1. Devolution of Federalism (1980-2001) By: Christen, Mark, Dania, Ashley, Nina, Kate, and Hannah

2. What is Devolution? The surrender of a function by a superior government to a subordinate government that is generally complete, permanent, and of constitutional magnitude.

3. Why did Devolution occur? In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson began his “War on Poverty” ◦The federal government began to give state governments grants to further this program  The grants concerned only the federal programs and not state needs. The people began to feel as if the federal government had overstepped its boundaries.

4. Acts in Devolution Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF/1997)—returned administrative power over social welfare to the states. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act(1995) — Banned unfunded mandates ◦Helped the states manage their budget easier. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 — Added a workforce development component to welfare legislation and encouraged employment among the poor.

5. How these acts influenced federalism Gives more responsibility to states. ◦Allows to act independently for their own needs instead depending of the federal government. Gives states more control over their budget. States were able to challenge federal programs.

6. Court Cases Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services (1989) Missouri enacted a legislation placing restrictions on abortion and it was taken to court. Ruling: ◦several state abortion restrictions are constitutional ◦in upholding most of the restrictions the Court invited the states to begin to enact new state restrictions ◦Congress does not have the authority to decide abortion laws for states. Relation to federalism ◦States were given the power to choose their own stance on abortion and make their own laws. This decreased the power of Congress in controlling the states.

7. Court Cases Seminole Tribe vs. Florida (1996) Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, forcing states to negotiate with local Indian tribes about gambling. Ruling ◦Congress can’t impose a duty on the states to negotiate with Indian tribes because states have “sovereign immunity” that protects the states from being forced into a court case by the federal government. Relation to federalism: ◦States have more power over regulating their own business. This case also created the idea of states having a “sovereign immunity” that allowed them to deny requests from the federal government.

8. Court Cases US vs. Lopez (1996) A student was caught carrying a concealed handgun to school in San Antonio, Texas. Ruling ◦Congress doesn’t have authority to regulate guns within 1,000 feet of public school because only states have this authority  This has no connection to commerce clause of Article I. Relation to federalism: Congress would be presumably taking control of some of the gun laws for states which leads to disagreement on whether it would be necessary for protection

9. Court Case Florida Prepaid vs. College Savings Bank (1999) The case started as something unrelated but brought up an interesting debate. ◦Can Congress change patent laws to affect state immunity? Ruling: ◦No, Congress can’t change patent laws to affect state sovereign immunity Relation to federalism: ◦Congress lacks authority under commerce clause and patent clause to eliminate sovereign immunity because Congress would be manipulating the states’ decision on laws to admit federal control over its choice

10. Short Term/Long Term Affects on US Short Term: ◦The destruction of unfunded mandates allowed the state governments to spend more money on what they thought needed improving. ◦1998—Major budget surpluses in state budgets  Total exceeding $30 billion Long Term: ◦State governments couldn’t take the strain of the new responsibilities given to them.  By 2003, budget shortfalls of different states exceeded $30 billion ◦State governments ultimately fell back to relying on federal government to bail them out.

11. Work Sited http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/to pic/155042/devolution http://www.nyls.edu/centers/projects/vis ual_persuasion/visual_litigation/litigation_ public_relations/bush_v_gore US Government Textbook