FEDERALISM

Love it? Hate it? It depends

• Definition: Power split between central government and the states

This balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance.  It forms a double security to the people.  If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.  Indeed, they will both be prevented from over passing their constitutional limits, by certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them." –A. Hamilton

• Other forms:

• 1. unitary- strong central government, weak states

• 2. Confederation- Weak central gov’t, strong states. Where was that attempted?

The Good the Bad and the Ugly

GOOD

• Virtue lies in its ability to develop maintain mechanisms vital to the unique combination of gov’t strength political flexibility and liberty- D. Elezar

BAD

“Parasitic”, “poisonous” – Harold Laski

THE UGLY

“Main effect” since the Civil war has been to perpetuate racism- William Riker

So, which is it?

Could it be both?

Unitary system would not be able to block a nuclear power plant in your background ( no local power) BUT

It also could block anti-civil rights legislation locally (Those dang local factions!)

• BUT under a federal system you would have local representation to fight the nuclear power plant AND the federal government would have the power to overwhelm the local factions that are thwarting civil rights. It’s perfect and as Mr Hankey would say, makes you “smell like flowers”

1. People closer to representatives, can affect change

2. It allows for unity without conformity

3. Promotes experimentation- States are great “laboratories” for experimentation -SC justice Louis Brandeis

- Ga 1st to allow 18 yr old vote, Wisc 1st to put welfare recipients to work

“I’ll have the combo”

Federalism is like the Big Mac meal, you get it all in one:

Local authority for local issues, national authority for national and international issues.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATES AND FEDBLOCK GRANTS/CATEGORICAL

GRANTS/MANDATES• BLOCK GRANT- Federal grant to states for

broad areas - ex.criminal justice or mental health EX. Federal Emergency Relief Act (1933)/Community Development Block Grant (Nixon)/Aid to families with dependent Children becomes Temp Assistance to Needy families (1996)

• NO TRUE BLOCK GRANTS AS CROSS CUTTING REQUIREMENTS THWART THE WILL OF THE STATES. EX. TITLE VI OF 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BARS DISCRIMINATION IN USE OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS

• CATEGORICAL GRANTS- Money given to the states with strings attached and often for specific purposes. EX. Direct cash for a specific program like HEAD START or payments for Grants in Kind, like money for school lunches.

• IN 200O THERE WERE APPROX. 750 CATEGORICAL GRANTS IN AID

• MANDATES/ PREEMPTIONS- $54,000,000,000 cost to states from 1994-1998. They can be any type of grant, but they may be only partially funded or totally unfunded.

• SUPREMACY CLAUSE IN CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THE FEDS TO PREEMPT STATE STATUTE IF IT IS WITH REGARD TO A CONCURRENT POWER. THUS THE TERM “MANDATE

PRES BUSH AND GOP CONGRESS, PROPONENTS OF “STATES RIGHTS” PREEMPTED STATES RIGHTS 57 TIMES –

CONGRESSMAN HENRY WAXMAN. -PASSED LAWS LIMITING THE STATES RIGHT

TO, DECIDE LAND USAGE, REGULATE AIR POLLUTION, ISSUE DRIVER’S LICENSES AND DECIDE ISSUES LIKE SCHOOL PRAYER, GUN CONTROL AND THE RIGHT TO DIE.

Other federal controls

• JUDICIAL DECREE

Brown v The Board- courts begin to tell states what to do. Desegregate schools, provide appropriate prison conditions etc.

LEGISLATIVE REGULATION

• EX. Garcia v San Antonio Transit- Ruled federal fair standards act applied to treatment of state employees. Bummer. What states do with their own employees now dictated by fed

• STATES NOW SUBORDINATE ( THE FEDERALIST VISION)

• MADISON- STATES SHOULD BE RETAINED, THEY WILL BE “SUBORDINATELY USEFUL”.

OBAMA’S FEDERALISM

- BASED ON MUSLIM LAW- STATES HAVE NO RIGHTS

KIDDING…REALLY

• HE REALLY IS A U.S. CITIZEN. HERE’S THE PROOF:

• OBAMA FEDERALISM:• STATES HAVE POWERS BUT BASED

ON FEDERAL POLICY. IF THEY DON’T ACT FEDS WILL

• IN SOME CASES LOCALS CAN CIRCUMVENT STATES AND DEAL DIRECT WITH FEDS (EX. RACE TO THE TOP) CALLED SUBDIVIDED FEDERLISM

Federalism in the Obama Administration

• Fed under Obama has been deeply engaged with states, perhaps more so than any time since the 1960s.

• Sometimes it offers states more funding and flexibility; sometimes it seeks to constrain, guide, or direct state policy and budget decisions —generally in service of its views of what domestic policies ought to be.

•

More Obama

• This effort to impose central control is nothing new: GWB Administration did much the same, and few recent presidents have treated federalism as something of independent value or an important constraint on their actions.

And More

• What is striking in the Obama Administration is the range of methods and the intensity of its efforts to influence state policies, budgets, and administration.

• Why? Federal officials have little choice:• They want to shape U.S. domestic

policies and their performance• And, for the most part, it’s the states they

oversee, that do U.S. domestic policy.

Consequently

So consequently