Chapter Three: Federalism

 1908: Woodrow Wilson stated the relationship between the national government and the state governments is “the cardinal question of our constitutional system.”  Not an easy question to answer  Federalism is the general structure of our governmental system.  It is defined as a political system in which there are local units of government and a national government which can both make final decisions on at least some governmental activities and whose existence is protected by law.

 Difference bt federalist system and other systems is that local govts actually contain final decision- making power on many issues.  This authority is independent of the national government and it cannot be trampled by the national government.  “Specially protected interest”  Local govts’ authority is protected by law and they are protected from oppression as well.

 Different people with different views come to power in different places at different times.  PROS: autonomy of local govts, knowledge of the area, quicker action, etc.  CONS: enables corruption, racism, and pandering as well as potential domination by one political faction.

 Shared sovereignty  Sovereignty- supreme or ultimate political authority.  In US, national govt has sovereignty on some issues while the local govts have sovereignty on others.  Not so in unitary system, where sovereignty is wholly in the hands of the national govt and local govt does only what the national govt will allow it to do.  In a confederation, states are sovereign, the national govt does only what the states allow it to do.

 Main effect is that it increases political participation.  Easier to gain office  Smaller constituencies  Lower cost of running for and serving in office  It is unclear if easier entry into political process was a specific intention of the federalist system, but the protection of personal liberties certainly was.

 Confederation of : national government derived its authority from the states  Fighting amongst the states therefore weakened the central government.  To fix this, the federalist system was created and both levels of government got their power directly from the people.  In our federalist system, both state and national govts were granted certain powers, but neither level dominated the other.  This kind of structure was heretofore unprecedented.

 Never laid out in full, but they were granted in the 10 th Amendment:  “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  This is quite vague.  The framers didn’t think they needed to be laid out in full, and that this was somewhat self- explanatory.  10 th Amendment mainly used to avoid future confusions.

 Impractical to spell out all the particulars of state- national govt relations bc of changing circumstances over time.  Elastic language of Article 1: “necessary and proper”  Founders had different views of what federalism meant:  Hamilton: national govt leading force in politics  Jefferson: state govts leading force in politics  Struggle continued for years and included the fight over slavery.

 Supreme Court took the lead in the debate.  Chief Justice John Marshall defended Hamilton’s pro-national govt stance.  McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): fight over a bank in Baltimore paying a tax to the state of Maryland unexpectedly led to an increase in the powers of the national govt. ▪ Congress granted power to establish a national bank. ▪ No state govt could tax a national bank

 US v. Lopez  US v. Morrison  Printz v. United States  Alden v. Maine  11 th Amendment

 Madison and Jefferson endorsed nullification- the theory that states should have the right to declare federal laws unconstitutional.  This idea was considered for several years before finally being killed when the North won the Civil War.  This result was later confirmed by the Supreme Court.

 The debate eventually evolved into dual federalism- national governments and state governments each have defined areas of authority.  Led to the distinguishment between interstate commerce (subject to federal regulation) and intrastate commerce (under state control).  This separation is very hard to make.

 Recent Supreme Court decisions strengthened states’ rights.  Things that have increase the power of the states:  More power over the commerce issues that effect them directly.  Police power- can make laws that promote health, safety, and morals.  Initiative- voters can place legislative measures directly on a ballot through signed petitions. 5% to 15% of the people that voted in the previous election to sign a petition you can get a law placed on the ballot.  Referendum- ½ of US states let voters reject an issue under debate in the state legislature.  Recall- over 20 of the states let voters vote a leader out of office.  Constitution protects any state from being dissolved or losing representation in the Senate.

 Part of Congress’ authority comes from state and local constituencies.  Answer to those who voted for them  Grants-in-aid- federal funds provided to states and localities to pay for major projects such as airports, highways, education, and major welfare services.  Land grants  Cash grants

 Cash grants have grown hugely since  2001: 20% or more of most state budgets  Way for states to obtain taxing power of federal govt without political fallout.  Way for federal govt to legally fund certain programs.

 Four reasons why this money is attractive to states:  Until well into 20 th century, money available without running up huge federal budget deficit.  Federal income tax has become useful tool of public finance.  Ability of federal govt to print more money.  Little to no political fallout for state officials for obtaining federal funds.

 Before 1960’s, grants designed to meet state needs.  During 1960’s, we had a shift towards national needs.  Congress could have more control over how the money was spent  War on poverty, war on drugs, fight crimes, reduce pollution.(improves image of a politician)  One downside to the expansion of cash grants is the overdependence on federal funds.  “Intergovernmental lobby” created to get more money for constituencies.

 To reduce “strings attached,” govt switched from categorical grants to revenue sharing.  Categorical grants- for a specific purpose; receiver usually matches part of the grant. Growth in cash grants came mostly from categorical grants. Congress didn’t want to give up control on how their money was spent.  Block grants (special revenue sharing)- grants without matching requirements that are intended for some broadly defined purpose. ▪ Ie law enforcement, unemployment  General revenue sharing ( ) completely removed strings.

 Growth in revenue sharing not great because most of the increases in federal grant money came from increases in categorical grants.  Congress and bureaucracy wanted more control over federal money.  Interest groups aren't as likely to lobby for block grants. Because block grants are more general.

 Great deal of competition between the states for federal money.  Perceived favoritism for South, Southwest, and Far West.  Interstate commerce makes it hard to see where federal money is going.  Distribution formulas based on population, population growth, income, and housing quality.  Fighting over how these formulas are created.

 Many believe that “strings attached” harm states’ rights.  Two more ways to control the states:  Conditions-of-aid- federal rules attached to the grants that states receive. States must abide by these rules in order to receive the grants. Parents say mow the lawn and ill give you twenty dollars.  Mandates- rules imposed by the federal government on the states as conditions for obtaining grants; requirements that the states must pay the costs of certain national programs. A mandate who usually related to a environmental standard or labor issue. Parents give you 20 dollars then tell you how to mow the lawn.

 Most involve civil rights or environmental protection.  Vague language allows federal govt to define its intentions after-the-fact.  Lots of growth in mandates since 1980, which has tightened the federal govt’s grip on state action.  These mandates vary greatly in scope and language.  This leads to inconsistencies across state lines.  Supreme Court has enabled the expansion of mandates.

 This represents the most important expansion in federal govt involvement in state activities.  Desperate states have no choice but to fulfill the conditions set by the federal govt.  Conditions set the rules by which the federal govt wants things done:  Wages, environmental standards, safety standards, etc.  State and federal govt rarely agree on the rules that are set.  Huge growth in conditions-in-aid since 1970.

 Republican Congress in 1994 led to a switch from national to state involvement.  Welfare (AFDC) eventually made into a block grant and put primarily under state control.  No guarantee of federal support.  Turned management of welfare over to the states.  Woman receiving welfare should begin working within two years and roll off of welfare after 5 years.  Tried to do the same with Medicare, but unsuccessful.  Able to switch many other programs over to state control.

 Second order devolution: state >>>>> local  County run welfare  Third order devolution: local >>>> private charities  Churches, Salvation Army  August 1996-September 2001: welfare recipients fell from 12.2 million to 5.3 million.

 This revolution was driven by three forces:  Beliefs of our leaders- folks opposed to "big government," and felt that more local forms of government were more efficient.  Deficit politics: getting credit for “balancing the budget.”  Views of most citizens  Is devolution revolution still going on today? This is food for thought.