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