Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Government & Politics Federalism2 Federalism2 The term "federalism" describes the changing relationship between the national and state governments as they sort out their roles and responsibilities within the federal system. America has a decentralized government; there is no single source of power or center of government. Federalism goes well with pluralism, because of the multiple centers of power that exist in the government, and also the many divisions of power. There are several levels of government including the federal government, the 50 states, county and city governments and independent school districts. However, the major players are the national and state governments. The tensions between the two are clear when it comes to civil rights, money, and power. The tension is all about the constant power shifts. Power shifting policies that affect everyone like welfare, the minimum drinking age, or affirmative action policies for minority owned businesses, this is all federalism, the ever changing balance of power between the state and federal governments. Federalism started out as layered cake, with clear distinctions between the spheres of state and national government. When the constitution was born, it held that certain policy areas, such as interstate commerce and defense, were the exclusive provinces of national authority, while public health and intrastate commerce, belonged clearly and exclusively to the states. This is Dual federalism. The two levels had equal strength and power, which lead to jealousy. Competition between the two was primarily over economic development and regulation. When imposing uniformity, the system creates tension. For example, during the 1960’s, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Now standards of equality exist in criminal cases that states have to meet, but critics say that this interferes with maintaining order. The seventeenth amendment, while making the legislators directly answerable to voters, also had the effect of diminishing their roles as representatives of their individual states since they now answered to the general public rather than to the state legislatures, hurting state freedoms. The Eleventh Amendment denied Congress the authority to make states subject to lawsuits in federal courts. Power seesawed between the two levels of government over time. Was this the founders’ intention? During their time, fear of “big government” and of anarchy induced self destruction plagued the conventions. The anti federalists were afraid of tyranny and the federalists worried that the country would collapse without guidance. Federalism changes according to the country's needs and it is the brevity of the constitution allows this flexibility. It was never merely a set of static institutional arrangements, frozen in time by the Constitution. It is an adaptable process that has economic, administrative, and political aspects as well as constitutional ones. It evolved from dual to cooperative to new federalism. From the approval of the Constitution to the New Deal was a period where the national government was limited to promoting commerce. It was the state governments that dealt with governing citizens. The framers expected that the states would be the principal policymakers in the federal system, so most domestic policy issues were left to them. The areas of influence between the two levels of governments are distinct. The powers granted to the federal government are relatively few and deal mainly with foreign and military affairs and commerce issues. The commerce clause Article I, Section 8 gives the national government authority over interstate and international commerce. Together with sections 9 and 10, it prohibits states from restraining interstate trade. The federal government also got the supremacy clause, which says that if there is a conflict between local and federal laws, national laws reign supreme. The states were dealt the reserve powers, and the Electoral College. Only the federal government can coin money and enter into international alliances. Hamilton was the original Federalist, he believed that only a strong central government could provide the nation with the stability it would need to maintain its independence. The anti-federalists saw it as a threat to the newfound liberty, and feared replacing one oppression with another. Political parties formed initially around two positions: federalists in support of a strong national government and the Democrat-Republican party opposing the centralizing government. The first dispute over federalism arose early in Washington’s presidency when Hamilton proposed the creation of a national bank. Thomas Jefferson opposed the bank on the grounds that its activities would benefit commercial interests over farmers. In McCullough v. Maryland, the question was raised: Can government charter a national bank, and if so, can the states tax it? The elastic clause says that Congress has the authority to “make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the foregoing powers.” This is also referred to as the “necessary and proper” clause. The two parties interpreted this clause differently. The anti federalists adhered to the strict definition while Hamilton opted for a broader definition, in which the Congress could combine two numerated powers to justify a separate power. Also, states can’t tax a national bank because it would be an obstacle in economic unity. To the anti federalists however, the Tenth amendment leaves no room to argue that “all powers not specified to the national government or denied to the states are reserved to the states or the people.” The broad interpretation was upheld, and it took power from states. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and their Federalist colleagues argued for an expansive interpretation of federal authority. