Govt 2305 apt lesson03 Federalism
Articles,  Blog

Govt 2305 apt lesson03 Federalism


hello this is mr. Seymour and this is
going to be Chapter three of your lecture series from the textbook
American politics today and this chapter is covering the topic of federalism the
question of federalism is should the government require for instance all
Americans to have health insurance while individual Americans disagreed about
this question the states and the federal government also disagreed about the role
of the state in implementing the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare now
this is just one example of the issue of federalism is investigating
the relationship between the state and the federal government. Federalism is a
system that gives some sovereign power to state governments and some sovereign
power to the national government it’s a system of government that divides
sovereign power across at least two political units because the national
government and state governments may have different policy preferences
battles over the balance between federal and state power are inherent in our
federal system in 1981, 29 States and the District of Columbia allowed
either 18 year olds or 19 year olds to drink some kinds of alcohol in some
states people were allowed to drink beer with a 3.2 percent alcohol level before
they could drink stronger beverages in 1984 Congress decided to withhold
federal highway funds from states th at refused to raise the drinking age to 21
by 1996 all 50 states and Washington DC had set the drinking age
at 21 how did a policy that originally differed by state become a single
national policy and why did the winning policy move in the direction that it did?
the answer has to do with federalism now we’re going to define sovereign power
here as the amount of authority and autonomy
given to each unit of government and the question is where actually the conflict
is who gets sovereign power under federalism both the federal or national
government and the states have sovereign powers it’s a matter of balancing federal
powers with the power of the state in this case Congress cannot create a
national drinking age but Congress can play its role in the power of the purse
to withhold federal highway funds from non-compliant states that don’t abide by
the policy so in reality Congress because it has the power of the purse in
funding highway systems has the ability to dictate the success of a policy to
see how federalism works in context let’s begin by remembering the basics of
federalism in the United States the federal and state government each have
separate powers and they also share some powers for example state
governments are not responsible for national defense or
foreign policy while the federal government is not responsible for
determining whether or not you are allowed to smoke in a bar or restaurant
it is important to note that with respect to divided power we only refer
to federal and state governments local governments are creatures of the state
government and do not have their own powers their powers called police powers
are given to them by the state we call the dividing powers between national
government and state governments is a central issue of the Constitutional
Convention and even in the Civil War but how do these issues affect you today
some ways in which federal power might affect today’s college student would be
land-grant universities work-study jobs federally guaranteed student loans Pell
grants controversial questions about congressional power woulld also include
such things as should Congress be able to prohibit employer discrimination based
on age or disability? should Congress be able to compel gun
bans around public schools? can Congress set nationwide penalties for violence
against women? the underlying question then becomes should governance in the
United States be more nation centered or state centered? now in regards to sharing
power we have separate powers and concurrent powers state governments for
instance have separate power for conducting elections promoting Public
Safety and police powers while the national government has
separate powers for national defense and foreign policy concurrently both the
state and federal governments have the ability to collect taxes so those are
concurrent powers unitary systems are about four times more common in
the world than federal systems largely because they have a simpler power
structure and avoid disputes between different levels of government though it
is less common an advantage of federalism is that it helps countries
deal with ethnic or ideological differences within their population for
example Canada’s federal system provides French Canadians with autonomy in the
province of Quebec where they’re where most everybody speaks French in a
confederal system the states have more power than the central government though
there are historical examples of confederal systems such as the United
States before the ratification of the Constitution and the Confederate States
during the Civil War few modern examples of confederal systems exist the national
government under a confederal system is so ineffective and it creates so many
problems that it’s unable to last for a long term the preamble to the Constitution opens
with the words we the people of the United States when we compare that to
the Articles of Confederation which opened with we the undersigned delegates
of the states you can see an early sign that the founders intended to have
a less state centric government under the Constitution and a government that
was more under the control of the people popular sovereignty the Necessary and
Proper Clause which is found in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and the
elastic clause or it’s called the Necessary and Proper clause gives Congress the authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers while enumerated Congress’s powers the
elastic Clause also leaves the door open for Congress to expand the
scope of conflict as you can point to this Clause whenever it passes
legislation that might not directly relate to the powers enumerated for the
Congress the Supremacy Clause which is part of article 6 of the Constitution
