2.5 Federalism- Typology and Functions
Federalism-typology and functions
Dual Federalism
Despite Chief Justice Marshall's strong push for the federal government, the court of his successor, Roger B. Taney (1835–1863), decided cases that favored equally strong national and state governments. The basic philosophy during this time was that the U.S. Government ought to be limited to its enumerated powers and that all others belonged to the states.
The theory originated within the Jacksonian democracy movement as pushback against the mercantilist American System and centralization of government under the Adams administration during the 1820s.[1] With an emphasis on local autonomy and individual liberty, the theory served to unite the principles held by multiple sectional interests: the republican principles of northerners, the proslavery ideology of southern planters, and the laissez-faire entrepreneurialism of western interests.
During the 1830s, Jacksonian Democrats employed the theory with effect. President Jackson used the theory as part of his justification in combating the national bank (e.g., the bank's reauthorization bill sought to shield the private, non-governmental business of the national bank from state taxation). Additionally, the Supreme Court— under the leadership of Jackson's appointee to Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney—moved the law in the direction of dual federalism. Chiefly, the Court used the theory to underpin its rationale in cases where it narrowed the meaning of commerce (and thereby Congress's power over it) and expanded state authority through enlarging state police power, particularly with an eye toward protecting southern autonomy and its power over slavery.
Examine the following cases-linked on main page-
-
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)-National Supremacy and Implied Powers
-
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)-Interstate Commerce
-
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)- Removed the Bill of Rights from the states.
-
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)-Established a clear division between the state and federal government.
Cooperative Federalism
The Great Depression marked an abrupt end to Dual Federalism and a dramatic shift to a strong national government. President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies reached into the lives of U.S. citizens like no other federal measure had. As the Supreme Court had rejected nearly all of Roosevelt's economic proposals, in 1936 the president proposed appointing a new Supreme Court justice for each sitting one aged 70 or older. The expansion of the Court along with a Democrat-controlled Congress would tilt Court rulings in favor of Roosevelt's policies.
The national government was forced to cooperate with all levels of government to implement the New Deal policies. The formerly distinct division of responsibilities between state and national government was described as "layer cake," but, with the lines of duty blurred, cooperative federalism was likened to a "marble cake." In cooperative federalism, the Federal government gains a greater amount of control over the states and their actions. The Federal government also distributes federal funds through categorical grants or grants in aid which gave the federal government more control over the use of the money. The Supreme Court constructed a loose definition of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause to enable New Deal Legislation to enforce policy within the states. The Supreme Court would also use the 14th Amendment to incorporate Civil Rights and Civil Liberties into the states.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones (1937) –Federal expansion of power using the Commerce Clause
Helvering v. Davis (1937) Authorizes the Federal government to implement the Social Security Program
New Federalism
Another movement calling itself "New Federalism" appeared in the late 20th century and early 21st century. New Federalism, which is characterized by a gradual return of power to the states, was initiated by President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) with his "devolution revolution" in the early 1980s and lasted until 2001. Previously, the federal government had granted money to the states categorically, limiting the states to use this funding for specific programs. Reagan's administration, however, introduced a practice of giving block grants freeing state governments to spend the money at their own discretion.
New Federalism is sometimes called “states rights", although its proponents usually eschew the latter term because of its associations with Jim Crow and segregation Unlike the states' rights movement of the mid-20th century which centered around the Civil Rights Movement the modern federalist movement is concerned far more with expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause. (Interstate Commerce.)
United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. (1995) Rejects the Federal governments use of the Commerce Clause to regulate guns in the states.
United States v. Morrison (2000) Rejects the Federal governments use of the Commerce Clause to expand rights of women who are victims of domestic violence.
Federal Enforcement
Cross Cutting Requirements
A technique of Congress to establish federal regulations. Federal grants may establish certain conditions that extend to all activities supported by federal funds, regardless of their source. The first and most famous of these is Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which holds that in the use of federal funds, no person may be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or national origin. More than 60 cross-cutting requirements concern such matters as the environment, historic preservation, contract wage rates, access to government information, the care of experimental animals, and the treatment of human subjects in research projects. If a state, organization or institution takes public funds, then it MUST implement federal law. All universities that received Financial Aid, must implement all federal standards.
Cross-Over Requirements
A technique of Congress to establish federal regulations. These sanctions permit the use of federal money in one program to influence state and local policy in another. The Federal government will use Cross-Over to implement policy in areas where they do not have delegated power. For example, a 1984 act reduced federal highway aid by up to 15 percent for any state that failed to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. By having a 21 year old drinking age, states get their transportation costs paid by the Federal government.
Total and Partial Pre-emption
A technique of Congress to establish federal regulations. Total preemption rests on the national governments power under the supremacy and commerce clauses to preempt conflicting state and local activity. Building on this constitutional authority, federal law in certain areas entirely preempts state and local governments from the field. Sometimes federal law provides for partial preemption in establishing basic policies but requires states to administer them. Some programs give states an option not to participate, but if a state chooses not to do so, the national government steps in and runs the program. Even worse from the state’s point of view is mandatory partial preemption, in which the national government requires states to act on peril of losing other funds but provides no funds to support state action.
Federal Mandate-Direct Order
A requirement the federal government imposes as a condition for receiving federal funds; usually deals with environmental policy and civil rights which makes it difficult for any state or local official to argue its attachment; governments way of keeping control on the states. Acts of Congress, Supreme Court decision or Executive function to enforce law.
Unfunded Mandate
An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation that requires a state or local government to perform certain actions, yet provides no money for fulfilling the requirements. When a federal government imposes a law or regulation without necessary funding, it becomes the responsibility of the state or local government to pay for the implementation of the law. In the end, it is local taxpayers who end up footing the bill.
Federal Grants
Categorical Grants
Federal money given to states with very strict, narrow, and specific rules as to how the money should be be spent. Democrats in Cooperative Federalism use Categorical Grants. The states must spend money as defined by the Federal Government
Block Grants
Federal money given to states with only general guidelines for its use. Block grants give states the flexibility of allocating where the money should be spent. Republicans using New Federalism use Block grants to implement policy. States decide how to spend money.
City Mayors love Categorical Grants because it will give the cities more money and will by-pass the governor. State governor's love Block Grants because they can spend the money how and where they wish.