FederalismFederalism

Chapter 3Chapter 3

FederalismFederalism

This lecture is This lecture is NOTNOT intended to promote intended to promote teenage drinking. The focus of this teenage drinking. The focus of this lecture lecture ISIS to point out how the Federal to point out how the Federal Government and State Governments Government and State Governments interact with each other, using a current, interact with each other, using a current, relevant topic as an example.relevant topic as an example.

With the exception of the 18th amendment, With the exception of the 18th amendment, regulating liquor sales and setting the regulating liquor sales and setting the minimum age for drinking has always been the minimum age for drinking has always been the responsibility of state governments. But in the responsibility of state governments. But in the last 20 years, the national government has last 20 years, the national government has found ways to extend its influence into areas found ways to extend its influence into areas the founders might never have dreamt of. the founders might never have dreamt of. In 1981, 29 states and the District of Columbia In 1981, 29 states and the District of Columbia

allowed 18-year-olds to drinkallowed 18-year-olds to drink During the Reagan Administration, the legal During the Reagan Administration, the legal

drinking age was raised to 21. If stated failed to drinking age was raised to 21. If stated failed to comply, they lost federal funding for highways, comply, they lost federal funding for highways, beginning in 1986beginning in 1986 Some say the Federal Government had a responsibility to Some say the Federal Government had a responsibility to

maintain safety and ordermaintain safety and order Others say the law constituted age discrimination and was Others say the law constituted age discrimination and was

an infringement on states’ rightsan infringement on states’ rights

Several states sued in federal court, arguing that the law Several states sued in federal court, arguing that the law violated the 10violated the 10thth and 21 and 21stst Amendments Amendments 1010thth Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the Amendment – “The powers not delegated to the

United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”the people”

2121stst Amendment - Amendment - Section 1. Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the The eighteenth article of amendment to the

Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any The transportation or importation into any

State, Territory, or possession of the United States for State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. This gave the of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. This gave the states the right to determine alcohol laws for their own states the right to determine alcohol laws for their own state. state.

Section 3. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congresssubmission hereof to the States by the Congress

The Supreme Court ruled, in The Supreme Court ruled, in South Dakota vs. South Dakota vs. Dole, 1987Dole, 1987, that , that directdirect congressional control of a congressional control of a state's minimum age for drinking would be state's minimum age for drinking would be unconstitutional. unconstitutional. HoweverHowever, , indirectindirect control was control was ok‑ in his case withholding money from the states.ok‑ in his case withholding money from the states.

The court said that Congress had an overriding The court said that Congress had an overriding goal here‑ ending drunk driving which the court goal here‑ ending drunk driving which the court said was related to interstate travel. said was related to interstate travel.

However, in 1996, Louisiana Supreme Court However, in 1996, Louisiana Supreme Court declared Congress' attempt to regulate the declared Congress' attempt to regulate the drinking age was unconstitutional‑age drinking age was unconstitutional‑age discrimination. After the Clinton administration told discrimination. After the Clinton administration told Louisiana it would lose $17 million in federal Louisiana it would lose $17 million in federal highway funds and after intense lobbying and a highway funds and after intense lobbying and a rearguing of the case‑the court reversed itself 6 rearguing of the case‑the court reversed itself 6 months later, upholding the law. – months later, upholding the law. – Is this fair?Is this fair?

In the fall of 2000, Congress went further, In the fall of 2000, Congress went further, stating that unless states lowered the legal stating that unless states lowered the legal limit for drunken driving to .08, they would be limit for drunken driving to .08, they would be in danger of losing 20% of their federal in danger of losing 20% of their federal highway funds over the next three years. highway funds over the next three years. Under pressure from Washington, some Under pressure from Washington, some states already had tough laws against states already had tough laws against drinking already. drinking already.