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said that the Union was little more than a confederation and that real power remained with the states. By the 1850s, the debate focused on whether slavery was a matter for national or state policy. The civil war was a sign that federalism needed to evolve. The confederacy challenged the supremacy of the national government and lost. The question of nullification was laid to rest by force of arms. Power flowed outward dramatically from state governments. The adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments ended slavery, defined national citizenship, limited the power of the states in the areas of civil rights and liberties, and established the preeminence of the Constitution over the states. The states sacrificed their power to rebel, inching away from dual federalism. The civil war was also a big tangle of equality, order and freedom. Slaves were fighting for freedom, Lincoln and the Union were fighting to bring all the states together as equals, and states were fighting for freedom as well as attempting to maintain order. Southern states saw slavery as the way to peace and prosperity. The north saw the way to reconciliation through emancipation of the slaves and the Union. The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery in 1865, promoting freedom and equality, and the fourteenth amendment made citizens of the states American citizens. The fifteenth amendment guaranteed the vote to blacks, making them political equals, or so it was hoped. It also served to acknowledge their freedom, but they would have to fight for it well until the 1960’s. So the arm of the national government extends to level the playing field, to set equality standards so that everyone has a chance to get ahead. The result is that no particular state strays too far from the norm. Around the turn of the century, the national government took more of a part in economic development, expanding its role in regulating commerce. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 were part of this expansion, breaking up trusts often at the expense of the states. The people had looked to the Federal government to protect them from their local government. The states believed in freedom from regulation and the freedom of the corporations to conduct their affairs without interference. The courts ruled in favor of federal power, and it helped equality of opportunity for smaller companies. Teddy Roosevelt with his New Deal changed the relationship between the states and the government. The question arose: are local problems national as well? The economy was in shambles, and the New Deal put forward a doctrine that a federal response was needed to the crisis. Teddy wanted to regulate the burdensome trusts and help working conditions. This was a time for expansion to in order to end poverty because neither businesses nor state governments could make any effect on the problem. The functions of the federal government expanded enormously. Various relief programs helped unemployment and stimulated economic activity. It was during this time that Social Security was born, and other programs included unemployment compensation, federal welfare programs, and price stabilization programs. The actual shift of power came through these programs because of federal regulation attached to them. The national government now assumed authority over areas of economic regulation and development that had previously been the states' domain. The climate of the time demanded this change and the courts responded by upholding the measures. The Supreme Court justified this expanded federal role, and since 1937 has pretty much allowed the national government to define the reach of its authority for itself. The Supreme Court supported the change from Dual to Cooperative federalism. Although the court struck down a lot of the New Deal programs, it took some power from the states with the income tax. The sixteenth amendment served as a turning point for modern federalism. It was a modest tax, but it was the foundation for the federalism of today. It is a source of income for the government to use with national policies. The New Deal set a precedence: the federal government is not limited to its enumerated powers, in fact, it can legislate in just about all areas of American life. It changed the country from Dual to Cooperative federalism without using formal amendments. The relationship between the states and the federal government grew closer, with different levels of government working together towards common objectives. Cooperative or marble cake federalism characterized governmental relations in the 1950’s and into the 1960’s. It is a mixture, with an intertwining exchange of information, coordination and cooperation. In other words it is not black and white, but rather a shade of gray. The best reason for cooperative federalism is efficiency. Different government functions can best be provided at different levels because there are optimally efficient scales for providing the services. Fire, police, and ambulance services need to be provided locally, for example, while defense is best provided nationally. Cooperative federalism helped to further equality, executing social programs more efficiently. It also helped national unity by giving people access to different areas of influence, through interest groups. During the 1960’s it seemed that state governments were ineffective at resolving racial problems. The Supreme Court ruled against segregation in Brown vs. Board of Education and ten years later Congress followed up with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because the states wouldn’t support basic civil rights, the people looked to the Supreme Court to defend them against their own state governments. Through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Congress battled racial discrimination in state regulation, employment, and public accommodations. This confrontation pitted southern states as deniers rather than protectors of liberty against the national government. The act basically just reaffirmed the fourteenth amendment, outlawing government discrimination and segregation laws, and also outlawing the segregation of privately owned businesses such as hotels, train lines, bus lines, etc., under the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. The principal tool of cooperative federalism was the grant-in-aid. A grant is money paid by one part of the government to another, to be spent for a specific purpose. There are two forms: block grants (a general grant to be spent at the state’s discretion) and categorical grants (very specific grants, which come with strings attached and enhance federal authority in the states). The grants started off small and only applied to certain areas, like highways and education-not abortion, or affirmative action for example. LBJ’s Great Society would change this, making the grants bigger and more involved. Under this program, the federal government enacted grant-in-aid programs in which the states had little interest or to which they were actually opposed. Federal funds were often given directly to units of local government such as counties, cities, and small towns. While previous grants were limited, the Great Society reached almost every policy area. Examples of this are education, historic preservation, public libraries, urban renewal, public parks, and public transit. Lots of legislation was enacted to help society and get the national government more involved. Programs aimed at helping every segment in society, and were very popular. His goal was to improve the people’s equality of opportunity in respect to education, welfare, and employment. People believed that everyone should have the same chance to succeed in life, be allowed to vote equally and have fair access to housing. The twenty-fourth