The Founding Fathers worked to create a political system that was halfway between the failed confederation of the Articles of Confederation and the.

FEDERALISM

In this PowerPoint, we will cover The Roots of the Federal System; The Powers of Government in the

Federal System; The Evolution and Development of Federalism; Federalism and the Supreme Court.

The Roots of the Federal System

The Founding Fathers worked to create a political system that was halfway between the failed confederation of the Articles of Confederation and the tyrannical unitary system of Great Britain. The three major arguments for federalism are the prevention of Tyranny; the provision for increased participation in politics; and the use of the states as testing grounds for new policies and programs.

Federalism Defined:

Federalism is a political system in which power is divided and shared between the national/central government and the states (regional units) in order to limit the power of government.

The distribution of powers in the federal system consists of several parts: exclusive powers; shared powers (conjoint powers); denied powers; enumerated powers (Article I, sec.8); and implied powers (elastic clause)

Article I, Section 8

This article defines the three types of power held by the federal government.

Enumerated Powers:

Those specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the enumerated powers of the central government include the power to lay and collect taxes; provide for the national defense and make regulations for the military; regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes; coin money and regulate the value thereof; declare war; establish political offices; issue copyrights and patents. The powers of each branch of government are defined. For example, expressed powers of the Legislative Branch are found in Article 1.

Implied Powers

The central government may make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers. The necessary and proper clause has often been used to expand the powers of the national government (elastic clause). This clause allows Congress to make any law necessary and proper to exercise its powers.

Inherent Powers:

Powers naturally belonging to the federal governments of sovereign countries.

State Powers

Most State Powers come from the 10th _Amendment that says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." These are often referred to as Reserve or police powers (affecting health, safety, and morals).

Shared powers

such as the right to tax, borrow money, establish courts, and make and enforce laws are powers states share with national government.

Denied Powers

Article I, section 9 lays out powers denied to the central government. For example: give preference to ports of one state over another

Article I, section 10 lays out the powers denied to the states. For example: enter into treaties, alliances, or confederations

Ex-post facto laws (laws making an action illegal and enforced AFTER the action has taken place) are denied to both the federal and the state

Relations among the States

The Framers wanted a single country, not 13 squabbling semi-countries. Article IV requires states to give “full faith and credit” to each others’ laws and legal proceedings. States are also required to extradite criminals if asked by another state. States recognize drivers’ and marriage licenses, custody rulings, etc. The constitution specifies that state’s citizens are entitled to the rights and immunities of citizens in other states.

The Evolution and Development of Federalism

The allocation of powers in our federal system has changed dramatically over the years. The Supreme Court in its role as interpreter of constitution has been a major player in the redefinition of our Federal system. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); Gibbons v. Ogden (1824); Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857);

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

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 government to establish a national bank and denied the right of a state to tax the 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.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The Gibbons case centered on the conflict between the states and the powers of Congress. Could New York grant a monopoly concession on the navigation of the Hudson River? The Hudson River forms part of the border between New York and New Jersey and the U.S. Congress 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 (Article I, sec. 8: “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.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The Supreme Court articulated the idea of dual federalism in which separate but equally powerful levels of government is preferable, and the national government should not exceed its enumerated powers. The Taney Court held that Mr. Scott was not a U.S. citizen and therefore not entitled to sue in federal court. The case was dismissed and Scott remained a slave. Chief Justice Roger Taney further wrote that Congress had no power to abolish slavery in the territories and slaves were private property protected by the Constitution. MO Compromise was Unconstitutional.

The Civil War and Beyond

Dual Federalism remained the Supreme Court's framework for federalism and the prevailing notion in the Reconstruction and Progressive Eras. Dual federalism finally ended in the 1930s, when the crisis of the Great Depression demanded powerful actions from the national government.

Cooperative Federalism1930’s-50’s

Prior to the 1930s, many scholars used the analogy of a layer cake to describe federalism. Each layer had clearly defined powers and responsibilities. By the New Deal, the analogy of a “marble cake” seemed more appropriate because the lines of authority were much more mixed. National government becomes major player in state and local policy. There is major shift in money from federal government to state/local governments. Marble cake federalism is often called cooperative federalism and has a much more powerful national government. States have a cooperative role, as did cities. Federal monies flooded states for public works projects, work programs, relief agencies (alpabetocracy).

Federal Grant-in-Aid Outlays, 1940-2005

Federal grants that offer money or other resources to pay for state or local activities

Creative (Regulated) Federalism 1960’s-70’s

Increase in Federal Grants: allocation of federal money to the states for a specific purpose (e.g., poverty programs, welfare, environment). Federal leadership saw these grants as a way to compel individual states to behave in ways desired by the national government. If the states refused to cooperate with the federal government, it would withhold funds (e.g., interstate highway funds & speed limit)

New Federalism: Reagan Revolution 1980’s-90’s

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. His idea was that federal government had gotten to big. States should have more responsibility and autonomy.

Issues during 1980’s-90’s

Revenue sharing & matching funds; block grants: monies allocated to states for broad purpose, such as education or poverty, with few regulations on administering funds; Unfunded mandates: laws that direct states & localities to pass laws with federal regulations, e.g., clean air laws & public access for disabled; State budgetary constraints: recession, constitutional requirement for balanced budget; Intergovernmental lobby groups: NGA, USCM

The Devolution Revolution

Devolution = delegation of power & responsibility Clinton Era reaction to growth in power of the

national government due to Republican majority in both houses of Congress. President Clinton: responsibility to administer federal programs as chief executive

Goal: roll back scope of federal government and give back of control to the states

Contract with America: shift responsibilities to states; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Gore’s Presidential Task Force on Reinventing Government - traditional Republican issue

Federalism and the Supreme Court

Poll after poll showed that Americans began to think that the national government was too big, too strong, and too distant to understand their concerns. Under Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court once again, played a role in interpreting this new form of federalism. Cases involving abortion, gun control, environment, use of commerce clause, right to sue.

Supreme Court

Reinterpreting Federalism Generally handing back power to the states;

Majority pro-states’ rights; 5-4 decisions; Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992): states can limit abortion laws; U.S. v. Lopez (1995): federal law cannot regulate guns within 1000 of a school BUT

Bush v. Gore (2000): upheld deadline for selection of electors; struck down FL SC

Summary – Key Points to Remember

Federalism is an important concept of the American system of government meant to increase the power of the national government.

The notion of Federalism has changed drastically since the Depression in the 1930’s.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s the scope of federal domestic policies and programs increased steadily.

In the 1980’s Reagan began a decrease of federal funding for programs and funding to states.

In the mid-1990’s Republican Congress promised to reduce the size of the national government and “return power to the states.”