|
|
|
Table of Contents
The Context of US Politics The US Constitution Federalism [On some of the margin notes pages you may get messages that say "This page is accessing information that is not under its control..." That's simply due to videos embedded on the page.]
The Context of US Politics
I. Government
THE POLITICAL COMPASS TEST (click on the image to take the test) Left and Right, although far from obsolete, are essentially a measure of economics and the Left-Right division between mainstream parties is increasingly blurred. Instead, party differences tend to be more about social issues. In an age of diminishing ideology, the very unique Political Compass helps a new generation in particular to get a better understanding of where they stand politically and the political company they keep. Click on the picture above and take the test to find your political ideology!
II. The Principal Purposes of GovernmentA. maintain order
B. provide public goods
C. promote equality
Citizens differ on how much they want government to maintain order, provide public goods and promote equality.
III. The Values Pursued by GovernmentA. order
B. freedom
C. equality
original dilemma of government: how much freedom to sacrifice for order modern dilemma of government: how much freedom to sacrifice for equality
IV. Political Ideology
|
|
libertarians value |
liberals value |
conservatives value |
populists value |
|
freedom over |
equality over |
order over |
equality and order over |
|
equality and order |
freedom over |
freedom over |
freedom |
|
|
order |
equality |
|
Review Values Pursued by Government above and be certain you understand what we mean by the values of order, freedom and equality -- in both a narrow sense and a broad sense. Look again at the definition of a political ideology -- a consistent set of values and beliefs about the purpose and scope of government. We can take those values pursued by government and, by ranking them based on their values to the individual, we can create four basic political ideologies as represented above. (Please note that this is NOT a definition of political parties. All four ideologies are represented to some extent in both major parties.)
This does NOT imply that conservatives don't care about equality or that liberals don't care about order. The rankings refer to the extent government should be involved in shaping society's adoption of that value. So ...
Libertarians may value equality and order as much as anyone but they do not believe government should pursue and enforce equality and order and they are not willing to give up individual freedom for either.
A libertarian may believe society would be better off without recreational drugs (order) or if there were no discrimination in the workplace (equality) and may work privately to bring those things about. However, a libertarian would never approve of government taking away individual freedom (by dictating what individuals may or may not put in their bodies or by telling employers who they may or may not hire) to force others to stop using drugs or discriminating.
Liberals may value order as much as anyone but they do not believe government should pursue and enforce order and they are not willing to give up individual freedom for order. On the other hand, liberals value equality to such an extent that they do believe government should pursue equality and are willing to give up individual freedom to increase equality as a value of society.
A liberal may believe society would be better off without recreational drugs (order) but he would never approve of government taking away individual freedom (by dictating what individuals may or may not put in their bodies) to force others to stop using drugs. However, liberals value equality so highly that they would approve of government taking away individual freedom (by telling employers who they may or may not hire) to force others to stop discriminating.
Conservatives may value equality as much as anyone but they do not believe government should pursue and enforce equality and they are not willing to give up individual freedom for equality. On the other hand, conservatives value order to such an extent that they do believe government should pursue order and are willing to give up individual freedom to increase order as a value of society.
A conservative is the opposite of a liberal. He may believe society would be better off without discrimination in the workplace (equality) but he would never approve of government taking away individual freedom (by telling employers who they may or may not hire) to force others to stop discriminating. However, conservatives value order so highly that they would approve of government taking away individual freedom (by dictating what individuals may or may not put in their bodies) to force others to stop using drugs.
In recent decades, the divides in political campaigns have raised a critical question as to whether contemporary conservative segments of the population are increasingly motivated mainly by economic anxiety or by racial anxiety. There is ample evidence that racial isolation and resentment are strongly predictive of conservative voting patterns. A Washington Post article reports that racism has motivated conservative voters more than authoritarianism.
Populists value equality and order to such an extent that they are willing to give up individual freedom to increase both equality and order as values of society.
A populist believes so strongly that there is a correct social order by which society should operate (no drugs) and that equality is such an important part of that social order (no workplace discrimination) that they believe government should pass laws to force individuals to live by those values and so are willing to give up individual freedom for both.