For example, Texas in 1997 adopted a “zero For example, Texas in 1997 adopted a “zero tolerance” policy on underage drinking- a tolerance” policy on underage drinking- a policy that proved embarrassing for President policy that proved embarrassing for President Bush when his daughters were caught trying Bush when his daughters were caught trying to buy a drink in Texas.to buy a drink in Texas.

What’s the point here????What’s the point here????

FEDERALISM IS AT THE CENTER OF FEDERALISM IS AT THE CENTER OF IMPORTANT BATTLES OVER PUBLIC POLICY‑ IT IMPORTANT BATTLES OVER PUBLIC POLICY‑ IT CAN DETERMINE THE WINNERS AND LOSERS CAN DETERMINE THE WINNERS AND LOSERS AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVELS. AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVELS. WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF THE PRESIDENCY WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF THE PRESIDENCY OR CONGRESS WILL MAKE CRUCIAL OR CONGRESS WILL MAKE CRUCIAL DECISIONS ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOVERNED DECISIONS ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOVERNED AND WHAT THE PROPER ROLE OF AND WHAT THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT WILL BE IN OUR LIVES.GOVERNMENT WILL BE IN OUR LIVES.

Federalism Defined:Federalism Defined:the division of powers between the the division of powers between the federal government and the state federal government and the state governments‑ it has been a central and governments‑ it has been a central and evolving feature of our system of evolving feature of our system of government. Federalism means that government. Federalism means that citizens living in different parts of the citizens living in different parts of the country will be treated differently, not country will be treated differently, not only in spending programs, but also in only in spending programs, but also in the legal system. Examples: criminal law the legal system. Examples: criminal law (state and national); economic regulation (state and national); economic regulation (local, state, national); education (very (local, state, national); education (very little federal control); abortion. little federal control); abortion. Federalism also means that states are Federalism also means that states are allowed to elect their own leaders, raise allowed to elect their own leaders, raise their own revenues and enact their their own revenues and enact their policies.policies.

Three Ways of Ordering Relations Three Ways of Ordering Relations Between Central Governments and Local Between Central Governments and Local

UnitsUnits

Unitary systemUnitary system‑ (France; UK; Israel; Egypt) most ‑ (France; UK; Israel; Egypt) most popular historically and today; allows ultimate popular historically and today; allows ultimate governmental authority to rests in the hands of governmental authority to rests in the hands of the national or central government. If Parliament the national or central government. If Parliament wants to redraw local boundaries in the UK, they wants to redraw local boundaries in the UK, they have the power to. Compare this to the US. Even have the power to. Compare this to the US. Even if Congress wanted to abolish Alabama or Idaho if Congress wanted to abolish Alabama or Idaho they could not. States receive their power not they could not. States receive their power not from the national government but from the from the national government but from the Constitution itself. (This type of system appeals to Constitution itself. (This type of system appeals to those who face opponents at the state or local those who face opponents at the state or local level.)level.)

Three Ways of Ordering Relations Three Ways of Ordering Relations Between Central Governments and Local Between Central Governments and Local

UnitsUnits

Confederal systemConfederal system ‑ really the opposite of the unitary ‑ really the opposite of the unitary system; the states have more power than the central system; the states have more power than the central government‑ and the states can destroy the central government‑ and the states can destroy the central government if they feel it necessary. government if they feel it necessary.

Federal systemFederal system‑ (Russia; Canada; Mexico; US) is a ‑ (Russia; Canada; Mexico; US) is a relatively rare type of system worldwide‑ only 11 of the relatively rare type of system worldwide‑ only 11 of the 197 world governments are arranged this way. 197 world governments are arranged this way. Authority is divided, usually by a written constitution, Authority is divided, usually by a written constitution, between a central government and regional between a central government and regional governments. The central government and the smaller governments. The central government and the smaller governments both act directly on the people through governments both act directly on the people through laws and the policies carried out by the people's laws and the policies carried out by the people's representatives. (This system appeals to pluralists and representatives. (This system appeals to pluralists and interest groups who have multiple points of entry when interest groups who have multiple points of entry when trying to affect policy).trying to affect policy).

Advantages of FederalismAdvantages of Federalism 1. Permits diversity in policy making‑ can also 1. Permits diversity in policy making‑ can also

protect the liberty of those at the state and local protect the liberty of those at the state and local powers.powers.

2. Local governments will be able to handle local 2. Local governments will be able to handle local problems‑they are more in touch with the people problems‑they are more in touch with the people anyway. anyway.

3. There are more levels of access to political 3. There are more levels of access to political participation‑ allows for pluralism and democracy. participation‑ allows for pluralism and democracy.

4. Increases experimentation with policy‑ welfare, 4. Increases experimentation with policy‑ welfare, education, crime control, etc.education, crime control, etc.

In general then, federalism allows states to elect their own In general then, federalism allows states to elect their own leaders, raise their own revenues and enact their own leaders, raise their own revenues and enact their own policies. policies.

Disadvantages of FederalismDisadvantages of Federalism

Makes national unity and consensus Makes national unity and consensus difficult to reach. difficult to reach.

Local governments may tolerate Local governments may tolerate economic or political inequality.economic or political inequality.

Local or state governments may Local or state governments may openly block federal policies openly block federal policies

May promote hyper‑pluralism or May promote hyper‑pluralism or extensive factionalism (tyranny of the extensive factionalism (tyranny of the majority)majority)

Different Types of Congressional Different Types of Congressional PowerPower

Expressed (enumerated):Expressed (enumerated): which are the which are the first 7 articles of the Constitution) The first 7 articles of the Constitution) The Constitution does not specifically delegate or Constitution does not specifically delegate or list powers to the state. Because states had list powers to the state. Because states had all the power at the time of the writing of the all the power at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Framers felt no need to list Constitution, the Framers felt no need to list these powers, as they did for the national these powers, as they did for the national government. Examples: war, interstate and government. Examples: war, interstate and foreign commerce, and coining money. foreign commerce, and coining money. These were the powers the Founders saw as These were the powers the Founders saw as lacking in the Articles of Confederation.lacking in the Articles of Confederation.

Different Types of Congressional Different Types of Congressional PowerPower

Reserved (police) powers:Reserved (police) powers: of the states: the of the states: the 10th10th amendment has been controversial amendment has been controversial because it is vague. The ambiguity of the 10thbecause it is vague. The ambiguity of the 10th amendment has allowed the reserved powers of amendment has allowed the reserved powers of the states to be defined differently at different the states to be defined differently at different times of our history. When there is widespread times of our history. When there is widespread support for increased regulation by the national support for increased regulation by the national government, the 10thgovernment, the 10th amendment hasn't been amendment hasn't been used by the Supreme Court. Yet in the last 5 used by the Supreme Court. Yet in the last 5 years, there has been a slight majority on the years, there has been a slight majority on the court that has repeatedly invoked the court that has repeatedly invoked the 10th 10th amendment‑ giving hope to people who believe amendment‑ giving hope to people who believe in state's rights.in state's rights.

Generally, since the Generally, since the 19th 19th century, state's rights century, state's rights advocates have been conservative believers in advocates have been conservative believers in limited government. These rights are often used limited government. These rights are often used as justification for restricting abortion or having as justification for restricting abortion or having the death penalty.the death penalty.

