Texas – Federal- State relations

The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) imposed a direct tax by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America, and it required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, playing cards, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies.

“taxation without representation”

Tea Act, May 1773

Civil Disobedience Acts:

Congress Declares Independence. When North Carolina and Virginia empowered their delegates to vote for American independence, Virginian Richard Henry Lee offered a resolution stating that the colonies "are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." A committee was appointed to draft a declaration of independence, and Thomas Jefferson was chosen to write it. On July 2, Congress voted in favor of independence, and on July 4, the Declaration of Independence was approved. Copies were sent throughout the colonies to be read publicly.

Articles of confederation ratified in 1781 and after that

9 out of 13 states had to ratify for the new constitution to go into affectThe ratification would be democratic: state citizens would elect conventions to decide whether or not to ratifyEven with all the compromising, large and small states could still not agreeLeaders split into two factions1. the Federalists (pro-ratification)2. the Anti-Federalists (anti-ratification)

Proponents of the ConstitutionBelieved in a strong National GovernmentKnew that state governments would be reluctant to ratify a document that would strip them of powerAppealed directly to state citizens through rallies and written propaganda (Federalist Papers??)

HamiltonMadison

Felt that individual rights were left out (the Constitution had no specific list of individual rights)The Supreme Court could overturn decisions of state courtsNational Government maintained military forces even during peace time States were stripped of any real powerThe executive and legislative branch had too much power and too little accountability

Thomas Jefferson: Anti Federalists

The politics of compromise at the Constitutional Convention:

Majority rule vs Minority rightsSmall states vs larger states Legislative vs executiveslave vs non - slave

Majority vs MinorityMadison: “ It is beneficial to put the interests of one group in competition with the interests of other groups, so that no group can dominate govt. He hoped to achieve this through the separation of powers across different branches of national govt and across the national, state , and local levels.

Virginia Plan:New jersey PlanGreat Compromise:

Roger Sherman: Senator from Connecticut

Reserved powers vs National Supremacy clause:The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land". It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

A Confederal system is a governmental arrangement where the lower units of government retain decision-making authority. Eg. United Nation, where member countries can participate in various treaties, choose to opt out of treaties, or withdraw from the organization at any time. A Unitary system vests power in a central govt; lower units of government only have power that is granted to them by the central govt. Eg. Cities and counties in Texas are granted only limited law-making authority by the state constitution and the state legislature.

Federalism is a system of govt. where power is shared between the national state governments and represents a compromise between a unitary and confederal system.Vertical Federalism: The distribution of power between the national and state governments.

“Can’t We All Get Along?”

• Texas has nearly 5,000 individual governments• They include

• 254 counties• 1,200 municipalities• 3,366 school districts and other single-purpose districts

Texas’ System

• Texas system is a unitary one, with the State Constitution and state laws giving cities, counties and special districts their powers.

• Texas’ system subscribes to the Dillon Rule, which holds that if a state can create a local government it can also choose to eliminate the local government.

Federal-State Relationships

• The U.S. Constitution is vague on many areas of governmental responsibility, and there has been an on-going debate as to what powers should reside where.

• Currently, the area most talked about is devolution, or the return of power to the states.

Class activityFederal. Confederal and unitary

Horizontal Federalism: refers to the relationship between states.Horizontal plane attempts to coordinate fifty coequal states and they must peaceably coexist.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/05/15/1st-same-sex-divorce-case-headed-to-north-texas-court/Case : Allison Leona Flood Lesh and Kristi Lyn Lesh were legally married in Washington, D.C., in 2010. Allison Lesh filed for divorce and joint custody of a child that Kristi Lesh, who became pregnant via artificial insemination, had given birth to in February 2013. Kristi Lesh moved to dismiss the divorce and custody petitions, arguing that the state law and Constitution ban recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.

Judge Nellermoe explained that marriage discrimination imposes unconstitutional burdens on the children of same-sex couples — “[i]mmutable protections for the children born of same-sex marriages require the same protections as those born from other marital and intimate relationships, e.g., education, child support, hereditary rights, tax benefits.”

Privileges and immunities: States are required to grant the same Privileges and immunities to citizens of other states as they grant to their own citizens.

Extradition: "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.“http://www.times-standard.com/ci_19679295Christopher Diaz……….

Federal – State relations;

The first confrontation; Mc Culloch vs Maryland;The two questions; 1) Does Congress has the power to create

the bank?2) If it did, whether Maryland had the

right to tax?

