Download - FEDERALISM
FEDERALISM
The Federalism Debate
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty: state & national
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in Context
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
Ultimate authority (sovereignty) rests in central government.
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
B. Why not a confederate system?
Ultimate authority (sovereignty) rests in state governments.
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
B. Why not a confederate system?
C. US chose a Federal system
Ultimate authority (sovereignty) is divided between central governments and states.
Federalism
Decentralized Authority
Centralized Authority
Confederate Government
Unitary Government
US Federal Government
United States of Germany - Federal
United States of Mexico - Federal
Federalism
Decentralized Authority
Centralized Authority
Confederate Government
Unitary Government
US Federal Government
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Republic of Mexico
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
B. Why not a confederate system?
C. US chose a Federal system
D. Essential to foundation
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
B. Why not a confederate system?
C. US chose a Federal system
D. Essential to foundation1) Needed for ratification
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
B. Why not a confederate system?
C. US chose a Federal system
D. Essential to foundation1) Needed for ratification
2) Orderly entry of new territories
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in ContextA. Why not a unitary system?
B. Why not a confederate system?
C. US chose a Federal system
D. Essential to foundation1) Needed for ratification
2) Orderly entry of new territories
3) Preserves local culture/economy
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in Context
III. Federalism & Ratification: The 10th Amend
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in Context
III. Federalism & Ratification: The 10th AmendA. Federalist concerns? Anti-Federalist concerns?
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in Context
III. Federalism & Ratification: The 10th AmendA. Federalist concerns? Anti-Federalist concerns?
B. Constitution was a compromise:
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in Context
III. Federalism & Ratification: The 10th AmendA. Federalist concerns? Anti-Federalist concerns?
B. Constitution was a compromise:1) Addressed some Ant-Federalist (DRs) concerns
The Federalism Debate
I. A division of sovereignty
II. Federalism in Context
III. Federalism & Ratification: The 10th AmendA. Federalist concerns? Anti-Federalist concerns?
B. Constitution was a compromise:1) Addressed some Ant-Federalist (DRs) concerns
2) Addressed some Federalist concerns
2. Evolution of the Debate
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
Federalism
Decentralized Authority
Centralized Authority
Confederate Government
Unitary Government
US Federal Government
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Republic of Mexico
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”A. Which level has authority on which issues?
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”A. Which level has authority on which issues?
B. What’s the driving force of this inability to permanently define federalism
• (meaning the exact roles of states and central government)
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to Supreme Court for meaning – Judicial Review
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to the SC for meaning
III. “Dual” sovereignty I (1798-1865)
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to the SC for meaning
III. “Dual” sovereignty I (1798-1865)A. “nullification”
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to the SC for meaning
III. “Dual” sovereignty I (1798-1865)A. “nullification”
1) McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to the SC for meaning
III. “Dual” sovereignty I (1798-1865)A. “nullification”
1) McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
2) 1832, tariffs - nullification issue resurfaces
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to the SC for meaning
III. “Dual” sovereignty I (1798-1865)A. “nullification”
1) McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
2) 1832, tariffs - nullification issue resurfaces
3) 1860, slavery – nullification issue resurfaces
The people of the State of South Carolina declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution by the Federal Government, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other States, she declined at that time [1832] to exercise this right. Since that time, these violations of the reserved rights of States have continued to increase.