We seldom see populists in a party or movement that we can identify in current times. However, many crusaders - such as Ralph Nader - seem to fit the ideology very well. They are crusaders that we often confuse as liberals because they champion economic equality and the "little guy." However, if you pay attention you will see that they also have a vision of what the correct social order of society should be and are willing to use governmental power to enforce that order as well as equality.
I used recreational drugs and workplace discrimination as examples in all four ideologies above so you could make a straight comparison. Keep in mind, though, that those are only one example each of order and equality. Order, in the broader sense of social order, might include issues dealing with drugs, homosexuality, premarital sex, alcohol, cigarettes, big business, unions, air/water quality, education, child-raising, religion and so on. Equality might include issues dealing with race, ethnicity, religion, gender, income, social status, country of origin, immigration status and so on.
Democrats Helped Build The Social Safety Net. Why Are Many Now Against Expanding It?
For elites, politics is driven by ideology. For voters, it’s not.
Frontline: The Betrayal of Democracy (PBS, 1992, 1:57:58): This episode of Frontline examines the growing divide between the governed and the governing, the institutions of US democracy and how they are failing Americans, and how the breakdown of the democratic process is leading to the increasing exclusion of the citizens from government decision-making processes. [If you have trouble with the embedded video, you can usually find the episode here.]
One America is thriving; the other is stagnating. How long can this go on?
The Glaring Contradiction of Republicans’ Rhetoric of Freedom
An honest assessment of rural white resentment is long overdue.
The Constitution was rooted in revolution.
British valued order, while the colonists valued freedom.
taxation (order) without representation (freedom)
John Locke:
Government is a contract between the ruled and the rulers.
Government exists for the benefit of the people.
Government doesn't exist for the benefit of those who govern nor is it divinely given.
Rebellion is the ultimate sanction against the abuse of government power.
Thomas Jefferson:
based Declaration on social contract theory
expressed the reasons for the colonies’ act of independence
1. major premise: people have the right to revolt when they determine their government is destructive of legitimate rights
2. minor premise: list of deliberate acts committed by king offered as proof of destruction of government’s legitimate ends
3. conclusion: therefore, the people have a right to revolt
A. unitary government: national government is supreme over any other units of government
national government has supreme power (sovereignty) over all other units of government within its borders
Great Britain
B. confederation: a loose association of independent states that agree to cooperate on certain matters but each state has supreme power (sovereignty) within its borders
state governments are supreme over the national government
colonies under the Articles of Confederation, CSA
C. federation: system in which both national and state governments have their own separate spheres of influence which the other cannot infringe upon
In the US, the Constitution is the supreme power (sovereignty) and gives powers to each level of government.
The Articles of Confederation did not work.
A Constitutional Convention was called to try to come up with a new plan.
The single most important factor leading to a constitutional convention was
the inability of the national or state governments to maintain order under the Articles of Confederation.
Virginia Plan divided power among 3 branches
2-house legislature for lawmaking
1-person executive for law enforcing
judicial for law interpreting
New Jersey Plan single-chamber legislature
states would have equal representation in the legislature
multi-person executive would be elected by the legislature
Great Compromise 2-house leg with population represented in one and the states represented equally in the other
1-person executive chosen by an electoral college
A. republicanism power resides in the people and is exercised through elected reps
B. federalism division of sovereignty among two levels of government
C. separation of powers lawmaking, law enforcement and law interpretation are assigned to separate and independent branches so one branch doesn’t dominate
D. checks and balances each branch has some means of checking and controlling the others
Preamble
We the People (7 Clips)
Provide For The Common Defense (3 Clips)
To ourselves and to our Posterity (2 Clips)
Article I
Congress
enumerated powers
Sole Power of Impeachment (4 Clips)
Lay and collect Taxes (4 Clips)
implied powers: necessary and proper clause
Article II
President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President (4 Clips)
Commander in Chief (5 Clips)
Article III
Supreme Court
Vested in one supreme Court (2 Clips)
the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (3 Clips)
Treason against the United States... (1 Clip)
Article IV
state-state relations
full faith and credit
Full Faith and Credit (3 Clips)
privileges and immunities
extradition
protect state from invasion
Article V
amendment procedures
formal procedures, ex/ 26 amendments
judicial review, ex/ right to privacy
political practice, ex/ electoral college
Article VI
constitution as supreme law of land
Supreme law of the land (2 Clips)
Bound by oath (2 Clips)
Article VII
ratification process
The Constitution creates a system of separate institutions that share powers. Because the three branches of government share powers, each can (partially) check the powers of the others. This is the system of checks and balances. The major checks possessed by each branch are listed below.