amendment (no more poll tax), encouraged minority voters to vote. The Fair Housing Act banned discrimination in the sale or rent of housing. All of this legislation tipped the balance of power towards the federal government creating tension. During the Civil Rights era, turmoil, social unrest, and political problems showed the tension that was present everywhere. For example, there was Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, which incited the Voting Rights Act. Passed in 1965, it outlawed literacy tests, and provided for federal monitors at polling places throughout the South. This act made it easier and safer for blacks to register and vote. It was controversial, with some arguing that Section 2 of Article 1 gives the states the right to determine voter qualifications, but its supporters said that the guarantee of voting rights takes precedence over state rights. It was a case of the federal government asserting a minimum national standard, thus imposing uniformity. In 1954 the Supreme Court made one of the most important decisions in its long history. It decided in the case of Brown v. Board Of Education of Topeka that it was unconstitutional for states to maintain separate schools for African American and white children. This case over turned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson back in 1896. The Court's decision had far reaching effects, influencing civil rights legislation and the civil rights movement of the 1960's. The national government extended its arm into the area of race and education, ordering the states to desegregate their schools. This takes power from the states, inciting tension. The states reacted by resisting it, for example when Alabama Governor George Wallace tried to physically block black students from entering a previously all white school. In the 1980’s Congress indirectly imposed uniformity on the national drinking age through federal funding. States that did not impose the minimum age of twenty-one would lose highway funds. It was a conflict between freedom and order. Supporters argued that lives were at stake, and this justified government intervention. Others maintained that this issue was in the state jurisdiction and it limited the states and citizens freedom. It is illegal for Congress to impose a national drinking age. However, the constitution says nothing about indirectly trying to control areas outside of the federal government’s sphere. The court upheld the use of crossover sanctions in tying highway funds to the drinking age. Congress acknowledged its constitutional limits by not instituting legislation against the minimum drinking age, at the same time using money as a bargaining tool to get what it wanted. Rebalancing the power has been a long-standing item on conservative agendas. Conversely, liberals have been apprehensive about the motives behind devolution. The climate of today suggests tilting the balance of power slightly back to the states. There are problems with it, though, and lack of trust is one of them. A recent example is Mississippi’s decision to keep the confederacy logo on its flag. How will civil rights and liberties fare in a modified system? Although merely a symbol of pride to Mississippi, the nations response is fear that civil rights will again be betrayed. "States' rights" is still a recent euphemism for state-condoned racism. Liberals fear that the states will try to reverse certain rights, rule against privacy issues, or condone racism. They do not trust state freedoms in regards to marriage contracts, abortion and use of illegal drugs. While past federalist reforms have centered on money, this age seems to be concerned with social issues. Aims toward deregulation of national government power started in the 1970's with Nixon. Should the federal government have so much control over the grants given to the states? How much money should the government be spending on social programs? Republicans or people who favor states rights, like block grants. They disagreed with too much national interference. Nixon sought to revise the grant system with revenue sharing. He believed that political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government. The states were given money, and could decide where funds were needed with no strings attached. The block grants and revenue sharing reduced federal requirements, therefore giving states greater freedom while setting the stage for withdrawal of federal funding. Ever since the peak of federal activism in the 1960s, there have been repeated efforts to stop the effect of “leveling the playing field” that the massive flow of funds from the national government to the states creates. The attempts to cutback on federal grants have not marked a period of returning state power, however. The two levels are molded together like a fruitcake, making this kind of separation impossible. Fruitcake federalism is where the two levels of government are entirely intertwined and dependant on each other. This is also called new federalism, or new-age federalism. The national government looks towards the states to implement its policies, or to test out its new policies like “laboratories of democracy” and the states need the support to do so. States have lost the strength the Tenth amendment originally provided. Instead, they barter with the federal government for money. In this way there is very little that the national government cannot influence. National laws can reach traditionally local matters as crime, education, and even marriage and divorce. In its 1995 decision in United States vs. Lopez however, the Court unexpectedly held that the national government had exceeded its constitutional authority by enacting a law prohibiting the possession of handguns near public school buildings. The Court held that the federal government had not shown any connection between the possession of guns near school buildings and Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. America needed to evolve into the modern federalism where the country is under the gently guiding hand of the national government, but states still have local influence. They stay in sync with their heritages and culture. States don’t have to be completely uniform, but rather just maintain a particular standard. You can see this if you drive around America. States and localities still very much have their individuality. Each has their own set of laws, and regulations. Not every airport allows smoking for example, or is prostitution illegal everywhere. Neither the New Deal nor the Great Society civil rights legislation would have happened if we were still operating under dual federalism. There would be hardly any social programs and minimal commercial ones. So, evolution of federalism was not only necessary but also desirable. Bibliography: Word Count: 3215
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests