Site
Search and Site Map

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 legitimate use of force to control human behavior within territorial boundaries
...requires citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain its benefits
...the more citizens are willing to surrender, the less force necessary
...a government is legitimate when citizens recognize its right to rule
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 Government
A. maintain order
earliest function of government
preserve life and protect private property
Without a sense of order man is completely responsible for preservation and
living in their state of nature (with no government). The state of nature of
man was studied by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke during the 17th
century.
"Life without government is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human
nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government
to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control
itself." John Madison, Federalist #51
John Locke:
The fundamental purpose of government is protection of life, liberty and property.
B. provide public goods
benefit all but are not likely to be produced by individual voluntary acts
the goods and services citizens have available to them that are not produced
by private enterprise sources (i.e., education, highways, parks)
Can be very controversial in regards to government's role in providing food,
shelter, health care, etc.
Abraham Lincoln: Government is to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.
Do you see any problems with this?
C. promote equality
newest function of government
redistribute income and otherwise help disadvantaged in society
political equality vs. economic equality
Since the 1950s, the US has focused on social equality -- Women,
African-Americans, Disabled, etc.
Efforts at social equality have come from both the legislative and judicial
branches but those laws/rulings may clash with the social values held by
citizens.
Since the 20th century, the focus of government has been
promoting economic equality.
European nations pioneered policies of economic equality because of high
poverty rates after WWI and WWII (from cradle to grave policies).
What should be the government's role in redistributing income?
Citizens differ on how much they want government to maintain order, provide public goods
and promote equality.
III. The Values Pursued by Government
A. order
the original purpose of government was to impose some order on the lawless -- sometimes referred to as government’s police power
people have always been willing to give up some freedom for some order
narrow interpretation: protection of life and property (murder, rape, theft)
broad interpretation: social order, using government power to enforce traditional modes of behavior (abortion, alternative medicine, homosexuality, drug use) or to provide certain public goods
B. freedom
all government diminishes freedom to some extent
narrow interpretation: liberty, freedom to ___
broad interpretation: implies immunity from some type of deprivation and relates more closely to the concept of equality, freedom from ___
C. equality
newest purpose of government
narrow interpretation: political equality (one man, one vote)
broad interpretation: equality of opportunity (capitalism) and, more recently, equality of outcome (socialism)
original dilemma of government: how much freedom to sacrifice for order
modern dilemma of government: how much freedom to sacrifice for equality
The National Archives Online Exhibits
Designs for Democracy:
explore more than 100 designs highlighting 200 years of government drawings
Every Fours Years: electing a president
Eyewitness: gripping eyewitness accounts chronicle dramatic moments in US history
The Way We Worked: the way we work went through enormous changes between the mid 19th
and late 20th centuries
The Deadly Virus:
the Influenza Epidemic of 1918
One Small Step for Democracy in a ‘Live Free or Die’ Town
Colonial America Is a Myth
It is a well-known truth that opponents of democracy don’t want you to have
nice things.
IV. Political Ideology 
...a consistent set of values
and beliefs about the purpose and scope of government
Pew Research
Center’s
Political Typology survey

Typology Test
World's Smallest Political Quiz
V. American Politics Can Be Classified in Two Ways:
A.
Scope of Government Activity: single dimension, broad positions without extremes
1. liberalism supports a larger role for government in the distribution of public goods and the regulation of private enterprise BUT opposes regulation of individual rights
2. conservatism favors the status quo or reduction in the size and role of government BUT favors controls over many social issues, e.g. abortion and porn
B. Values Pursued by Government: two dimensions, broad positions but more useful method
1.
libertarians favor freedom over order and equality, very limited scope of government
2. conservatives favor freedom over equality BUT favor order over freedom
3. liberals favor freedom over order BUT favor equality over freedom
4.
populists favor order and equality over freedom
VI. Conflict within Values
A. Created by:
different preferences
and intensity
incompatible values
limited resources
B.
Major Sources of Domestic Conflict
freedom vs. order:
Why can’t I let my dog run loose?
freedom vs. equality:
Why can’t schools limit their athletes to men?
order vs. equality: civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights
VII. Connecting Government, Values and Ideologies
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.
Liberal Philosophy
Conservative Philosophy
Libertarian Philosophy
Political Compass
Conservapedia
Democrats Helped Build The Social Safety Net. Why Are Many Now Against
Expanding It?
‘Freedom’ Means Something Different to Liberals and Conservatives. Here’s
How the Definition Split - and Why That Still Matters.
Politics is personal.
For elites, politics is driven by ideology. For voters, it’s not.
Trust and Distrust in America
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.]
A Crisis Coming … The Twin Threats To American Democracy: (1) A Growing
Movement to Refuse to Accept Defeat in an Election and (2) Policy and
Election Results that Are Increasingly Less Connected to What the Public
Wants
One America is thriving; the other is
stagnating. How long can this go on?
America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good
- The great “convergence” of the mid-20th century may have been an anomaly.
The Glaring Contradiction of Republicans’
Rhetoric of Freedom
An honest assessment of rural white resentment is long overdue.


THE US CONSTITUTION
The Constitution
was rooted in revolution.
British valued order, while the colonists valued freedom.
taxation (order) without representation (freedom)
Social Contract Theory

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.
Declaration of Independence

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
I. Defining Government Based on How Levels of Government Interact

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
II. The US Constitution’s Political Principles
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
III. The Structure of the US Constitution
Preamble
We the People (7 Clips)
Provide For The Common Defense (3 Clips)
To ourselves and to our Posterity (2 Clips)
Article I
Congress
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress
of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives. (2 Clips)
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)
By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (7 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)
right of Congress to create lesser federal courts
Article IV
state-state relations
full faith and credit
Full Faith and Credit (3 Clips)
privileges and immunities
extradition
protect state from invasion
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them
against Invasion. (1 Clip)
Article V
amendment procedures
Shall propose Amendments to this Constitution... (4 Clips)
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
IV. Checks and Balances
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
V. The Bill of Rights: Ratified on December 15, 1791

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?
Roe flip is not a victory lap for religion.
VI. Ways of Amending the Constitution:
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.


Federalism
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.
I. Models of Federalism
A. dual federalism
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
B. cooperative federalism
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
What’s With All the Fluff about a New Civil War,
Anyway?
2024 wave of illegal immigration could create $1.2 trillion in federal
revenue over next decade. States affected most would get nothing.
II. Factors Leading to the Increase in Power of the National Government
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
-
grants-in-aid
-
money paid by one level of government to another level to be spent for a specific purpose often awarded on a matching basis
-
categorical grants: targeted for specific purposes (disaster assistance)
-
formula grants: distributed by a given formula specifying who is eligible and how much each recipient will receive
-
project grants: awarded on the basis of competitive applications
-
block grants: awarded for more general purposes (community development)
|
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) |
Based on early indications, experts expect to see the same
philosophy of federalism as in the 2017-2020 term. |
III. Powers Reserved for the Federal Government
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:
express powers
implied powers
inherent powers
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.

IV. Powers Reserved to the States
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.
V. Mandates
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.
VI. Grants
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.
Federalism and the Constitution

|