states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that judges
in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the constitution of laws of
this any state to the contrary notwithstanding so that means that
federal law trumps state law bottom line the enumerated powers are those powers
that are given specifically to Congress such as admitting new states to the
Union declaring war coining money creating and
maintaining our armed forces and regulating commerce with American states
and with foreign countries the Tenth Amendment says that 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 which is
often referred to as a reserved powers clause the Tenth Amendment says that any
power not explicitly given to the national government is reserved for the
states the Eleventh Amendment prevents citizens of one state from suing the
government of another state it was passed in reaction to a case called
Chisholm versus Georgia in 1793 it’s often used by States to exempt
themselves from lawsuit as we’ll see in a minute Jim Obergefell the plaintiff in
the case of Obergefell versus Hodges was a Supreme Court case that legalized some
sex same-sex marriage nationwide and it was backed by supporters of the
ruling on the steps of the Texas Capitol here during a rally in June 29 2015 in
Austin the ruling shows the power of the Supremacy Clause as it is struck down
laws in fourteen states including Texas concepts that support both nation
centered and state centric perspectives are the privileges and immunities clause
and the Full Faith and Credit Clause the privileges and immunities and Full Faith
and Credit Clause basically say that a person is entitled to all the privileges
and immunities of a state and Full Faith and Credit the state must give Full
Faith and Credit to the laws of other states now let’s take a look at the evolution
of federalism from 1789 to 1937 federalism was in the form of what we
call dual federalism or as we’ll see later layer-cake federalism the
characteristics of this type of federalism are that the national and
state governments were viewed as very distinct with little overlap in their
activities or their services that they provided within this period federalism
could have been the state center or nation centered but relations between
levels of government were limited so what you had was like the layers of the
cake with frosting in between you had a layer cake type of federalism
cooperative federalism which is often termed marble cake federalism started in
1937 in the middle of the Great Depression and continues till today in a
lot of respects this indicates greater cooperation and collaboration between
the levels of government they have the two levels of government have to
communicate with each other and work together fiscal federalism which again
from 1937 to the present starting in the in the Great Depression the system of
transfer payments or grants from the national government to lower-level
governments involves varying degrees of national control over how the money is
spent you have categorical grants which give
the national government a great deal of control and block grants which have less
national control and more state control so states like block grants and the
federal government federal bureaucracies if they want to impose a policy over the
state like the categorical grants picket-fence federalism which started in
about 1961 till present is a version of cooperative federalism that emphasizes
that policymakers within a given policy area have more in common with others in
their area at different levels of government than with people at the same
level of government who work on different issues
new federalism which goes from 1969 to the present attempts to shift power to
the states by consolidating categorical grants into block grants and by giving
states authority over programs such as welfare but the states also have to
accept more responsibility coercive federalism which starts in the 1970s and
goes to the present involves federal preemption of state and local government
authorities and underfunded mandates on state and local governments to force the
states to change their policies to match national goals or policies established
by the Congress under coercive federalism the national government is
using its power of the purse as in the case of of the drinking age or the case
of seatbelt laws they use highway funds in order to coerce the national
government into a policy in the early 1800s the Supreme Court
confirmed the national government’s right to regulate commerce between the
state of New York granted a monopoly to a ferry company
that served point ports in New York and New Jersey but this was found to
interfere with interstate commerce and was therefore subject to federal
intervention after the Supreme Court struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act
states were free to impose Jim Crow laws these state and local laws led
to compel racial segregation even for public drinking fountains restrooms
movie theaters and so forth Franklin Delano Roosevelt New Deal shifted more
power than ever to the national government through major new programs to
address the Great Depression such as the Works Progress Administration WPA
construction projects pictured here the federal government expanded its
reach into areas that had been primarily the responsibility of state and local
governments now here is a explanation of picket-fence federalism as you can see
your pickets are you’re different different planks different policy areas
agriculture environment highways housing education medical care and tax policy
and then across those pickets goes the national government the state government
and the local government who may or may not have to work together they each have
different responsibilities and they have to work hopefully together cooperatively
in order to have picket fence federalism advocates for smaller government often
make the argument that spending in Washington is out of control and that
state and local governments should have more power what do the numbers say here?
what are the trends in state and local spending as a share of the total economy?
compared to federal spending as you can see state and local spending still while
it’s going up it goes up along with federal spending and grants have been
going up as a proportion of state and local spending as well so categorical
grants are grants of money to States with strings attached what I like to
call the carrot and the stick block grants are money to States over
which states have more discretion so if you’re the federal government you like
categorical grants if you are the states you like block grants in any way in any
in any perspective grants since 1947 have increased state and local spending
has increased federal spending has increased in American politics we trend
we tend to reinforce our desire for a strong national government crisis and
war after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 Americans expected the
national government to improve national security when states violate the civil
rights of their residents the national government offers steps in to guarantee
equal treatment of citizens so there’s a need for strong government with regard
to crisis and war and with regard to responding to the violation of civil
rights course of federalism is a way of pre-empting state power in the past 20
years the states have become more active in policy innovation trusts in state
governments is often higher than trust in national government and states have
passed a number of policies that are more progressive than the national
government this includes policies on fighting pollution through stricter
emission standards and renewable energy grants in California extending state
benefits to children of illegal immigrants in some states; other states
have passed more conservative policies in the
government such as Arizona’s immigration policy or Kansas’s voter ID laws and
Texas’s voter ID laws for that matter which require proof of citizenship to
register to vote competitive federalism is competition
among the states to provide for the best policies to attract business some call
this a race to the top some call this a race to the bottom
competitive federalism can be a good thing as it allows people to what they
call vote with their feet but critics have also said that it can lead to a
race to the bottom whereby States compete in unhealthy ways
to lead to social ills the Lopez decision struck down the 1990
gun-free school zones Act ruling that Congress did not have the power to
forbid people to carry guns near schools after the shooting of 12 students and
one teacher at Columbine High School in Jefferson County Colorado on April 20th
1999 there were renewed calls nationwide for strengthening gun laws aside for the
interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause grassroots
advocates are using the grassroots advocates are using to defend laws
protecting gun owners and pot smokers other strategies are being used to shift
federalism toward states rights in several cases the Supreme Court has
ruled that states could not be sued even if they violate anti-discrimination laws
because of the 11th amendment the 14th amendment was supposed to let the
federal government address potentially discriminatory state laws however in
recent cases the Supreme Court has also created a new higher standard requiring
required to justify remedial legislation remedial legislation means national laws
that address discriminatory state laws the Commerce Clause is often used
in conjunction with the Elastic Clause to allow the federal government to create
legislation and or intercede with state laws and excessive goals littering
enumerated powers spending per person varies dramatically state what are
some of the advantages and disadvantages of living in a low spending state or in
a high spending state well you got to consider that high spending states are
generally going to unless they are getting their money from the federal
government which would be income taxes they’re going to have heavy taxes so
that’s a that’s a trade-off Texas is a relatively low spending state per capita
in comparison to other states New Mexico while it has a smaller population you go
high spending state California is a
relatively high spending state Florida is a very low spending state you can see
it in the blue there Oregon is a relatively low spending state I’m sorry
high spending state whereas New Hampshire is a relatively low spending
state rather than being either purely good or bad federalism and state powers
have different trade-offs consider the policy innovation of public smoking bans
medical marijuana seatbelt laws or mail-in ballots all of which have
emerged as state policies what are the benefits of allowing States to become
laboratories of democracy is there a way to encourage this policy innovation
while preventing States from violating the rights of other citizens leading to
what we call a race to the bottom well here are the benefits the benefits are
more policy innovation more policy responsiveness more pathways to
responsiveness and checks on national tyranny the costs are unequal resource
distribution unequal civil rights protections and the ultimate race to the
bottom now let’s look at our how it works for this particular chapter
layer-cake federalism meant no interaction between or little
interaction between the levels of government national government on one
layer state on another layer local on another heir and remember local power
comes from the state power anyway marble cake federalism mixes state local and
national power together and we started to see that from 1937 and it requires
interaction and cooperation between the levels of government picket-fence
federalism is historical the horizontal boards representing different levels of
government and thickets that are the policy areas within each coordination
happening across those levels like agriculture environment iwase housing
education medical Aaron tax policy so what you see is
departments for each of these at the state and national levels
now coercive federalism going from the 1970s till today since that the national
government uses regulations mandates and conditions to pressure states to fall
into line by national policy go and it requires the use basically of the purse
withholding money to those states that don’t do what the federal government
wants them to and giving money to states that that abide by federal policy here’s
your layer cake federalism national level on one state level and another
local on another note or little interaction between them here’s marble cake federalism heavy
levels of interaction between the levels of government they’re common and they’re
everything’s mixed up into a marble cake so instead of having chocolate vanilla
and strawberry in layers you mix it all together take it since federalism
horizontal boards represent different levels of government pickets or policy
areas within each Court which coordination happens across those levels
so you pickets are agriculture environment highways housing education
medical care Tax Policy and so forth you can have a variety of these pickets and
then your posts are at the national level state level and local level so
there’s a lot of interaction coercive federalism is the use of regulations at
the national level to withhold money or grant money to state in order to get
them to do what the federal goals are for policy now let’s look at who carries out
environmental policy at the national level it’s the Environmental Protection
Agency the Department of the Interior in the Department of Energy at the state
level it’s the State Department of Natural Resources State Park Service’s
state environmental protection agencies each state has these agencies at the
local level it could be city parks city and county oversight boards for land use
policy and Zoning our city has a group of people that go around in trucks that
are environmental services that are looking to make sure that grass is mowed
and and trashes and on out on the streets and so forth and so on in short federal government imposes new
rules on states and local governments and provides incentives to follow those
new rules and goals goals such as increased energy efficiency and
independence can be motivated either by I’m going to write with my mouse here to
care it or the state the stick is withholding money the
carrot is granting money either way the policy is to get for instance wind farms
to be to to expand within a state now let’s look at a case called Gonzalez V
rake in gun violence allas V rage of nut of 2005 ms rake was growing marijuana
for medicinal purposes which was a totally legal in the state of California
as long as you had a medical marijuana card the marihuana she grew was for
personal use but federal agencies burned all of her weed ms Reich thought that
that was was what what the federal government doing was illegal so she took
it to court is she right well let’s see what the
court said the court found in favor of the federal government citing the need
to control the manufacture and distribution of class 1 narcotics which
marijuana is considered to be the supreme court found against angel right
and her that in favor of the federal government’s power to regulate in seized
marijuana even if it was legal in the state of California
now you may agree or disagree with this we’ve seen a lot of states put in
medical medicinal marijuana laws and even recreational marijuana laws but
you’ve got to remember that those laws are only good as long as the federal
government doesn’t decide to step in and enforce its laws this would be the DEA
seizing marijuana plants from a medicinal marijuana lab a medicinal
marijuana pharmacy they seize the plants and burn them they can do it because
even if the state law says it’s legal federal law says it’s illegal now in
hurricane sandy the relationship between the national government and the states
also involves cooperation after unprecedented flash flooding devastated
South Carolina in October of 2015 FEMA partnered with state officials to
provide relief at outposts like this one and so we learned for Hurricane sandy we
learned from Hurricane Katrina that FEMA has to step in and help that we look to
the federal government in times like that to assist the states in the debate
over health care reform and the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare
supporters of nationalized health care have argued that the federal government
could do a better job than in the past work of state policies that have
happened over the years to ensure that all Americans receive sufficient care one of the strengths of federalism is
that it allows regional diversity to flourish the Green Bay Packers fans
proudly wear their Chiefs had hats at Lambeau Field showing that what passes
for normal behavior in one part of the country would be viewed very differently
at another I don’t know if fell in El Paso at UTEP you would go at your UTEP
game and wear your Chiefs hat hat the Americans with Disability Act of 1990
requires the public accommodations and commercial facilities be accessible the
recent Supreme Court rulings have held the law does not apply to most state and
local government buildings here activists for the disabled community are
shown in front of the White House lobbying for stronger legislation with the No Child Left Behind Act the
Bush administration increased a national government’s power over education this
law was replaced by the every student succeed as act in 2015 which provides
more flexibility to States to meet the needs of their students but it still
requires testing and meeting goals all right so now let’s look at national and
state responsibilities the national government empowers again as I stated
before are to prevent to print money regulate interstate commerce and
international trade make treaties and conduct foreign policy to declare war to
provide an army and a navy to establish post offices to make laws necessary and
proper to carry out those powers state governmental powers are to issue