Different Types of Congressional Different Types of Congressional PowerPower

Implied powersImplied powers:: comes from the necessary comes from the necessary and proper clause or elastic clause. These and proper clause or elastic clause. These powers were dramatically increased under powers were dramatically increased under Chief Justice Marshall and set the stage for a Chief Justice Marshall and set the stage for a strong national government. The biggest strong national government. The biggest example of this in the Constitution is Article 1, example of this in the Constitution is Article 1, sec 8 which has 2 main clauses: commerce; sec 8 which has 2 main clauses: commerce; general welfare (taxes, common defense) general welfare (taxes, common defense)

Inherent powersInherent powers:: These are powers not These are powers not specifically in the constitution (foreign affairs, specifically in the constitution (foreign affairs, regulation of immigration, acquiring of regulation of immigration, acquiring of territory) but are assumed to be residing with territory) but are assumed to be residing with the national government the national government

Different Types of Congressional Different Types of Congressional PowerPower

Concurrent PowersConcurrent Powers: the state shares power with the : the state shares power with the federal government in certain areas. Most of these federal government in certain areas. Most of these powers are implied‑ for example the power to tax powers are implied‑ for example the power to tax (local, state, federal); borrow money; to establish (local, state, federal); borrow money; to establish courts; power to charter banks or corporations, power courts; power to charter banks or corporations, power to hold elections. The states cannot use their reserved to hold elections. The states cannot use their reserved or concurrent powers to usurp the power of the national or concurrent powers to usurp the power of the national government (the SUPREMACY CLAUSE‑ Article 4; sec. 2) government (the SUPREMACY CLAUSE‑ Article 4; sec. 2) All national and state officers must swear allegiance to All national and state officers must swear allegiance to the Constitution the Constitution

Prohibited (denied) PowersProhibited (denied) Powers:: these powers were these powers were designed against the national government and state designed against the national government and state governments. For example; the national government governments. For example; the national government cannot impose taxes on exports; the national cannot impose taxes on exports; the national government cannot set up a national church or school government cannot set up a national church or school system. Also, the states cannot do what the national system. Also, the states cannot do what the national government does: make their own treaties, coin $, government does: make their own treaties, coin $, declare war, etc.declare war, etc.

Defining National Power (1803‑1828):

Because the constitution never specifically spelled out what the role of the national government and the states would be- the balance of power has shifted throughout the years. In the 18th century the accepted wisdom was that the sovereignty of the state could not be divided. Either the federal government or the state government would be supreme not both. But very early on, the states and the federal government came into conflict on issues dealing with economic issues. The first major decision that Chief Justice Marshall made that dealt with federal or state supremacy was...

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) ‑ Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank's Baltimore branch in an attempt to put the bank out of business. McCulloch, the bank's cashier, refused to pay the tax; the issue went to court where Maryland won at the state level; it was appealed to the US Supreme Court. Constitutional issuesQuestion #1 Marshal was faced with the question of whether or not Congress had the power under the necessary and proper clause to charter a bank. Nothing was mentioned in the Constitution about starting a national bank and some felt the government was overextending its powers. Others felt if the government could coin money and regulate its value, it surely could start a national bank. Question #2: If the bank was constitutional, could the state tax it? Marshall's decision: unanimous

Answer #1: Answer #1: Although the word "bank" does not appear Although the word "bank" does not appear in the Constitution, the enumerated powers that gave in the Constitution, the enumerated powers that gave Congress the right to levy and collect taxes, issue Congress the right to levy and collect taxes, issue currency and borrow money‑ suggesting to Marshall that currency and borrow money‑ suggesting to Marshall that the power existed for Congress to charter a bank. Thus, the power existed for Congress to charter a bank. Thus, Marshall established the doctrine of implied powers; he Marshall established the doctrine of implied powers; he said that the Constitution was a living document that said that the Constitution was a living document that had to be interpreted to meet the practical needs of the had to be interpreted to meet the practical needs of the government. government.

Answer #2: Answer #2: Marshall said that no state could use its Marshall said that no state could use its taxing power to tax the national government (the power taxing power to tax the national government (the power to tax was the power to destroy) said the government to tax was the power to destroy) said the government was up by the people not the states. Besides, the was up by the people not the states. Besides, the supremacy clause made it clear to Marshall that national supremacy clause made it clear to Marshall that national law was always superior to state law when the two came law was always superior to state law when the two came into conflict. Marshall's decision became the basis for into conflict. Marshall's decision became the basis for strengthening the national government's power from strengthening the national government's power from that day on. Today, practically every expressed power of that day on. Today, practically every expressed power of the national government has been expanded in one way the national government has been expanded in one way or another by the use of the necessary and proper or another by the use of the necessary and proper clause.clause.

State's rights (1829‑1865) State's rights (1829‑1865) At the heart of the controversy that eventually led At the heart of the controversy that eventually led

to the Civil War was the issue of national to the Civil War was the issue of national government supremacy versus the rights of the government supremacy versus the rights of the separate states. After Marshall died, Chief Justice separate states. After Marshall died, Chief Justice Roger Taney helped articulate the notion that Roger Taney helped articulate the notion that concurrent national/state law was important. concurrent national/state law was important. Under Taney, the Court took a much narrower Under Taney, the Court took a much narrower view of the powers of the federal government. view of the powers of the federal government. Taney's court invoked the 10th amendment Taney's court invoked the 10th amendment repeatedly to protect the rights of the states. For repeatedly to protect the rights of the states. For example, under Taney the concept of laissez faire example, under Taney the concept of laissez faire was incorporated into America's economy. But was incorporated into America's economy. But Taney's Court is best remembered for its inability Taney's Court is best remembered for its inability to deal adequately with the slavery issue‑ to deal adequately with the slavery issue‑ something that directly led to the Civil war. something that directly led to the Civil war. Essentially, the Civil War brought to an ultimate Essentially, the Civil War brought to an ultimate end and violent end the ideological debate that end and violent end the ideological debate that had been started by the Federalists and had been started by the Federalists and Anti‑federalists in 1787.Anti‑federalists in 1787.

Dual federalism (Layer Cake) (1865‑ Dual federalism (Layer Cake) (1865‑ 1933)1933)

Prevailed for two reasons: Prevailed for two reasons: 1. Supreme Court rulings between 1887-1937 1. Supreme Court rulings between 1887-1937

favored that interpretationfavored that interpretation 2. The widespread of laissez faire policy 2. The widespread of laissez faire policy

toward big corporations form the government.toward big corporations form the government. Although the outcome of the Civil war firmly Although the outcome of the Civil war firmly

established the supremacy of the national established the supremacy of the national government and put to rest the idea that a government and put to rest the idea that a state could secede from the Union, the war by state could secede from the Union, the war by no means ended the debate over the division no means ended the debate over the division of powers between the national government of powers between the national government and the states. Dual federalism grew out of and the states. Dual federalism grew out of the protracted debate about commerce and the protracted debate about commerce and who had the right to regulate it.who had the right to regulate it.

Dual federalism has three major parts to it: Dual federalism has three major parts to it:

1. National government rules by enumerated powers only‑ all 1. National government rules by enumerated powers only‑ all others belong to the states.others belong to the states.

2. Each government (national and state) is sovereign within its 2. Each government (national and state) is sovereign within its own sphere and these spheres should be kept separate.own sphere and these spheres should be kept separate.

3. The relationship between the states and national 3. The relationship between the states and national government is characterized by tension rather than government is characterized by tension rather than cooperation. State courts generally had the final say on the cooperation. State courts generally had the final say on the construction of laws affecting local affairs. Generally, the Court construction of laws affecting local affairs. Generally, the Court upheld any laws passed under the states' police powers, which upheld any laws passed under the states' police powers, which allow states to pass laws to protect the general welfare of their allow states to pass laws to protect the general welfare of their citizens: commerce; labor relations, and manufacturing. Under citizens: commerce; labor relations, and manufacturing. Under dual federalism, the Supreme Court allowed the rights of blacks dual federalism, the Supreme Court allowed the rights of blacks to be limited while increasing the power of the corporations. to be limited while increasing the power of the corporations. The Court claimed that corporations were “persons” within the The Court claimed that corporations were “persons” within the meaning of the 14th amendment and were protected from meaning of the 14th amendment and were protected from substantial regulation by the state. Up until FDR, states substantial regulation by the state. Up until FDR, states generally believed that government involvement in the generally believed that government involvement in the economy was harmful. It also helped that most economy was harmful. It also helped that most senators up until 1917 were very rich and pro-business. Thus, senators up until 1917 were very rich and pro-business. Thus, under dual federalism, states were dominant over the national under dual federalism, states were dominant over the national government in major areas (education, civil rights, law and government in major areas (education, civil rights, law and order).order).

