#3: The Evolution & Development of Federalism
•The allocation, or division, of powers in our
federal system has changed dramatically over
the years.
•The Supreme Court, in its role as interpreter of
the Constitution, has been a major player in the
redefinition of the federal system.
•Some early cases that addressed federalism
include:
•McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
•Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
•Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
• McCulloch was the first major decision by the
Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall
about the relationship between the states and the
national government.
• The Court upheld the power of the national gov’t.
to establish a national bank and declined the right
of a state to tax the national bank. “The power to
tax is the power to destroy.”
• The Court’s broad interpretation of the necessary
and proper clause paved the way for later rulings
upholding expansive federal powers.
• The Gibbons case also focused on the
relationship between the states and the
powers of Congress.
• Could New York grant a license of navigation
to a company on the Hudson River?
• The Hudson River forms part of the border
between New York and New Jersey.
• U.S. Congress had also licensed a ship to sail
the Hudson.
• The main constitutional question in Gibbons
was about the scope of Congress’ authority
under the commerce clause
• Commerce Clause:
Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3
“to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, and among the several
states, and with the Indian tribes.”
• In Gibbons, the Court upheld broad congressional
power over interstate commerce, giving ultimate
authority to grant an operational license to
Congress.
• Dred Scott v. Sandford: SCOTUS favored the idea
dual federalism in which separate but equally
powerful levels of government is preferable, and
the national government should not exceed its
enumerated powers.
• The Court held that Mr. Scott was not a U.S.
citizen, nor were any people of African descent,
and therefore not entitled to sue in federal court
and Scott remained a slave.
• Chief Justice Roger Taney also wrote that
Congress had no power to abolish slavery in
the territories and slaves were private
property protected by the 5th Amendment:
“…no person…shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law.”
• This was a narrow interpretation of the power
of the federal government.
– Narrow interpretations = less power for Congress
The Civil War & Beyond
• Dual federalism remained the framework for
federalism in the Reconstruction and Progressive
Eras. States actually believed they could nullify
(void) federal laws they disagreed with.
• Dual federalism finally ended in the 1930s and
cooperative federalism began when the crisis of
the Great Depression demanded powerful actions
from the federal government. The federal
government needed the states to implement
numerous New Deal policies and so the
relationship changed. States, in turn, needed
help from the federal government.
POST-FDR
• Cooperative federalism replaced the idea of dual
federalism.
• Because of the New Deal policies, the federal
government became more involved in domestic
policies and economics.
• States are required to carry out, or implement,
laws. Therefore, states rely heavily on the federal
government for money.
• Cooperative federalism is sometimes referred
to as marble cake federalism. The federal
government, states, and even cities have roles
that overlap and mix together. Grants-in-aid
money flooded states for public works
projects, work programs, relief agencies, and
entitlement programs.
• For example: social security, unemployment,
food stamps, veteran’s benefits.
Creative (Regulated) Federalism;
1960s-70s:
• General Revenue Sharing (states can choose
where to spend) and Block Grants (money for
specific things) were general, broad funds that
gave states money for their needs (i.e. education,
transportation, urban development, etc.), but the
Vietnam War and military expenses of the Cold
War, as well as social projects under LBJ caused
the government to become more strict about
how states used money. They had begin to spend
more money than they brought in (deficit
spending).
• Increase in categorical grants: allocation of
federal money to the states for a specific
purpose (i.e., aid to parents with dependent
children, airports, highways, tech in schools).
• Federal leadership saw these grants as a way
to compel, or force, individual states to
behave in ways desired by the federal
government. If the states refuse to cooperate
with the federal government, it would
withhold funds (i.e. interstate highway funds
withheld if drinking age or speed limits aren’t
enforced)
New Federalism- Reagan Revolution
1980s - Present
• Drastic cuts in federal domestic programs and
income taxes in an attempt to reestablish the
primacy of the states. For the first time in thirty
years, federal aid to state and local governments
declined. The idea was that federal government had
gotten too big. States should have more
responsibility and authority.
• Today, this trend has continued to some degree.
Formula and matching components of categorical
grants are more common and mandates, or
legislation requiring states to carry out certain
measures, are another way for the federal
government to put responsibility on the states.
DEVOLUTION
#4: Federalism & the Supreme Court
• By the early 1990s, public opinion polls reported
that Americans began to think that the national
government was too big, too strong, and too
distant to understand their concerns or meet
their needs.
• SCOTUS, once again, played a role in interpreting
the ideas surrounding freedom.
• They took more cases involving abortion, gun
control, the environment, and the use of the
Commerce Clause.
Rehnquist Court- Reinterpreting
Federalism:
• Generally handing back power to the states;
the pendulum of power swings in power of
states.
• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
(1989) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(1992): states can pass restrictive measures on
abortions.
Returning Power to the States
• U.S. v. Lopez (1995): federal government cannot
pass Gun Free Drug Free School Zone Act based
on interstate commerce clause; education and
safety laws have traditionally been left up to the
states.
• U.S. v. Morrison (2000): federal government
cannot pass Violence Against Women Act based
on interstate commerce clause; civil suits
dealing with assault have been in the states’
domain of power.
HOMEWORK:
• Complete left page Vocabulary Chart (with
pictures!)
• Complete left page on block aid grants