Think of federalism as a swing:
It goes back and forth, with states
having more power sometimes and
the federal government with more
power at other times.
#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 =
marble cake
federalism.
Federal
government,
states, & 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.
• Next: work on
Vocab on page 9
Creative (Regulated)
Federalism; 1960s-70s:
• General Revenue Sharing (states can
choose where to spend)
• and Block Grants (money for specific
things) where general, broad funds that
gave states money for their needs (i.e.
education, transportation, urban
development, etc.)
Vietnam & Cold War
• 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.