Cooperative federalism (Marble Cake) Cooperative federalism (Marble Cake) (1933‑ 1968)(1933‑ 1968)

The era of dual federalism ended with The era of dual federalism ended with the onslaught of the Depression. FDR the onslaught of the Depression. FDR and the New Deal ushered in a new era and the New Deal ushered in a new era of American politics. FDR was able to of American politics. FDR was able to sell a brand new ideology to the sell a brand new ideology to the American people and congress. Not only American people and congress. Not only was the scope and role of national was the scope and role of national government remarkably altered, but government remarkably altered, but also so was the relationship between also so was the relationship between each state and the national each state and the national government.government.

Cooperative federalism rests on 2 major theories. Cooperative federalism rests on 2 major theories. The national and state governments should cooperate on The national and state governments should cooperate on

policy.policy. It is natural for both governments to routinely share power.It is natural for both governments to routinely share power.

The New Deal period was characterized by intense governmental The New Deal period was characterized by intense governmental action that attempted to bring the national government into the action that attempted to bring the national government into the economic, social and political life of the states. Yet up until 1937, economic, social and political life of the states. Yet up until 1937, the Supreme Court had continued its laissez faire approach to the the Supreme Court had continued its laissez faire approach to the government's involvement in the economy. The court believed government's involvement in the economy. The court believed that the Depression was really a collection of local problems that that the Depression was really a collection of local problems that should be dealt with at the state or local sphere. It was not until should be dealt with at the state or local sphere. It was not until Roosevelt's court‑packing scheme and worsening economic Roosevelt's court‑packing scheme and worsening economic conditions (including violent labor strikes); the US Supreme Court conditions (including violent labor strikes); the US Supreme Court began to rule that the national government did have the right to began to rule that the national government did have the right to regulate manufacturing. After the Court's new interpretation, regulate manufacturing. After the Court's new interpretation, huge grants and projects were started that brought together the huge grants and projects were started that brought together the national and state governments (public work projects, housing national and state governments (public work projects, housing assistance, AFDC, etc.) The states were required to implement assistance, AFDC, etc.) The states were required to implement these programs and pay for at least some of the costs involved. these programs and pay for at least some of the costs involved. One example is Medicaid, which provides health care to poor One example is Medicaid, which provides health care to poor people. This program is jointly funded at the national and state people. This program is jointly funded at the national and state level in order to give better benefits to the people that need it. level in order to give better benefits to the people that need it. The court also upheld the national government’s right to The court also upheld the national government’s right to collectively bargain with unions. Aspects of cooperative collectively bargain with unions. Aspects of cooperative federalism still linger today. For example, shared costs between federalism still linger today. For example, shared costs between the states and the federal government. Federal guidelines‑ most the states and the federal government. Federal guidelines‑ most federal grants to the states come with strings attached. federal grants to the states come with strings attached.