A. Congress
1. Can check the president in these ways:
a. By refusing to pass a bill the president wants
b. By passing a law over the president's veto
c. By using the impeachment powers to remove the president from office
d. By refusing to approve a presidential appointment (Senate only)
e. By refusing to ratify a treaty the president has signed (Senate only)
2. Can check the federal courts in these ways:
a. By changing the number and jurisdiction of the lower courts
b. By using the impeachment powers to remove a judge from office
c. By refusing to approve a person nominated to be a judge (Senate only)
B. President
1. Can check Congress by vetoing a bill it has passed.
2. Can check the federal courts by nominating judges.
C. Courts
1. Can check Congress by declaring a law unconstitutional.
2. Can check the president by declaring actions by him or his subordinates unconstitutional or not authorized by law.
D. In addition to these checks provided for in the Constitution, each branch has informal ways of checking the others. For example, the President can withhold information from Congress (on the grounds of executive privilege) and Congress can try to get information from the President by mounting an investigation.
1600 Penn: links to the three branches of national government and to most independent agencies under the control of the president
The First Ten Amendments to the Constitution Grouped by Topic and Purpose
PROTECTIONS AFFORDED CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly, the right to petition the government
Freedom of Speech (9 Clips)
PROTECTIONS AGAINST ARBITRARY POLICE AND COURT ACTION
Amendment 4: No unreasonable searches or seizures
Amendment 5: Grand jury indictment required to prosecute a person for a serious crime
No double jeopardy -- being tried twice for the same offense
Forcing a person to testify against himself or herself is prohibited
No loss of life, liberty or property without due process
Amendment 6: Right to speedy, public, impartial trial with defense counsel and right to cross-examine witnesses
The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial (3 Clips)
Amendment 7: Jury trials in civil suits where value exceeds $20.
Amendment 8: No excessive bail or fines, no cruel and unusual punishments.
PROTECTIONS OF STATES' RIGHTS AND UNNAMED RIGHTS OF PEOPLE
Amendment 9: Unlisted rights are not necessarily denied.
Amendment 10: Powers not delegated to the United States or denied to the states are reserved to the states.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (3 Clips)
OTHER AMENDMENTS
Amendment 2: Right to bear arms.
Amendment 3: Troops may not be quartered in homes in peacetime.
Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution
Amendment 11: States are protected from suits by citizens living in another state or foreigners that do not reside within the state borders. (1795)
Amendment 12: Modifies and clarifies the procedure for electing vice-presidents and presidents. (1804)
Amendment 13: Except as punishment for criminal offense, forbids forced-slavery and involuntary servitude. (1865)
Amendment 14: Details Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, Citizenship Clause, and clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials. (1868)
Amendment 15: Reserves citizens the suffrage rights regardless of their race, color, or previous slave status. (1870)
Amendment 16: Reserves the U.S. government the right to tax income. (1913)
to lay and collect taxes on incomes (3 Clips)
Amendment 17: Establishes popular voting as the process under which senators are elected. (1913)
Amendment 18: Denies the sale and consumption of alcohol. (1919)
Amendment 19: Reserves women's suffrage rights. (1920)
Amendment 20: Also known as the "lame duck amendment," establishes date of term starts for Congress (January 3) & the President (January 20). (1933)
Amendment 21: Details the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. State laws over alcohol are to remain. (1933)
Amendment 22: Limit the terms that an individual can be elected as president (at most two terms). Individuals who have served over two years of someone else's term may not be elected more than once. (1951)
Amendment 23: Reserves the right of citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for their own Electors for presidential elections. (1961)
Amendment 24: Citizens cannot be denied the suffrage rights for not paying a poll tax or any other taxes. (1964)
Amendment 25: Establishes the procedures for a successor of a President. (1967)
Amendment 26: Reserves the right for citizens 18 and older to vote. (1971)
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote... (3 Clips)
Amendment 27: Denies any laws that vary the salaries of Congress members until the beginning of the next terms of office for Representatives. (1992)
America Has a Free Speech Problem
Abortion Bans Are Going to Make Stalkerware Even More Dangerous
5 constitutional amendments for right now
No room for religious liberty in abortion debate? Since when are we a one-faith nation?
