WHAT IS FEDERALISM AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Chapter summary of American Politics Today, by William Bianco and David Canon

• Levels of Government and Their Degrees of Autonomy Federalism is a form of government that divides sovereign power across at least two political units. In the United States, power is divided among the national and state governments so that each government has some independent authority. States and the national government each have primary responsibility for some policy areas, and they have concurrent powers, which are areas of policy that are the shared responsibility of federal, state, and local governments. The concurrent powers demand a great deal of negotiation among the different government units to enact policy.Although the states and national government both enjoy some autonomy, local governments do not. Rather, local governments are created and controlled by the state governments.
• Federalism in Comparative Perspective A government is federalist only if it consists of at least two autonomous political subunits. Countries around the world have various forms of government, including:
  1. Unitary government: a system in which the national, centralized government holds ultimate authority. It is the most common form of government in the world.
  2. 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 under the Articles of Confederation. Though true confederal systems are rare, international organizations, such as the European Union, have proliferated in recent decades.

  Unitary systems are much more common than federal systems, which are complicated and involve frequent disagreements over divisions of power. Federalism also has the potential of promoting regional and ethnic separation, but can be an important tool in settling differences within a country.

BALANCING NATIONAL AND STATE POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION

Although the Founders wanted a stronger national government than under the Articles of Confederation, they nonetheless wanted to maintain the states’ autonomy.

• A Strong National Government The Founders wanted a strong national government to provide national security and a healthy and efficient economy. Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce—combined with the necessary and proper clause—and national the supremacy clause went a long way in establishing a strong national government.
• State Powers and Limits on National Power State autonomy is protected in many ways, including states’ power to choose members of 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.
• Clauses That Favor Both PerspectivesTwo other clauses of the Constitution are very important for federalism, and manage to achieve both goals of preserving a strong nation and state autonomy.
  • 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 clause was meant to promote commerce and travel between states.

THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM

The nature of federalism has changed as the relative positions of the national and state governments have evolved. Although the national government took a limited role for much of the country’s history, it expanded its influence considerably in the early twentieth century.

• The Early Years The first major disputes over the nature of federalism cemented the importance of national supremacy in the Supreme Court’s decisions in the cases McCullough v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden.Clashes soon emerged with the southern states’ subsequent push for states’ rights. The issue continued to threaten the stability of the Union until the concept was ultimately rejected in the aftermath of the Civil War.
• Dual Federalism Although the superiority of national interests over state interests was established in several early Supreme Court decisions by the Marshall Court, national power was limited by many Supreme Court decisions in the Taney Court. Taney’s restriction of national power helped usher in the era of dual federalism, whereby national and state governments are seen as distinct entities providing separate services.
• National supremacy was first limited in the Barron v. Baltimore case of 1833, reinforced by the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857), and continued with the limitation of Congressional commerce clause powers in a series of cases during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These cases established clear boundaries between interstate and intrastate commerce and prohibited Congress 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, because 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 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 characterized predominantly by cooperative federalism, elements of national supremacy, dual federalism, and states’ rights persist. The current period could therefore be considered the “era of balanced federalism.”

• Cooperative Federalism Lives On: 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. The two main types of grants arecategorical grants, which consist of federal aid to state or local governments for a specific purpose, and block grants, which is federal aid that can be spent by the states within a certain policy area, but with more state discretion.A third type of grant, general revenue sharing (GRS), was in use during the 1970s and 1980s. GRS grants gave the states maximum discretion over policies, but political support for them was difficult to maintain.
  • New Federalism Beginning with Richard Nixon’s presidency, New Federalism was an attempt 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.
  • 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) the turn toward national government in times of crisis and war; (2) the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s and the 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 takes the form of federal preemptions, which are impositions of national priorities on the states through national legislation that is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause.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 educational testing, sales tax collection, emergency management, infrastructure, and elections administration.
  • 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. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Supreme Court invalidated more national laws on federalist grounds than in the previous two centuries.
    • 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 and re-establishing state sovereignty as a means of protecting liberty.
    • The Fourteenth Amendment gave the national government broad control over discriminatory laws of the southern states after the Civil War. 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, though in the 1990s, 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 logic behind remedial legislation has also been applied to the Eleventh Amendment, which was originally interpreted to mean that state governments could not be sued by residents of other states. Recently, however, the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the Eleventh Amendment through the concept of states’ sovereign immunity, which protects states from a much broader range of lawsuits in state and federal court unless the state consents to the suit.

  • 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. Similarly, it rejected Congress’ use of the commerce clause as justification for the ACA.

  ASSESSING FEDERALISM

  • Ideological Complexities On the whole, liberals tend to favour strong national power to fight against discrimination and support progressive national policies, whereas conservatives tend to support states’ rights and limited federal intrusion. Recently, new progressive policies emerging at the state level have led conservatives to oppose states’ rights on many issues, and liberals to support states’ rights.
  • Advantages of a Strong Role for the States There are four advantages to strong states’ rights: (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.
  • Disadvantages of Too Much State Power Certain problems are associated with a federalist system that gives too much power to the states: (1) unequal distribution of resources across the states; (2) unequal protection of civil rights; and (3) competitive federalism, which produces a “race to the bottom.”