3 Federalism

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.1: Lines of Power in Three Systems of Government

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.1: Lines of Power in Three Systems of Government (cont’d)

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.1: Lines of Power in Three Systems of Government (cont’d)

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Historical Background, critiques and praises Unitary Examples: France, Britain, Italy, Sweden Federal Examples: US, Canada, India, Germany, Switzerland, Australia Confederal Examples: A of C, CSA, UN (“Stop, or I’ll Say Stop Again!”- R. W.) Negative Views: federalism blocks progress and protects powerful local interest a) Laski: the states are “parasitic and poisonous” b) Riker: federalism facilitated the perpetuation of racism Positive View: a) Elazar: federalism contributes to governmental strength, political flexibility, and fosters individual liberty Federalism has good and bad effects a) Different political groups with different political purposes come to power in different places b) Federalist #10: small political units are more likely to be dominated by single political faction c) Increased political activity, facilitates pol. mobilization, < local cost Grodzins: What is his perspective and views? What marbles the cake (prime factor)?

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Federalism and Constitutional Law Two sides historically: Hamilton (supremacy) and Jefferson (states’ rights) 10 th amendment supports states, Elastic clause supports nat’l supremacy Key case: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), with Marshall as arbiter 1865: Court said fed gov’t could regulate inter but not intrastate commerce 1937: No longer able to distinguish between, “switch in time that saves nine:” Congress can regulate both Court struggles based on desires to support laissez-faire theory; true l-f? -Based on natural law conceptions of property rights -Corporations mistakenly perceived as individuals under the law Current conception: a return to “dual federalism:” Scalia in Printz. How? -See also: US v. Lopez (1995), also about guns State sovereignty also recently protected through the 11 th Amendment. States still clearly politically inferior

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved The Politics of Federalism Power has shifted to federal government dramatically, 1937-present Concern for local control over-exaggerated, but prevalent 1960s grant-in-aid programs shifted symmetry of federal system to nat’l control State/local gov’ts became increasingly dependent on federal aid Representatives of these groups set up intergovernmental lobbying offices: DC Rivalry between states intensified: distributionally-based block grants the norm Block grants led to more federal regulation, not less. Dependent state agencies formed, needing funding to survive. Fought for turf, and decreased the overall amount of block grant funds available as they “tied funding up.” Ideological dimension soon emerged: -Liberals, Democrats, minorities liked federal influence on biased local officials -Conservatives, Republicans, business leaders liked local control to avoid inflexibility/perpetuate freedom of choice -1980s/1990s stalemates during eras of divided government -Change being forced by States tired of federal meddling, and level of professionalism has improved on local level, leading to positive experimentation -Example: Welfare reform pursued successfully on state/local level. Results?

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.2: The Changing Purpose of Federal Grants to State and Local Governments Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal year 2001, table 12.2.

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.3: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Historical Tables, Composition of Outlays, table 6.1.

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.4: Dealing with Deficit Source: From "Dealing with Deficit, "Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, as reported in Governing, May 2002, p. 22. Reprinted with permission.

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved Figure 3.5: The Politics of Devolution Source: Survey by the Los Angeles Times, January 19-22, 1995, as published in The Public Perspective (Storrs: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut), April/May 1995):28.Copyright The Public Perspective. Reprinted by permission