Chapter 3
Chapter 3: Federalism
Chapter Review
What Is Federalism?
Federalism is a form of government that divides sovereign power across at least
two political units. In the context of the United States, power is divided among
the national and state governments so that each government has some independent
authority. Concurrent powers, which are areas of policy that are the shared responsibility
of federal, state, and local governments, demand a great degree of negotiation among
the different government units to enact policy. For a specific delineation of national
and state responsibilities, please see Nuts and Bolts 3.1 on page 66.
- Federalism in Comparative Perspective
A government is only federalist if it consists of at least two autonomous political
subunits. Various forms of government are observed internationally, including:
- Unitary government: a system in which the national, centralized government holds
ultimate authority. It is the most common form of government in the world.
- Confederal government: a form of government in which states hold power over a limited
national government. This was the first form of government in the United States.
Unitary systems are much more common than federal systems because federal systems
are complicated and involve frequent disagreements over divisions of power. Federalism
also has the potential to promote regional and ethnic separation, but can serve
as an important tool in settling differences within a country.
- Balancing National and State Power in the Constitution
The Founders wanted a strong national government to provide national security and
a healthy and efficient economy. If any state law or constitution conflicts with
national law or the Constitution, the national perspective wins. State autonomy
is protected in many ways, including their power to choose the electoral college
and to amend the Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution for the states or the people,
and the Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens from suing the government of a state
other than their own. Two other clauses of the Constitution are very important for
federalism:
- Full faith and credit clause: part of Article IV of the Constitution requiring
that each state’s laws be honored by the other states. For example, a legal marriage
in one state must be recognized across state lines.
- Privileges and immunities
clause: part of Article IV of the Constitution requiring that states must treat
nonstate residents within their borders as they would treat their own residents.
This was meant to promote commerce and travel between states.
- The Evolving Concept of Federalism
Throughout the history of the United States, several clashes have occurred between
proponents of nation-centered and state-centered federalism. Certain ideologies
emerged to protect states’ rights:
- Doctrine of interposition: the idea that if the national government passes an
unconstitutional law, the people of the states (through their state legislatures)
can declare the law void
- States’ rights: the idea that states are entitled to a certain amount of self-government,
free of federal government intervention
- Dual Federalism
From our nation’s early history through the 1930s, the country operated under dual
federalism. Under dual federalism, national and state governments are seen as distinct
entities providing separate services. This model limits the powers of the national
government to those strictly enumerated in the Constitution. Several disputes over
the nature of federalism were resolved in the following landmark Supreme Court decisions:
- Chrisholm v. Georgia (1793): Citizens of one state could sue another state; led
to the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibited such lawsuits.
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Upheld the national government’s right to create a bank and reaffirmed the
idea of “national supremacy”
- Barron v. Baltimore (1833): Endorsed a notion
of “dual federalism” in which the rights of a U.S. citizen under the Bill of Rights
did not apply to the same person under state law
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):
Sided with southern states’ view that slaves were property and ruled that the Missouri
Compromise violated the Fifth Amendment, since making slavery illegal in some states
deprived slave owners of property. Contributed to the start of the Civil War.
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937): Upheld
the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 as consistent with Congress’s commerce
clause powers, reversing the Court’s more narrow interpretation of that clause.
The Supreme Court also aimed to limit the power of the federal government through
commerce clause powers, which delineate Congress’s ability to regulate the economy
in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Clear boundaries between interstate
and intrastate commerce were defined, and Congress is prohibited from regulating
any economic activity that occurs within a state.
- Cooperative Federalism
Whereas dual federalism specifically defines the boundaries of state and national
responsibilities, a more nebulous form of federalism emerged during the Progressive
Era and blossomed in the late 1930s with New Deal legislation. Under cooperative
federalism, or “marble cake” federalism, national and state governments work together
to provide services efficiently. Cooperative federalism provided a practical approach
to intergovernmental relations as more complex problems arose that could not be
addressed at one level of government.
Modern federalism is better represented by a picket fence metaphor, as the lines
of authority and patterns of cooperation are not as messy as those implied by the
“marble cake.” Picket fence federalism is a more refined and realistic form of cooperative
federalism in which policy makers within a particular policy area work together
across the levels of government. Cooperative federalism is most likely to emerge
within policy areas rather than across them.
Federalism Today
Although the American system of government is predominantly characterized by cooperative
federalism, elements of national supremacy, dual federalism, and states’ rights
are still prevalent. The current period could therefore be considered the “era of
balanced federalism.”
- Cooperative Federalism Lives On: Grants in Aid and Fiscal Federalism
The cooperative relationship between the national and state governments is rooted
in the system of transfer payments from the national government to lower levels
of government, which is called fiscal federalism. Three types of grants are common
under this system:
- Categorical grants consist of federal aid to state or local governments that is
provided for a specific purpose, such as a mass transit program within the transportation
budget or a school lunch program within the education budget.
- Block grants consist of federal aid provided to a state government to be spent within a certain
policy area, which the state can decide how to spend within that area.
- General revenue sharing (GRS) was a type of grant used in the 1970s and 1980s
in which the federal government provided state governments with funds to be spent
at each state’s discretion. These grants provided states with more control over
programs. Support for GRS was difficult to sustain because it was opposed by conservatives
who wanted a smaller national government and by liberals who favored more targeted
spending.
- New Federalism
Beginning in 1969 with Richard Nixon’s presidency, New Federalism attempted to shift
power to the states by consolidating categorical grants into block grants and giving
the states authority over programs such as welfare. This practice was continued
under President Reagan, who believed that because state and local politicians were
closer to the people, they would know better how to spend the money. Furthermore,
under President Clinton, Congress made it more difficult to impose unfunded mandates,
federal laws that require the states to do certain things but do not provide state
governments with funding to implement these policies. Although these changes were
favorable for states, the balance of power between national and state government
has not been affected.
- National Supremacy Reigns? The Rise of Coercive Federalism
Despite the overall shift toward cooperative federalism, the role of national government
is reinforced by three characteristics of American politics: (1) turning to national
government in times of crisis and war, (2) the rights revolution of the 1950s and
1960s, and Great Society programs of the 1960s, and (3) the rise of coercive federalism. Coercive federalism is a form of federalism in which the federal government pressures
the states to change their policies by using regulations, mandates, and conditions
(often involving threats to withdraw federal funding). Coercion also exists in the
form of federal preemptions, impositions of national priorities on the states through.
A significant shift toward national power took place during the presidency of George
W. Bush. National power emerged in areas that had been controlled by states, including
mandates and preemptions in education testing, sales tax collection, emergency management,
infrastructure, and elections administration. This is noteworthy because the shift
took place under Republicans, who generally favor states’ rights.
- The States Fight Back
States appear to be reversing their traditional role of resisting change and protecting
the status quo. In recent years, states have taken the lead over the federal government
to address issues such as pollution and global warming. Motivation for state leadership
can be explained by competitive federalism, a form of federalism in which states
compete to attract businesses and jobs through the policies they adopt. Supporters
point out that such competition is also a check on tyranny because people will move
to a different state if they do not like a state’s policies.
Despite the positive outcomes of competitive federalism, states may also be driven
to compete in a negative way. For instance, when states compete for businesses and
jobs, they may eliminate environmental regulations or employee benefits to keep
expenses low.
Fighting for States’ Rights: The Role of the Modern Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in recent years, has ruled in favor of state power. Between the
1980s and 1990s, the Supreme Court invalidated more national laws on federalist
grounds than in the previous two centuries.
- The Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment ensures that all powers not delegated to the national government
are reserved to the states or to the people. The Supreme Court has sought to protect
this amendment in recent years by restricting Congress’s power. For example, when
seeking to limit the power of states, Congress must provide an unambiguous statement
of its intent to overrule state authority.
- The Eleventh Amendment
The Eleventh Amendment protects state governments from being sued by other states’
residents. Several recent Supreme Court cases have used this amendment to strengthen
the states’ sovereign immunity, which refers to the fact that states cannot be sued
in federal court. For example, in Seminole v. Florida (1996), it was ruled that
Congress could not compel Florida to negotiate with Indian tribes about gaming and
casinos.
- The Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall make or enforce
any law depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law,” or denying any person the “equal protection of the laws,” while Section
5 empowers Congress “to enforce” those guarantees by “appropriate legislation.”
Although narrowly interpreted throughout the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court
leaned toward a broad interpretation during the twentieth century, giving Congress
discretion to remedy bad state laws. In the federalism revolution of the 1990s,
however, the Supreme Court again favored a narrow interpretation of the amendment.
For example, in 1997, it struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ruling
that it was an overly broad attempt to prohibit state-sponsored harassment based
on religion. This case offers an example of remedial legislation, whereby national
laws address discriminatory state laws.
- The Commerce Clause
The commerce clause is part of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution that gives
Congress “the power to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” In United
States v. Lopez (1995), Congress cited its control over interstate commerce as a
means to regulate gun control within schools. The Supreme Court ruled against Congress,
stating that Congress would have to demonstrate that the law in question was explicitly
related to the commerce clause.
Assessing Federalism
An evaluation of federalism must consider the advantages and disadvantages for our
political system. The advantages of strong state rights include: (1) states can
be laboratories for democracy, (2) state and local governments are closer to the
people, (3) states provide more access to the political system, and (4) states provide
an important check on national power. Of course, there are also problems associated
with a federalist system that gives too much power to the states: (1) unequal distribution
of resources across the states, (2) unequal protection for civil rights, and (3)
competitive federalism, which produces a “race to the bottom.”