This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powes for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

Gibbons vs Ogden ( 1824); A New York state law gave to individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere which led to friction as some states would require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for navigation privileges. In this case Thomas Gibbons -- a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license -- challenged the monopoly license granted by New York to Aaron Ogden. New York courts consistently upheld the state monopoly. Does a state have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state waterways inconsistent with federal law?Holding and Rule (Marshall)No. States do not have the power to regulate those phases of interstate commerce which, because of the need of national uniformity, demand that their regulation, be prescribed by a single authority.No. A state does not have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state navigable waters inconsistent with federal law.

John Calhoun and the nullification crisis of 1833;

The American Civil War, widely known as simply the Civil War in the United States as well as other sectional names, was fought from 1861 to 1865. Seven Southern slave states individually declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, known as the "Confederacy" or the "South". They grew to include eleven states, and although they claimed thirteen states and additional western territories, the Confederacy was never recognized by a foreign country. The states that did not declare secession were known as the "Union" or the "North". The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories. After four years of bloody combat that left over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers dead and destroyed much of the South's infrastructure, the Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and the difficult Reconstruction process of restoring national unity and guaranteeing civil rights to the freed slaves began.

Dual Federalism

• Defined relationships from 1790’s to 1930’s• Conflicts were usually resolved through court cases and statutory law• McCulloch v. Maryland was the first notable instance where the

Supreme Court defined the power of the U.S. government over the states

Dred Scott vs Sanford:

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

On June 7, 1892, 30-year-old Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy could easily pass for white but under Louisiana law, he was considered black despite his light complexion and therefore required to sit in the "Colored" car. He was a Creole of Color, a term used to refer to black persons in New Orleans who traced some of their ancestors to the French, Spanish, and Caribbean settlers of Louisiana before it became part of the United States. When Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, legally segregating common carriers in 1892, a black civil rights organization decided to challenge the law in the courts. Plessy deliberately sat in the white section and identified himself as black. He was arrested and the case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Plessy's lawyer argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth

Cooperative Federalism

• The New Deal expanded the role of federal government in relation to the states and local governments

• The federal government was primarily responsible for raising revenue and state and local governments responsible for administering the programs

Wickard vs Filburn ( 1942)

The New Deal

• Grants-in-aid (categorical grants)• Funds provided by federal government to state or local government for a

specific purpose• New Deal expanded to include social programs• Includes competitive project grants

• State and local governments compete for funds based on merit of their proposals

New Federalism

• Devolve many policies back to the states• Nixon

• Block grants, less federal money and interference

• Reagan• Federal aid to states cut by 12 percent• Remove federal government, as much as possible, from local

matters governed by states

• Clinton• Welfare reform in 1996, grants tied to federal rules

The Growth of Federal Funds in Texas

Centralized Federalism• Great Society expanded feds role in domestic

policy• Grants grew from 132 to 379 between 1960 and

1968• Most were intended to redistribute resources to

lower-income groups• Some scholars refer to the bypassing of state and

local governments as coercive federalism

Centralized Federalism• “New Federalism” promoted by Nixon sought to

reintegrate local participation• Many grants were made as block grants, where

states and local governments had discretion over how to spend the funds

• Revenue sharing replaced many categorical grants

Coercive Federalism

• Federal regulations force states to change their policies to meet national goals.

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)• No Child Left Behind (NCLB)• Patient Protection Affordable Health Care Act (common

“Affordable Health Care”, “Obamacare”)

On May 17, 1954, these men, members of the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954), now acknowledged as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century, unanimously held that the racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the decision did not succeed in fully desegregating public education in the United States, it put the Constitution on the side of racial equality and galvanized the nascent civil rights movement into a full revolution.

The students represented in Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka. (L to R: Vicki Henderson, Donald Henderson, Linda Brown, James Emanuel, Nancy Todd, and Katherine Carper)

Katzenbach v. McClung, (1964),

Ollie's Barbecue was a family-owned restaurant that operated in Birmingham, Alabama, that seated 220 customers. It was located on a state highway and was 11 blocks from an interstate highway. In a typical year, approximately half of the food it purchased from a local supplier originated out-of-state. It catered to local families and white collar workers and provided take-out service to African American customers.

Nixon had campaigned as a supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment, but did little to push its passage following his election. When feminists pointed out his lack of support for women's issues, he used presidential power to push the federal government forward.Despite the opposition of many men in his administration, Nixon increased the number of female appointments to administration positions. He created a Presidential Task Force on Women's Rights. He asked the Justice Department to bring sex discrimination suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And he ordered the Labor Department to add sex discrimination provisions to the guidelines for its Office of Federal Contract Compliance.During his first term, Nixon succeeded in redirecting power away from the federal government.

