therefore immune to state challenge

Nullification

• Idea that states have the right to declare null and void a federal law that they believe violated the Constitution

• Question settled by the civil war: the federal union was indissoluble and states cannot nullify federal law

Dual Federalism

• Idea that both national and state governments are supreme in their own spheres, which should be kept separate

Example of Dual Federalism

• interstate vs. intrastate commerce – Early product-based distinctions were

unsatisfactory – Still, the Supreme Court does seek some

distinction between what is national and what is local, though it is not entirely consistent in its support

State Sovereignty

• Supreme Court has strengthened states’ rights in several recent cases – U.S. v. Lopez (1995), guns in schools – Printz v. U.S. (1997), background checks on

gun purchasers

• State can do what is not prohibited by the Constitution or preempted by federal policy, and that is consistent with its own constitution

Direct Democracy

• States constitutions may provide for direct democracy – Initiative – Referendum – Recall

State Protection in the Constitution

• No state can be divided without its consent

• Two Senators for every state

• Every state assured of a republican form of government

• Powers not granted to Congress are reserved to the states

Grants in Aid

• Grants show how political realities modify legal authority

• Began before Constitution with land and cash grants to states

• Dramatically increased in scope in twentieth century

• Prevailing constitutional interpretation until late 1930s was that the federal government could not spend money for purposes not authorized by the Constitution – grants were a way around this

Grants Attractive to State Officials

• Federal budget surpluses (19th and early 20th centuries)

• Federal income tax increased revenues

• Federal control of money supply

• Appeared as free money for state officials, who did not have to be responsible for federal taxation

1960s Shift in Grants-in-aid

• From what states demanded . . .

• . . . To what federal officials considered important as national needs

• Meanwhile, state and local governments had become dependent on federal funds

Intergovernmental Lobby

• Hundreds of state, local officials lobby in Washington

• Purpose: to get more federal money with fewer strings

• By 1980, however, federal funds had stopped growing

Categorical Grants vs. Revenue Sharing

• Categorical grants are for specific purposes defined by federal law; they often require local matching funds

• Block grants (special revenue sharing or broad-based aid) – general purposes – few restrictions – states preferred block to categorical grants

Revenue Sharing

• sometimes called general revenue sharing

• requires no matching funds

• could be spent on almost any governmental purpose

• Distributed by statistical formula

• Ended in 1986, after fourteen years

Goals Met?

• Neither block grants nor revenue sharing achieved the goal of giving the states more freedom in spending

• Did not grow as fast as categorical grants

• Number of strings increased, even on these programs

Slow Growth

• Block grants grew more slowly than categorical grants because of their political coalitions

• Federal officials, liberal interest groups, organized labor tend to distrust state government; categorical grants give the national government more power

Life and Death

• No single interest group has a vital stake in multipurpose block grants, revenue sharing

• Categorical grants are matters of life or death for various state agencies

• Revenue sharing was so widely distributed that it did not reach those with greater need in sufficient amounts

Rivalry Among the States

• Increased competition for federal dollars a result of increased dependency

• Snowbelt (Frostbelt) versus Sunbelt states due to population changes

• Actual difficulty telling where funds spent and their effect on population changes

• With numerous grants distributed on the basis of population, the census takes on monumental importance

Mandates

• federal rules that states or localities must obey, not necessarily linked to funding– Civil rights – Environmental protection

• Unfunded mandates with more attention since 1995

• Controversial mandates may result from court decisions

Conditions of Aid

• Attached to grants

• range from specific to general

• Failed presidential attempts to reverse trend and consider local needs – Nixon – block grants– Reagan – consolidate categorical grants

Devolution

• The 104th Congress (1995–1996)

• Devolution initiatives returned program management to the states

• Block grants for entitlements – AFDC

What’s Driving Devolution?

• House Republican did not trust federal government – states more responsive & less wasteful

• Deficit politics

• Supported by public opinion