Chapter 4 Review Sheet
Matching Items
article VI – supremacy clause
reserved powers
implied powers
article I section 8 clause 18
necessary and proper clause
delegated powers
expressed powers
inherent powers
16th amendment
Article IV
Cooperative federalism
federalism
amendment 10
categorical grants
block grants
revenue sharing
article V
social and economic issues
dual federalism
LuLu Payments
Multiple Choice Questions
enabling act
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Necessary and Proper Clause
Interstate Compacts Clause
Priveleges and Immunities Clause
Extradition
Devolution
McCulloch v. Maryland – the Supreme Court ruled on what basis?
Advantages of the revenue sharing over the federal grants in aid programs?
Constitution requires the National Government to guarantee what to the states?
Percentage of Federal money that make up State and Local government spending each year?
The power of the Federal Government to make grants-in-aid can be traced to which expressed power?
The Three Videos we watched: Fill in the blank questions
1. Federal Wolves at the Door
This story highlights the federal Endangered Species Act, passed by Congress in 1973, which imposes federal mandates on
states to protect animal species that are deemed in danger of becoming extinct. In this story, the state of Idaho is grappling
with a federal mandate that says wolves, an endangered species, must be reintroduced into the state and managed by state
authorities. In the end, despite protests from many Idahoans, the Idaho government realized it must comply with the
national government's mandate
2. Using Federal Dollars To "Buy" Interstate Highway Safety
The federal government sometimes uses grants-in-aid programs to expand into policy areas that are traditionally (and
constitutionally) controlled by the states or local authorities. This story involves federal efforts to impose a national drunk
driving standard, as measured by a .08 blood alcohol level, at the urging of national groups including Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD). In the 1980s, states were put under pressure to adopt the national standard or risk losing millions in
federal highway funds. South Carolina, a state with a long tradition of resistance to federal encroachments on its authority,
has yet to adopt the national standard for its citizens. The story closes in 2002, when the .08 bill died in the South Carolina
State Legislature. As a result of the committee's action, the state has kept its constitutional authority to set its own
standards, but it risked losing 64 million dollars in federal highway funds if it failed to adopt the national standard by 2007.
When Welfare Depends on Where You Live
This story explores one example of "devolution," a process where the national government reduces its authority over some
issues and shifts power to the states. In 1996, President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill that provided federal funds to
the states in the form of block grants, but allowed states to set their own welfare policies. Supporters of the bill, officially
entitled The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, hailed it as a way to allow states to
determine for themselves how they should assist their citizens, while critics charged that some states were unwilling to or
incapable of providing sufficient help to the people who need it most. In the first five years after the law was enacted, over
one million people, mostly women, went off welfare, while welfare rolls dropped by more than 50 percent nationwide.
However, the aggregate statistics don't reflect significant differences among states in how they have run their welfare
programs and in how successful they are. For example, some states have reduced their welfare rolls by 90 percent, while
others saw much smaller reductions.