Under Article V, there are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution and two ways to ratify them.
To propose an amendment
Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.
To ratify an amendment
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.
Some Key Facts
Only the first method of proposing an amendment has been used.
The second method of ratification has been used only once, to ratify the Twenty-first Amendment (repealing Prohibition).
Congress may limit the time within which a proposed amendment must be ratified. The usual limitation has been seven years.
Thousands of proposals have been made, but only thirty-three have obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress.
Twenty-seven amendments have been ratified.
The basic premise of federalism is that two or more governments share power over the same land and people.
Origins of the Federal System
Under the Articles, the US was governed by a confederation.
National government derived power from states, leading to weak national government.
Framers remedied problems with a federal system.
In 1788, James Madison expressed his concern over having too much power concentrated in one governing body and described the need to divide power among levels of government.
The framers chose federalism to divide power between the national and state governments and preserve the ability of citizens to choose representatives who would govern closer to home.
They believed that local and state elected officials would be more familiar with the needs of their own communities and be responsive and accountable to their constituents.
Federal system
US was the first country to adopt a federal system of government
The source of governmental authority and power differs dramatically in various systems of government.
Unitary system: The local and regional governments derive all authority from a strong national government.
The national government and state governments derive all authority from the people.
Federalism and the Marshall Court
Two rulings in the early 1800s had a major impact on the balance of power between national and state governments.
McCulloch v Maryland (1819): Upheld power of national government and denied the right of state to tax national bank
Gibbons v Ogden (1824): Upheld broad congressional power to regulate interstate commerce
Dual Federalism: The Taney Court, Slavery and the Civil War
Belief that having separate and equally powerful levels of government works best
Implication: National government should not exceed its constitutionally enumerated powers and all other powers are, and should be, reserved to the states or the people.
Dred Scott v Sandford (1857): Declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional
Congress lacked the authority to ban slavery in the territories.
Federalism in Action
In the US, there are multiple levels of government. The US is a federal system, where both the national government and state governments have spheres of power and responsibility that at times can and do overlap. For example, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the major disaster process would see different layers of the government responding in a variety of ways to meet the needs of citizens. Those ways include:
Local government responds, supplemented by neighboring communities and volunteer agencies. If overwhelmed, it turns to the state for assistance.
The state responds with state resources, such as the VA, National Guard and state agencies.
Damage assessment by local, state, federal and volunteer organizations determines losses and recovery needs.
A major disaster declaration is requested by the governor, based on the damage assessment, and an agreement to commit state funds and resources to the long-term recover.
FEMA evaluates the request and recommends action to the White House based on the disaster, the local community and the state’s ability to recover.
The President approves the request or FEMA informs the governor it has been denied. This decision process could take hours or weeks depending on the nature of the disaster.
In a nation as large as the US, the issues facing regions can be quite different. The national government and the states often handle different issues and sometimes their efforts overlap.
The federal government may take a policy stance that may or may not be mirrored by individual states, which opens the door for controversy to exist.
Current discussion on issues such as immigration, health care and environmental regulations have gained national attention.
States are not powerless and can be policy innovators when they are the first to identify solutions to key issues and problems.
States are able to create their own policy and laws on certain issues and there are instances when states have obligations toward each other. The US Constitution describes three areas in which states have obligations toward each other:
Article IV, Section 1 requires that each state recognize the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of all other states (for example, marriage licenses, drivers license, birth certificates are generally valid in all states). This is known as full faith and credit.
Article IV, Section 2 requires extradition: A state must surrender a person charged with a crime to the state in which the crime is alleged to have been committed.
Article IV, Section 2 requires states to give citizens of other states the same privileges they afford the citizens of their own state (for example, if you visit another state, you will have to pay the sales tax of that state but are guaranteed the same police protection). This is known as privileges and immunities.
The nature of federalism has changed over our nation’s history prompting
different ways to think about federalism.
Two main competing concepts:
Dual federalism: likened to a layer cake where each level of government is responsible for some policy and each government remains supreme within its own sphere or layer.
Cooperative federalism: the roles of government are not as clearly defined as they are with duel federalism. The national and state governments share policy responsibilities. Both levels work together in the states carrying out mandates passed by the federal government. It is sometimes likened to a marble cake.
From New Deal to 1980s: Supreme Court generally expanded national authority at the expense of the states
Beginning in 1980s: Supreme Court interpretations altered
Willingness to allow Congress to regulate in a variety of areas waned
Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989)
US v. Lopez (1995)
Stenberg v Carhart (2000)
Under the 11th Amendment, all states are considered sovereign.
Sovereign immunity: right of a state to be free from lawsuits unless it gives permission for a suit
New Federalism: Returning Power to the States
Unfunded Mandates: National laws that direct states or local governments to comply with federal rules and regulations but contain no federal funding to help pay the cost of meeting those requirements
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
Federal government expanded post-9/11
Preemption: the legislation of a superior government (such as a state or national government) supersedes that of an inferior government (such as a local or state government) in conflicts of law
Department of Homeland Security
No Child Left Behind
Viewed by many as an unprecedented usurpation of state and local powers
The Supreme Court: A Return to States’ Rights?
The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts and Federalism.
While US history has witnessed changes in national–state relationships, the change is generally both slow and incremental in nature. The relatively slow pace of evolution allowed states to adapt and both state and national administrators to operate with some degree of certainty. However, partisan divisions between the states and the national government are deeper in the US than elsewhere, which has led to more fragmented policy approaches, and less intergovernmental cooperation between the states and the national government.
President Trump believed in absolute presidential power at the national, state and local levels, despite the constitutional structure of federalism. The courts limited him during his first term but the divisions grew during the first Trump administration, as it further consolidated the dynamics of American federalism into the presidency’s institutional prerogatives and goals. This was a continuation of long-standing trends in the development of American federalism, even as it accelerated and was given greater force during Trump’s presidency.
Too, chaotic transactional federalism (such as was seen under Trump) removes any vestige of certainty as decisions are shaped based on a desire to reward or punish other political actors, or are left to sub-national actors entirely. The only predictable element of Trumpian federalism was its unpredictability. Expertise mattered very little in these political, partisan transactions. Planning became an exercise in futility, and organizational routines, rules and norms became irrelevant. The same forces also affected state–local relationships. Political scientists have recently coined the term kaleidoscopic federalism, where there exists no single prevailing principle of federalism.
For example, what do we make of the fact that there is no theory of governance that explains the enormous disparity between the Trump administration's interventions on the economic crisis and the health crisis? Regarding the health crisis, the administration had to make sure that if the nation became angry about the death and devastation, it could point to governors and mayors as the ones who were in charge and should be held accountable. Regarding the economic crisis, when it became clear that the impact on the economy would be unprecedented and overwhelming, the Trump administration quickly accepted the importance of emergency action by the national government to ensure its political survival. Thus, in the pandemic, features of kaleidoscopic federalism combined with shortcomings in the public health system, led to fragmented responses to the pandemic among the states. The fragmented responses were also driven by state partisanship, which shaped state public health interventions and resulted in differences in public health outcomes.
This has sobering implications for American federalism because state-level partisan differences yielded different and unequal responses to the pandemic. The overarching pattern of US federal democracy has developed into one of fragmentation. This pattern was exacerbated under the Trump presidency, but it has long been in the making. The role of the national government in fashioning nationwide policies across a range of areas, including public health, has been crippled by an anti-federalist ideology and the institutional inertia it has created.
Given the increasing lack of a centralized, unified federalism to deal with problems that are essentially national in nature, sub-national actors have adopted the idea of networked federalism: a horizontal, interconnected and polycentric collection of states, local governments, Tribes and advocates that provides the resilient frame needed to buttress national action. Sub-national governments, working with non-governmental advocates, drove climate action during the first Trump administration while rebuffing federal rollbacks. Under the Biden administration, focus initially shifted toward the national government, but the sub-national network was critical to continued progress on climate change. Despite its climate focus, the Biden administration inherited a depleted civil service, multiple crises from the pandemic, economic depression, and a hostile Supreme Court and federal judiciary. In that context, sub-nationals on the side of climate action acted as force multipliers - advancing policies, making markets, and occupying legal and civil space even if the federal courts intervened and the legislative process faltered. Horizontal cooperation between state governments, like that in the area of environmental policy, led to the formation of the US Climate Alliance (a bipartisan coalition of governors united by the intention to strengthen policies to combat climate change). Networked federalism is not an adequate substitute for national policies dealing with national issues, but it has helped fill the gap during times and in policy areas in which federalism has been inadequate.
Americans are served by both their Federal government and their state government.
States and the national government share certain powers (concurrent powers). Conflicts between states and national authority are often found in the concurrently held powers.
Spheres of powers held by each level of government are sometimes merged through the process of distributing federal money to the states, a process known as the grants-in-aid system.
There are two main types of federal aid to states:
Categorical grants: require federal aid to be used for specific purposes and are the main source of federal aid to states.
Block grants: less specific than categorical grants, sources of federal aid that are provided for general purposes and with fewer restrictions
While the federal government may not be able to require state action on certain issues reserved for the states (such as education), it is able to attach conditions to funds distributed to states. If the states do not meet the conditions, they lose federal funding (power of the purse).
Powers Denied to Nation and States
There are some powers denied to both the state and national governments.
Neither can pass ex post facto laws: protects citizens from governments creating laws that change the legal consequences of actions committed prior to the enactment of the new law.
Neither can pass bills of attainder: protects citizens from legislative action, which inflicts punishment on people without judicial trial.
National government may not: use money from the US Treasury without the approval of an appropriations bill; may not violate the Bill of Rights; or adjust state boundaries without the agreement of the state legislature.
States may not enter into treaties with countries or nations, declare war, coin money, impair obligations of contracts, or suspend a person’s rights without due process.
Constitutionally, Who’s the Boss?
The Supremacy Clause and the Hierarchy of Laws
State have many powers and responsibilities, but the US Constitution and federal laws trump state legislation.
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance there of; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
implies distinct layers of government that do not mix or share power
in their own spheres
layer-cake metaphor
constitution is a compact between sovereign states
states are viewed at powerful components of the federal system
equal in some respects with the national government
emphasizes intermingling of government activities at different levels and
in various spheres
marble-cake metaphor
people are viewed as citizens of both state and nation
stresses the role of the national government
Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A History
A. Historical
attempted secession of the southern states from the Union
the fundamental issues of the Civil War was states’ rights
the national government reasserted its power
Great Depression
problems created by the Great Depression in the 1930s were too great for states or private business to remedy
emergency relief measures enacted by Congress centralized the
power of the national government in financial and social areas
national government assumed its greatest power during the Great Depression
B. Judicial Interpretations
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
supported the doctrine of implied powers and national supremacy
New Deal legislation
Supreme Court first ruled unconstitutional but then reversed itself
C. Constitutional Changes
imposed national income tax
banned states' poll taxes
D. Congressional Incentives and Sanctions
Voting Rights Act of 1965
setting speed limits
 |
E. Financial Incentives
|
F. Presidential Influence
The President uses negotiation, persuasion and sometime threats to influence state governors.
Each president has his own philosophy of and puts his own stamp on US federalism.
Nixon and Ford
(69-74)
New Fiscal Federalism - decentralized national policies
Carter
(77-80)
Partnership Federalism - cut national aid to states
Reagan
(81-88)
New Regulatory Federalism - reduced federal contributions to states but not programs, ended revenue sharing, gave more discretion to states and localities
GHW Bush
(89-92)
Representational Federalism - states retain their role merely by selecting the president and members of Congress, not by any constitutional division of powers, continuation of New Federalism
Clinton
(93-00)
Reinventing Federalism - less funds and more discretion to states and localities, emphasized greater efficiency and responsiveness, limited national unfunded mandates, provided waivers to encourage state experimentation, devolution (passing responsibilities from the national government to the states)
GW Bush
(01-08)
Coercive Federalism - centralization, sacrificed federalism considerations to specific policy goals, increased federal expenditures and mandates, gave an extreme amount of power to the national government including an extreme version of preemption (when the national government overrides state and local government), reintroduction of unfunded mandates albeit by other labels
Obama
(09-16)
Nuanced / Progressive Federalism - hybrid model of federal policy innovation and leadership; mixes money, mandates and flexibility in new and distinctive ways; a mixed approach of coercion and collaboration; increase in federal funds to states but with requirements attached, increased state involvement in development and planning
Trump
(17-20)
Held no real philosophy of federalism (kaleidoscopic federalism) but rather used federalism (often in conflicting ways) when convenient. His invocation of federalism was never grounded in constitutional fidelity but in a desire to avoid blame and have local officials he could second-guess or scapegoat. That makes it difficult to identify any one philosophy of federalism. Political scientists have characterized his view of federalism in 2 different (albeit similar) ways:
Chaotic Transactional Federalism (or Polarized / Punitive Federalism) - federalism relationships are governed by a set of exchanges between the president and states and between states, unpredictable, variable, and confusing, especially in an era of intense polarization
Contemporary Coercive Federalism - a shift in national policy-making from places to persons, long-term fiscal stress, decreased intergovernmental institutions, rising polarization, a re-legitimizing of states’ rights, a paradoxical decline of public trust in the national government coupled with public dedication to national policy-making
Biden
(21-24)
The shift from the Trump administration to the Biden administration represented a movement from a more state-centric, decentralized form of federalism to a more unified, nationally directed approach, particularly in policy areas critical to public health, the environment and economic recovery.
Active Cooperative Federalism - an approach to federalism that generally emphasizes a stronger national role in addressing national challenges, advocating for significant national intervention and investment in various sectors, and seeking a more cooperative relationship between national and state governments. His approach emphasized collaboration between national and state governments, working more cooperatively with state leaders from both parties, and creating a more unified and less adversarial national-state relationship. His first and most significant federal initiative was a centralized response to the pandemic, including a coordinated strategy for vaccine distribution, testing and national support for state and local governments, He also emphasized significant national investment in infrastructure and the economy, allocating substantial national funds to states and localities and indicating a push for a robust national role in economic recovery and development.
Trump
(25-28)
In his second term, his philosophy of federalism is that "states are the agents of the federal government,” believing that states have no power other than that allowed them by the president. Too, he believed the president had the right to reward states that supported him and punish states that opposed him.
The US government is federal in form. The states and national government share powers, which are wholly derived from the Constitution.
From the Constitution, the national government derives:
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States puts limits on the powers of the states. States cannot form alliances with foreign governments, declare war, coin money or impose duties on imports or exports.
The Tenth Amendment declares, "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." In other words, states have all powers not granted exclusively to the national government by the Constitution.
These powers have taken many different forms. States must take responsibility for areas such as:
ownership of property
education of inhabitants
implementation of welfare and other benefits programs and distribution of aid
protecting people from local threats
maintaining a justice system
setting up local governments such as counties and municipalities
maintaining state highways and setting up the means of administrating local roads
regulation of industry
raising funds to support their activities
In many areas, states have a large role but also share administrative responsibility with local and national governments. Highways, for example, are divided among the three different levels. Most states classify roads into primary, secondary and local levels. This system determines whether the state, county or local governments, respectively, must pay for and maintain roads. Many states have departments of transportation, which oversee and administer intrastate transportation. US highways and the interstate system are administered by the national government through the US Department of Transportation.
States must also administer mandates set by the national government. Generally these mandates contain rules which the states wouldn't normally carry out. For example, the national government may require states to reduce air pollution, provide services for the handicapped or require that public transportation must meet certain safety standards. The national government is prohibited by law from setting unfunded mandates. In other words, the national government must provide funding for programs it mandates.
The national government pays for its mandates through grants-in-aid. The government distributes categorical grants to be used for specific programs. In 1995, national grant money totaled $229 billion. Block grants give the states access to large sums of money with few specific limitations. The state must only meet the national goals and standards. The national government can give the states either formula grants or project grants (most commonly issued).
Mandates can also pass from the state to local levels. For example, the state can set certain education standards that the local school districts must abide by. Or, states could set rules calling for specific administration of local landfills.
|
|
