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 FED
BLOCK 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