Therefore, we, the People of South Carolina, declare that the Union between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. Adopted December 24, 1860
2. Evolution of the Debate
I. Fluid meaning of “federalism”
II. Turning to the SC for meaning
III. “Dual” sovereignty I (1798-1865)A. “nullification”
1) McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
2) 1832, tariffs - nullification issue resurfaces
3) 1860, slavery – nullification issue resurfaces
4) Civil War – “nullification” is dead; dual sovereignty lives
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)• SC would defend states powers on issues
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)• SC would defend states powers (Table 3.1) on
issues• 1930s things change
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)• SC would defend states powers (Table 3.1) on
issues• 1930s things change
1) Supreme Court expands national power through
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)• SC would defend states powers (Table 3.1) on
issues• 1930s things change
1) Supreme Court expands national power througha) Commerce Clause
b) Necessary & Proper Clause
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)• SC would defend states powers (Table 3.1) on
issues• 1930s things change• 1990s – SC begins to reconsider
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)A. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)A. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
1) 1932, the “New Deal” and growing Fed gov
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)A. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
1) 1932, the “New Deal” and growing Fed gov
2) SC rules against FDR & New Deal
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)A. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
1) 1932, the “New Deal” and growing Fed gov
2) SC rules against FDR & New Deal
3) FDR retaliates, SC submits
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)A. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
1) 1932, the “New Deal” and growing Fed gov
2) SC rules against FDR & New Deal
3) FDR retaliates, SC submits
4) 1995, SC begins to defend federalism again
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)
II. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
III. “Necessary & Proper”
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)
II. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
III. “Necessary & Proper”A. Expands Federal scope at state expense
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)
II. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
III. “Necessary & Proper”A. Expands Federal scope at state expense
B. 1990s, SC pushes back
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)
II. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
III. “Necessary & Proper”
IV. State sovereign immunity – 11th amendment
3. The Supreme Court & Dual Sovereignty
I. “Dual” Sovereignty II (1872 -1932)
II. Commerce Clause & Court Packing
III. “Necessary & Proper”
IV. State sovereign immunity – 11th amendmentA. Restricts feds, protects states
4. Cooperative Federalism
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960s
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause1) General vs specific welfare
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause1) General vs specific welfare
2) New Deal Supreme Court expands fed power
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause1) General vs specific welfare
2) New Deal Supreme Court expands fed powera) “Congress decides what’s ‘general welfare’”
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause1) General vs specific welfare
2) New Deal Supreme Court expands fed powera) “Congress decides what’s ‘general welfare’”
b) Congress could attach any “reasonable” regulation
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions1) All levels government DO work together
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions1) All levels government DO work together
2) All levels SHOULD work together because…
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions1) All levels government DO work together
2) All levels SHOULD work together because…• It’s democratic!
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions
D. 1964 – LBJ’s “Great Society” (like FDRs “New Deal”)
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions
D. 1964 – LBJ’s “Great Society” (like FDRs “New Deal”)
1) Intergovernmental grants
4. Cooperative Federalism
I. “Cooperative” Federalism: 1930s-1960sA. vs. dual federalism
B. Spending clause
C. A Government of Shared Functions
D. 1964 – LBJ’s “Great Society” (like FDRs “New Deal”)
1) Intergovernmental grants
2) “pork-barrel” or “earmarks”
5. Local Government
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
5. Local Government
I. Local GovernmentA. Services more related to citizens
5. Local Government
I. Local GovernmentA. Services more related to citizens
B. More stable expenditure (fig 3.4)
5. Local Government
I. Local GovernmentA. Services more related to citizens
B. More stable expenditure (fig 3.4)
C. History
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
III. Popularity of local government
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
III. Popularity of local governmentA. Citizens can exit local government (“vote with
feet”) – drives down tax base until local changes its ways
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
III. Popularity of local governmentA. Citizens can exit local government (“vote with
feet”) – drives down tax base until local changes its ways
B. Super tax bases can allow some cities to establish programs than others can’t afford economically or politically
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
III. Popularity of local government
IV. Limits on local government
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
III. Popularity of local government
IV. Limits on local governmentA. Too much assistance overwhelms assistance;
creates “need” (moral hazard)
5. Local Government
I. Local Government
II. Number/Type (figure 3.5) – why?
III. Popularity of local government
IV. Limits on local governmentA. Too much assistance overwhelms assistance
B. Competition among localities
So where is federalism today?
States or National government?
So where is federalism today?
States or National government?
Republicans and Democrats flip-flop according to issue
So where is federalism today?
States or National government?
Republicans and Democrats flip-flop according to issue
On gay marriage, assisted suicide, medical drug use:
So where is federalism today?
States or National government?
Republicans and Democrats flip-flop according to issue
On gay marriage, assisted suicide, medical drug use:
Republicans look to federal; democrats look to states
So where is federalism today?
States or National government?
Republicans and Democrats flip-flop according to issue
On gay marriage, assisted suicide, medical drug use:
Republicans look to federal; democrats look to states
On health care, gun control, and welfare:
So where is federalism today?
States or National government?
Republicans and Democrats flip-flop according to issue
On gay marriage, assisted suicide, medical drug use:
Republicans look to federal; democrats look to states
On health care, gun control, and welfare:
Republicans look to state, democrats look at federal