Dacota vs Dole (1987)

Appellant alleges that the federal withholding of a small percentage of highway funds to states allowing public possession or purchase of alcohol by individuals under 21 years is unconstitutional.

Facts. 23 U.S.C. Section: 158 directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds otherwise available to states that allow the purchase or public possession of alcohol by individuals under 21 years of age. South Dakota allows individuals nineteen and over to purchase beer with up to 3.2% alcohol. As a consequence, the Department of Transportation will withhold approximately 5% of the federal highway funds earmarked for the state

Conclusion: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the action of Congress is found to be constitutional.

Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was a 12th-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992, he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The gun was not loaded; Lopez claimed that he was to deliver the weapon to another person, a service for which he would receive $40 He was confronted by school authorities—the school had received anonymous tips that Lopez was carrying the weapon—and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violating the federal. Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools". The trial court denied the motion, ruling that was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools...affects interstate commerce".Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that exceeded Congress's power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause“

Lopez vs US ( 1995);

Issues1.Does the GFSZA exceed Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause? 2.What categories of activity may Congress regulate under its commerce power?

Holding and Rule (Rehnquist)3.Yes. The GFSZA exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause. 2.The three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power are: a) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; b) Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities; and c) Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Gonzales vs Raich ( 2005)Facts: California passed the “Compassionate Use Act,” which allowed for the use of medical marijuana. The Defendants were compliant with state laws when arrested, but guilty under federal DEA laws at the time. The Defendant sued the Attorney General, arguing that Congress had exceeded their interstate commerce clause authority in legislating the behavior of a local citizen, consuming a locally grown herb in his own home.

ISSUE; Whether Congress can regulate homegrown medical marijuana consumed at home pursuant to the interstate commerce clause.

Conclusion;Yes, law upheld. Congress may regulate intrastate activity where the behavior, in the aggregate, can impact interstate commerce. The court should not necessarily look for a substantial impact, but only should require that a “plausible story” be told to uphold Congressional action pursuant to the commerce clause. The plausible story in this case is that the federal government cannot rightly distinguish between marijuana grown in one’s own home and the marijuana sold in interstate commerce (clearly a constitutionally authorized regulation, according to the court). In order to regulate the latter, Congress must be able to regulate the former (grown in one’s own home).

State Financial Impact

• State receives $0.98 for each federal tax dollar paid• Texas ranks near bottom of federal grants• 33% of 2003-2004 budget was federal funds (79% of which were for

social services)

Revision;1. Categorical Grant- Money must spent according to

categorical requirements. 2. Block Grants- less strings attached3. Revenue sharing- Federal government gives money

directly to the states with no strings attached.

B. Mandates

1. When the federal government requires that the states do something it is known as a mandate.

A. Sometimes requires states to do something with out giving them money to do so.

(unfunded mandate)

Public Opinion Poll The role of the national government has changed significantly from the Founding era to the present. Do you think the framers of the U.S. Constitution would be pleased with the current balance of power between the national government and state governments?

a) Yesb) No

Public Opinion Poll

Which level of government do you believe is best able to protect the liberty, equality, and rights of its citizens?

a) State and local governmentb) Federal government

Public Opinion Poll

In the coming years, do you believe the power and authority of the federal government will increase, remain the same, or decrease?

a) Increaseb) Remain the samec) Decrease

Public Opinion Poll

Do you feel the federal government or state and local governments are better able to ensure that all children receive a high-quality education?

a) Federal governmentb) State and local governments

Public Opinion Poll

Do you believe the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided at the state level or the national level?

a) State levelb) National level

Public Opinion PollConsidering the current distribution of power and authority between the federal government and state and local governments, we should:

a) provide the federal government with more power and authority.

b) provide state and local governments with more power and authority.

c) maintain the current distribution of power and authority between the federal government and state and local governments.

Gov. Perry Vs Pres. ObamaAgainst Mr. Presidenthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orqqnp5Rgx8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNKM0ORjbAo

Against Gov.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4GbAsPzhE4

Healthcare : thenhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/rick-perry-obamacare_n_4531169.html

Now: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/08/17/why-rick-perry-could-warm-to-obamacares-medicaid-expansion/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dUMJyzjtA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdR8uILg7TQ