licenses to regulate interstate that the businesses within the state to conduct
elections to establish local governments to ratify amendments to the Constitution
to promote public health and safety and they may exert powers that the
Constitution does not delegate to the national government nor does it prohibit
to the states for using those are state powers concurrent powers are things like
collecting taxes building roads borrowing money establishing courts
making an enforcing laws chartering banks and corporations and spending
money for the general welfare taking private property for public purposes
with just compensation the fifth amendment powers denied the national
government the national government it may not violate the Bill of Rights may
not impose export taxes among states may not use money from the Treasury without
an appropriation from Congress may not change state boundaries powers denied to
the state governments they may not enter into treaties with other countries they
may not print money they may not tax imports or exports they may not
interfere with contracts and they may not suspend a person’s rights without
due process that’s Fourteenth Amendment let’s look
at some landmark Supreme Court cases on the issues of federalism
children versus Georgia in 1793 held the citizens of one state could sue could
sue another and led to the 11th amendment which prohibited such lawsuits
and that give the state gave the states less power McCulloch versus Maryland in
1819 upheld the national government’s right to create a bank and reaffirm the
idea of national supremacy which again lessens state power Gibbons versus Ogden
in 1824 held that Congress rather than the states has the power to regulate
interstate commerce that again Western state power
Baron versus Baltimore 1833 endorsed the notion of dual federalism in which the
rights of a US citizen under the Bill of Rights did not apply to that of the same
person under state law that increases state power Dred Scott vs. Sanford in
1857 sided with southern states view that slaves were property and ruled that
the Missouri Compromise violated the Fifth Amendment because making slavery
illegal in some states deprives slave owners of property which contributed to
the start of the Civil War it gave the states more power this is the one that
said a slave had to be returned to the state from which they came National
Labor Relations Board vs. Jones & Laughlin steel corporation in 1937 this
is more obscure case opponets National Labor Relations Act of 1935 as
consistent with Commerce Congress Commerce Clause reversing the courts
more narrow interpretation of that clause which makes less state power so
as you can see the federal government has one out of the six cases here four
of them now let’s look at recent Supreme Court
cases Gregory vs. Ashcroft in 1991 the
Missouri Constitution’s requirement that state judges retired by age 70 did not
violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act gives more state power
the United States versus Lopez in 1995 which I already mentioned carrying a gun
in schools did not fall within Interstate Commerce
thus Congress could not prohibit the possession of guns on school property
nor state power Seminole Tribe versus Florida in 1996 the court used the
Eleventh Amendment to strengthen state sovereign immunity ruling the Congress
could not compel a state to negotiate with Indian tribes about gaming and
casinos more state power City of Boerne versus Florida 1997 the court struck
down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as an overly broad attempt to
curtail the state-sponsored harassed harassment of religion saying that
national legislation aimed at remedying States discrimination must be congruent
and proportional to the harm again more state power United States versus Morris
in 2000 the court struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act saying
that Congress did not have the power under the Commerce Clause to provide a
national pardon me a national remedy for gender-based
crimes lost my place Alabama versus Garrett the Court struck down the
proportion of the ADEA or Americans with Disabilities Act then applied to the
state saying that the state governments are not required to make special
accommodations for the disabled more state power the Nevada Department of
Human Resources versus Hibbs 2003 the court upheld Congress’s power to apply
the 1993 Family Leave Act to state employees as appropriate legislation
under Section 5 of the fourth and Fourteenth Amendment less state power
United States versus bond in 2011 the court upheld an individual’s right to
challenge the constitutionality of a federal law under the Tenth Amendment
more state power National Federation of Independent businesses versus Sebelius
the court upheld most provisions of the ACA struck down the expansion of
Medicaid as an unconstitutional use of course of federalism said that the
states could voluntarily take the additional funding to cover the
expansion but that would not but they could not lose existing funds if they
opted out and that’s mixed in the direction of the decision Texas opted
out of expanding Medicaid the United States versus Windsor the court held
that section 3 of the DOMA the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional
because it denied federal benefits to same-sex couples who were legally
married under state laws more state power shelby county versus holder the
Strela the court struck down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act in the ground
on the grounds that it violated the equal sovereignty of the states more
state power so here as you can see the trend in the past twenty years or so has
been giving more power to the states less power to the federal government
whereas prior to that the trend was giving more power to the federal
government less power to the states and that ends our lecture for this chapter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *