The Evolution of Federalism

Dual and Cooperative

DUAL FEDERALISM - holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.

  • In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted very narrowly, such as the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause.
  • In this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such (examples: coining money, regulating commerce, foreign affairs).
  • Framers expected that the states would be the principal policymakers in the federal system
  • In this case, there is a very large group of powers/roles belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution (examples: education, race relations, voting, intra-state commerce).
  • This type of federalism dominated from the Founding (1788) to FDR’s election in 1932.

What does dual federalism have in common with a layer cake?

COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM - asserts that the national government is supreme over the states with the federal government intervening or assisting in some areas that have been traditionally left to the states (social and economic problems.)

  • The 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause should be interpreted loosely.
  • A good illustration of the wide interpretation of these parts of the Constitution is exemplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause's other common name: the Elastic Clause.
  • Current trend in federalism since the New Deal in the 1930s.
  • Examples of federal and state governments sharing power previously left to the states: education, social programs, transportation, civil rights, response to national emergencies.

What does cooperative federalism have in common with a marble cake?

Key Events in the History of American Federalism

*Please use the above information, the information found below & your text book to answer the proceeding questions.

I. Dual Federalism

1801-1835 Nationalist Period. The Marshall Court dramatically increased the power of the federal government in relation to the states. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) landmark court case establishing Congress’s establishment of a national bank using the “elastic clause.”

  1. Identify the 2 Constitutional Questions of the case. (might have to look up in book)
  2. How did this impact Federalism?

1835-1861 Dual Federalism and Nullification. Strong emphasis on states’ rights (Ex.: South Carolina’s Doctrine of Nullification re: the tariff and slavery. The Supreme Court becomes increasingly uncomfortable with the issue of federalism and slavery (Dred Scott Decision, 1857).

  1. Describe the concept of Nullification as it relates to the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions and South Carolina’s Exposition of Protest (look at book)
  2. How is this episode reflective of Dual Federalism?
  3. Identify the Constitutional Challenges of the Dred Scott Case(pg. 407)
  4. How did the case impact Dual Federalism? (Strength or Weaken)

1861-65 American Civil War. The North’s victory determines that the federal government and constitution will reign supreme. However, the war does not resolve the conflict between federal and state authority. Battles will be fought over authority in voting eligibility, school desegregation, and caring for the nation’s poor (NO QUESTIONS: MOVEON)

II. Cooperative Federalism

1933-1939 FDR and the “New Deal.” In response to widespread poverty and unemployment, Roosevelt Administration responds through a series of sweeping national programs such as social security, public works programs, etc. The Supreme Court eventually confirmed FDR’s right to actively intervene in areas traditionally left to states on the basis of the federal government’s Constitutional Right to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8 - “commerce clause” & elastic clause”).

  1. Define the “elastic clause” and explain how it can be used to assist in a Cooperative Federalism
  2. Was the shift from Dual to Cooperative necessary?
  3. Add one piece of evidence from the article “How Has the Supreme Court Interpreted the Commerce Clause” to explain the shift from Dual to Cooperative.
  4. What would be the positive and negative outcomes of the shift from Dual to Cooperative?

1954 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. The national government became viewed as the principal promoter and defender of civil rights and liberties. Thus, people looked to the institutions of the national government (especially to the U.S. Supreme Court) to defend them against their own state governments. In the Brown decision, the Supreme Court mandated school integration. The southern states decry what they see as the federal government’s intrusion on traditional states’ rights. (NO QUESTIONS: MOVE ON PLEASE)

III. Changes to Cooperative Federalism

1950’s-1960’s Grant-in-aid. The principal tool of cooperative federalism was the grant-in-aid, a system by which the federal government uses its greater financial resources to give money to the states to pursue mutually agreed-upon goals. The building of the interstate highway system in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s is usually cited as an example of cooperative federalism working at its best. The federal government provided up to 90 percent of the cost of highway construction, gave technical assistance to the states in building the highways, and, generally, set standards for the new roads. The highways were actually built and maintained by the states. The grant-in-aid programs affected only a small number of policy areas; most of the funding went for highways, airport construction, and housing and urban development.

1964-1968 LBJ and the “Great Society.” Under President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society, a far-reaching domestic program to fight poverty and civil rights violations, the federal government sometimes enacted grant-in-aid programs in which the states had little interest, or to which they were actually opposed. The LBJ administration enacts Medicaid and other programs which involve Federal oversight of state governments.Federal funds were now often given directly to units of local government -- counties, cities, small towns, and school and other special districts which completely bypassed the State General Assemblies. Third, while previous grant-in-aid programs were limited to a few areas on which the federal government and the states agreed, the Great Society reached almost every policy area -- education, police and fire protection, historic preservation, public libraries, infant health care, urban renewal, public parks and recreation, sewage and water systems and public transit. The consequence of all this was two-fold. First, the number of players in the intergovernmental system increased tremendously, from 51 (the states and the federal government) to the 80,000 or so units of local government that existed at the time. Second, federal grants-in-aid, which affected only a few policy areas previously, now affected almost all areas of public life. This led to a number of managerial and political problems (coordination, accountability, priorities, micro-management, etc.) that political scientist David Walker has summed up with the phrase "the hyperintergovernmentalization" of American public policy.

1970 Nixon Administration Builds on “Great Society.” New federal programs continue the expansion of the federal power over states and localities. Clean Air and Water Acts are enacted in the form of direct orders. Others are funded through “block grants” which give states more discretion over spending.

  1. Between the 1950’s and 1970’s what was the principle tool the National government used to encroach upon State’s Rights?
  2. How did the Johnson administration use the grant-in-aid program to alter the nature of Cooperative Federalism?
  1. Why, according to your text, did the “Grant-in-Aid system, once under way, [grow] rapidly?”(pg.60)
  2. Differentiate between the following programs:
  3. Land grant (Morril Act)
  4. Categorical grants
  5. Block grants
  6. Revenue Sharing
  7. Which (of the above programs) would be more appealing to the States? Which would be more appealing to the Federal Government? Explain.
  8. Did the Great Society have a positive or negative affect on federalism? Explain.

1980s Reagan and “New Federalism.” Reagan attempts to limit the powers of the federal government to impose its policies on state governments -- Devolution. However, as the budget deficit begins to soar, the ability of the national government to fund state programs becomes limited. Mandates like the Americans with Disabilities Act are unfunded.

1990s Clinton Administration Declares “The era of big government is over.” Clinton and a Republican dominated Congress shift the responsibility of welfare away from the federal government to the states in the form of block grants with strings attached.

  1. Compare and Contrast Mandates from Conditions of aid . Which would the states prefer?
  2. Differentiate between devolution, second –order devolution and third-order devolution.
  3. What role did the 1994 elections have on the Devolution Evolution?

2000s George W. Bush and the “9-11 Era.” Greater federal control over law enforcement, education, and security (examples No Child Left Behind Act, USA Patriot Act).

  1. How have national disasters highlighted the challenges of Federalism in a Modern era (9-11, Hurricane Katrina)