3 Federalism. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 - 2 Figure 3.1: Lines of...

3

Federalism

Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 3 - 2

Figure 3.1: Lines of Power in Three Systems of Government


Figure 3.1: Lines of Power in Three Systems of Government (cont’d)


Historical Background, critiques and praisesUnitary Examples: France, Britain, Italy, Sweden

Federal Examples: US, Canada, India, Germany, Switzerland, Australia

Confederal Examples: A of C, CSA, UN (“Stop, or I’ll Say Stop Again!”- R. W.)

Negative Views: federalism blocks progress and protects powerful local interest

a) Laski: the states are “parasitic and poisonous”

b) Riker: federalism facilitated the perpetuation of racism

Positive View:

a) Elazar: federalism contributes to governmental strength, political flexibility, and fosters individual liberty

Federalism has good and bad effects

a) Different political groups with different political purposes come to power in different places

b) Federalist #10: small political units are more likely to be dominated by single political faction

c) Increased political activity, facilitates pol. mobilization, < local cost

Grodzins: What is his perspective and views? What marbles the cake (prime factor)?


Federalism and Constitutional Law

Two sides historically: Hamilton (supremacy) and Jefferson (states’ rights)

10th amendment supports states, Elastic clause supports nat’l supremacy

Key case: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), with Marshall as arbiter

1865: Court said fed gov’t could regulate inter but not intrastate commerce

1937: No longer able to distinguish between, “switch in time that saves nine:” Congress can regulate both

Court struggles based on desires to support laissez-faire theory; true l-f?

-Based on natural law conceptions of property rights

-Corporations mistakenly perceived as individuals under the law

Current conception: a return to “dual federalism:” Scalia in Printz. How?

-See also: US v. Lopez (1995), also about guns

State sovereignty also recently protected through the 11th Amendment.

States still clearly politically inferior


The Politics of FederalismPower has shifted to federal government dramatically, 1937-present

Concern for local control over-exaggerated, but prevalent

1960s grant-in-aid programs shifted symmetry of federal system to nat’l control

State/local gov’ts became increasingly dependent on federal aid

Representatives of these groups set up intergovernmental lobbying offices: DC

Rivalry between states intensified: distributionally-based block grants the norm

Block grants led to more federal regulation, not less. Dependent state agencies formed, needing funding to survive. Fought for turf, and decreased the overall amount of block grant funds available as they “tied funding up.”

Ideological dimension soon emerged:

-Liberals, Democrats, minorities liked federal influence on biased local officials

-Conservatives, Republicans, business leaders liked local control to avoid inflexibility/perpetuate freedom of choice

-1980s/1990s stalemates during eras of divided government

-Change being forced by States tired of federal meddling, and level of professionalism has improved on local level, leading to positive experimentation

-Example: Welfare reform pursued successfully on state/local level. Results?


Figure 3.2: The Changing Purpose of Federal Grants to State and Local Governments

Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal year 2001, table 12.2.


Figure 3.3: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, 1983-2003

Source: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Historical Tables, Composition of Outlays, table 6.1.


Figure 3.4: Dealing with Deficit

Source: From "Dealing with Deficit, "Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, as reported in Governing, May 2002, p. 22. Reprinted with permission.


Figure 3.5: The Politics of Devolution

Source: Survey by the Los Angeles Times, January 19-22, 1995, as published in The Public Perspective (Storrs: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut), April/May 1995):28.Copyright The Public Perspective. Reprinted by permission

3 Federalism. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 - 2 Figure 3.1: Lines of...

Documents

Transcript of 3 Federalism. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 - 2 Figure 3.1: Lines of...