Figure 3.1: Lines of
Power in Three
Systems of
Government
Unitary Government
National
Government Supreme
Confederation
States Supreme
Federal Government
Shared Power-Federal
Government - Supreme
in Some Areas Only
American Federalism
– A bold, new plan to protect personal
liberty
Founders believed that neither national nor
state government would have authority
over the other because power derives from
the people, who shift their support.
New plan had no historical precedent.
Tenth Amendment was added as an
afterthought, to define the power of states
John Marshall
Chief Justice of Supreme Court
(1801-1835)
Marbury vs
Madison (1803)
Judicial Review
McCulloch vs
Maryland (1819)
“necessary and
proper clause”
Article I, Section 8
Article VI, the Supremacy
Clause
10th Amendment
Article IV
Dual federalism
Both national and state
governments supreme in their
own spheres
Hence interstate versus
intrastate commerce
– Early product-based distinction
difficult
– "Original package" also
unsatisfactory
Grants-in-aid
Grants show how political realities modify legal
authority.
Began before the Constitution with "land grant
colleges," various cash grants to states
Dramatically increased in scope in the twentieth
century
Were attractive for various reasons
–
–
–
–
Federal budget surpluses (nineteenth century)
Federal income tax became a flexible tool
Federal control of money supply meant national
government could print more money
"Free" money for state officials
Meeting national needs: 1960s shift
in grants-in-aid
– Meeting national needs:
1960s shift in grants-in-aid
From what states demanded
To what federal officials
found important as national
needs
Categorical grants versus
revenue sharing
Categorical grants for specific purposes;
often require local matching funds
Block grants devoted to general purposes
with few restrictions
Revenue sharing requires no matching
funds and provides freedom in how to
spend.
– Distributed by statistical formula
– Ended in 1986
Mandates
Most concern civil rights and
environmental protection
Administrative and financial problems
often result
Growth in mandates, 1981 to 1991
Features of mandates
– Regulatory statutes and amendments of
previous legislation
– New areas of federal involvement
– Considerable variation in clarity, administration,
and costs
Federal courts have fueled the
growth of mandates
Court orders and prisons,
school desegregation,
busing, hiring practices,
police brutality
Conditions of aid
Received by states voluntarily,
in theory
– Financial dependence blurs the
theory
– Civil rights generally the focus of
most important conditions in the
1960's, a proliferation has
continued since the 1970's
Devolution
Renewed effort to shift important functions to
states by Republican-controlled Congress in
1994
Key issue: welfare (i.e., the AFDC
program)
These and other turn-back efforts were
referred to as devolution.
Old idea, but led by Congress
Clinton agreed with need to scale
back size and activities of federal
government.
Figure 3.2: The
Changing
Purposes of
Federal Grants to
State and Local
Governments
Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1999, Table 12.2, 205-210.
Figure 3.3: Federal Aid to State and
Local Governments, 1980-2000
Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1998, Historical Tables, Table 6.1, 99.
Figure 3.5: Devolution in the Polls: The States
over Washington
For more information about this
topic, link to the Metropolitan
Community College Political
Science Web Site
http://socsci.mccneb.edu/pos/polsc
main.htm