Federalism and FinancesFederalism and Finances The cornerstone of the national government's The cornerstone of the national government's

relations with the state and local government relations with the state and local government is fiscal federalism: the pattern of spending, is fiscal federalism: the pattern of spending, taxing, and providing grants in the federal taxing, and providing grants in the federal system. State and local governments can system. State and local governments can influence national policy, but the national influence national policy, but the national government has a huge advantage over the government has a huge advantage over the states, which it uses to its advantage: states, which it uses to its advantage: money. There are many different types of money. There are many different types of grants available to the statesgrants available to the states

Categorical grants (Grants‑in‑aid)Categorical grants (Grants‑in‑aid) As part of the system of cooperative federalism, As part of the system of cooperative federalism,

the national government gives back to the states the national government gives back to the states and the local government a significant amount of and the local government a significant amount of tax dollars it collects‑ as mentioned before‑ tax dollars it collects‑ as mentioned before‑ almost $250 billion in 1997. The overall objective almost $250 billion in 1997. The overall objective of grants or mandates is to give the states money of grants or mandates is to give the states money they would not ordinarily receive, thus reducing they would not ordinarily receive, thus reducing the fiscal burdens on the states. Congresses the fiscal burdens on the states. Congresses appropriates a grant for a specific purpose. appropriates a grant for a specific purpose. One One string commonly attached to grantsstring commonly attached to grants is a non‑ is a non‑ discrimination provision. discrimination provision. Another provisionAnother provision, , favored by labor unions, is that federal funds may favored by labor unions, is that federal funds may not be used for construction projects that pay not be used for construction projects that pay below the local union minimum wage. These below the local union minimum wage. These account for nearly 90% of all federal aid to state account for nearly 90% of all federal aid to state and local governments. In return, the federal and local governments. In return, the federal government is able to achieve national goals they government is able to achieve national goals they set in specific areas like education or helping set in specific areas like education or helping minorities. minorities.

The Growth of National Power (Creative Federalism)The Growth of National Power (Creative Federalism) With the increasing development of technology, population, interdependence With the increasing development of technology, population, interdependence

with foreign nations, the power and extent of the national government would with foreign nations, the power and extent of the national government would have grown with or without the Depression. Environmental pollution, crime, have grown with or without the Depression. Environmental pollution, crime, immigration, national defense, does not know state boundaries and began to immigration, national defense, does not know state boundaries and began to take an increasingly large part of the national budget. Certainly the 1960's take an increasingly large part of the national budget. Certainly the 1960's and 1970's saw an even greater expansion of the national government's role and 1970's saw an even greater expansion of the national government's role in the domestic economy. The "Great Society" program of Lyndon Johnson in the domestic economy. The "Great Society" program of Lyndon Johnson (1963‑ 1969) created the Job Corps, Head Start, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Laws (1963‑ 1969) created the Job Corps, Head Start, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Laws regulating everything from civil rights to the economy in the late 60's brought regulating everything from civil rights to the economy in the late 60's brought the arm of the national government into people's everyday life in a way the arm of the national government into people's everyday life in a way unimaginable even 30 years previous. There was money for urban renewal, unimaginable even 30 years previous. There was money for urban renewal, education, and poverty programs. education, and poverty programs.

The move to fund local programs directly was made by the most liberal The move to fund local programs directly was made by the most liberal members of Congress in order to bypass not only conservative state members of Congress in order to bypass not only conservative state legislatures, but also conservative mayors and city councils, who were not legislatures, but also conservative mayors and city councils, who were not going out of their way to help the poor, colored and disenfranchised. Thus going out of their way to help the poor, colored and disenfranchised. Thus these programs often pitted governors and mayors against community these programs often pitted governors and mayors against community activists, who became key players in the distribution of federal dollars. These activists, who became key players in the distribution of federal dollars. These new grants altered the fragile federal/state balance of power that had been at new grants altered the fragile federal/state balance of power that had been at the core of older federal grant programs. During the Johnson administration, the core of older federal grant programs. During the Johnson administration, the national government began to use federal grants, as a way to further what the national government began to use federal grants, as a way to further what federal (and not state) officials perceived to be national needs. Thus grants federal (and not state) officials perceived to be national needs. Thus grants based on what states wanted or believed they need began to decline, while based on what states wanted or believed they need began to decline, while grants based on what the national government wanted states to do in order to grants based on what the national government wanted states to do in order to foster national goals increased dramatically. The Court in the 1950’s and foster national goals increased dramatically. The Court in the 1950’s and 1960’s began to create a uniformity of policy when it came to defendant’s 1960’s began to create a uniformity of policy when it came to defendant’s rights. They began to rights. They began to incorporate incorporate some of the bill of rights through the due some of the bill of rights through the due process clause of the 14th amendment- thus forcing states to abide by the process clause of the 14th amendment- thus forcing states to abide by the rights of criminal defendants and historically oppressed minorities (cases: rights of criminal defendants and historically oppressed minorities (cases: Miranda; Gideon; Brown )Miranda; Gideon; Brown )

Competitive Federalism (1969‑1974) Competitive Federalism (1969‑1974)

As Congress increased the number of federal As Congress increased the number of federal programs for which cities were eligible, many critics programs for which cities were eligible, many critics argued that the federal grants system was out of argued that the federal grants system was out of hand. Each program had its own complicated set of hand. Each program had its own complicated set of rules and formulas for matching and distributing rules and formulas for matching and distributing money along with huge bureaucracies to implement money along with huge bureaucracies to implement them. Between 1965 and 1980, federal aid to the them. Between 1965 and 1980, federal aid to the cities tripled. The fourth phase of federalism was cities tripled. The fourth phase of federalism was termed "Competitive Federalism by President Nixon. termed "Competitive Federalism by President Nixon. Its goal was to restore more power to the state and Its goal was to restore more power to the state and local government, particularly by reducing the local government, particularly by reducing the restrictions attached to federal grants. The aim of restrictions attached to federal grants. The aim of competitive federalism was to offer states pieces of competitive federalism was to offer states pieces of the marble cake but to have them accept it with the marble cake but to have them accept it with conditions and with a promise to develop programs conditions and with a promise to develop programs on their own.on their own.

Under President Nixon's program of REVENUE Under President Nixon's program of REVENUE SHARING (1969‑1986) money was directly given to SHARING (1969‑1986) money was directly given to the state's and localities without any strings the state's and localities without any strings attached‑ that is, the national government returned attached‑ that is, the national government returned to the state and local governments a certain portion to the state and local governments a certain portion of federal taxes. This was the centerpiece of of federal taxes. This was the centerpiece of Nixon's domestic spending program. This program Nixon's domestic spending program. This program allowed local officials to make decisions about how allowed local officials to make decisions about how the money was to be spent. The problem with the money was to be spent. The problem with revenue sharing was that it created constituencies revenue sharing was that it created constituencies within the government and not among the voters. within the government and not among the voters. By the end of 1986 though, the government was By the end of 1986 though, the government was saddled by huge budget deficits under Reagan and saddled by huge budget deficits under Reagan and this revenue sharing program was disbanded.this revenue sharing program was disbanded.

No state or local entity likes all the strings the No state or local entity likes all the strings the federal government attaches to grants federal government attaches to grants because this allows the national government because this allows the national government to regulate state behavior. If the state does to regulate state behavior. If the state does not comply with a particular requirement, the not comply with a particular requirement, the national government may withhold federal national government may withhold federal funds for other programs. funds for other programs.

New Federalism (1981‑1992)New Federalism (1981‑1992) A perfect example of this occurred under A perfect example of this occurred under

President Reagan (1981- 1989). Reagan President Reagan (1981- 1989). Reagan ushered in what came to be known as “New ushered in what came to be known as “New Federalism" which gave more rights to the Federalism" which gave more rights to the states while still retaining a carrot and stick states while still retaining a carrot and stick approach if the states did not follow the approach if the states did not follow the guidelines of the federal government. While guidelines of the federal government. While saying that "government was part of the saying that "government was part of the problem, not the solution", Reagan still problem, not the solution", Reagan still involved the national government in some involved the national government in some state matters state matters