3Federalism Chapter Overview

“Federalism” refers to the division of power between the national government and the states. Under our federal system, significant government powers are divided between the central government and small governmental units; neither completely controls the other, and each has some room for independent action. We begin by defining federalism and differentiating it from other forms of political organization, chiefly unitary and confederal systems. We then examine the basic principles of American federalism, including the division of power between the national and state governments and the principles of national supremacy and state obligations. Next, we consider how American federalism has changed over time, evolving from a system of dual federalism to a system of cooperative federalism, to the contemporary system of new federalism as it exists today. We conclude by evaluating the impact of federalism on public policy and politics in the United States.

Lecture Suggestions

Define federalism and contrast it with alternative ways of organizing a nation.

LECTURE 1: A federal system divides power and responsibility between two levels of government authority. Determining the precise distribution of power between the national and state governments can be difficult, as illustrated by a wide variety of issues and comparative examples.

Confederation. Under a confederal system, sovereignty (supreme decision-making authority) rests with the member states. The United States under the Articles of Confederation illustrates some of the inherent challenges posed by confederal systems, as does the European Union today.

Unitary systems. Under a unitary system, the national government possesses ultimate authority, and subnational governments (like states or municipal governments) possess only those powers granted to them by the national government. The United Kingdom is an example of a unitary system, although one that has devolved considerable political authority in recent years.

Federalism. Under a federal system, sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the central government and subnational political units (usually states or provinces). The defining feature of federalism is that each unit has impendent authority and powers granted to it.

Federal states exist on a spectrum of centralization and decentralization. In some, like Belgium, the subnational units have the bulk of power, and the central government is relatively weak. In others, like Russia, the power of the national government dramatically outweighs that of the subnational governments.

3.1

LECTURE 2: The word “federalism” does not appear in the Constitution. How, then, does it manifest itself in that document? It was this question that James Madison, writing as Publius, addressed in The Federalist Papers, No. 39.

To understand Madison’s answers, one has to become familiar with the language he used. He, along with the other framers, was aware of two methods of arranging the two levels of government, nation and state. First was confederation, which they also called confederal or

just federal. This was the form in operation under the Articles of Confederation when the framers were drafting the Constitution.

The other form was called national or consolidation. It was the equivalent to what is today called a unitary system.

Madison looked to five components of the Constitution to answer the question, “Did the Framers create a federal (confederal) system or a national (unitary) system?” Ratification. Since the Constitution was ratified by states

rather than adding up votes for and against the Constitution nationwide, it exemplified a federal system.

Sources of power of national officers. Here Madison examines the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency.

The number of representatives a state had was determined by its population. This made a representative a national officer.

Each state has an equal number of senators. People are not represented in the Senate, states are. This made the Senate characteristic of a federation.

The source of the president’s power was the Electoral College. Since it was based on a state’s representation

in Congress, it had the characteristics of both a federal and a national system.

Operation of government. In a confederal scheme of government, the central government cannot act directly on the citizens of the subgovernment’s states. In a national scheme, the central government may act directly on the citizens of the states. Since Congress, under the Constitution, will be able to act directly on the citizens, for example by taxing them, the government characterizes a national system.

Extent of powers. In a confederation, powers of the central government are specifically listed and others are retained by the subgovernments or states. In a national system, the powers of the central government are indefinite. Since the powers of Congress are enumerated in Article I, Section 8, the system represents a federal system.

Amending the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution describes two ways of proposing amendments to the Constitution and two ways of ratifying the Constitution. Ratification of amendments is done by states, and in that sense, the system is federal. But the methods of proposal used to amend the Constitution are through the Congress. Since, as mentioned earlier, the House is national and the Senate federal, proposal of amendments has both national and federal traits.

Madison ends his essay with the following conclusion: “The proposed Constitution [is] neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a combination of both.” Notice that Madison does not have a name for the system the framers created. It later came to be called federalism.

LECTURE 3: Despite its importance to the U.S. system of government, the word “federalism” is not actually found in the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, when the Constitution was drafted, most Americans thought of themselves first in terms of states—as Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and so on—rather than as Americans. Yet given the failure of the Articles of Confederation, there was a desire among the founders to create a stronger national government. Explain the various reasons for the founders’ decision to create a federal system rather than a unitary government.

Specifically, the founders’ decision stemmed from a variety of factors: Historical. The colonial roots led to diverse forms of state

government. Given the historical role of the different state governments, it was unlikely they would cede political power to a new national government. At the same time, the failure of the Articles was rooted, in part, in the weakness of the national government. In developing a federal system for the United States, the founders were seeking to find a middle way between the centralized political authority of a unitary system and the decentralized political authority of a confederation.

Theoretical. The idea of separation of powers was not limited to dividing political authority among three branches of government at the national level. The founders also sought to pit “ambition against ambition” by dividing political authority between the national and state governments, creating a “double security” in which the layers of government control one another.

Practical. The founders were also motivated by more practical concerns. Federalism allowed more people to participate in the political system, made the government more efficient and responsive, respected the diversity of political systems that already existed, enabled the states to serve as the “laboratories of democracy,” and garnered support for ratification.

LECTURE 4: Federalism is a system to divide power between the national and state governments by enumerating powers delegated to the national government and acknowledging that the remaining powers are retained by the states. That allocation did not originate at the Constitutional Convention. The Articles of Confederation followed a similar scheme.

Review how the American federal structure allocates powers between the nation and the states.

Review Article IX of the Articles of Confederation and note the acknowledgment of powers retained by the states in Article II, asserting that each state retained “every Power, Jurisdiction and Right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States.” Note that this language is similar to that of the Tenth Amendment.

Note that the most important grants of power added in the Constitution are the power to levy taxes and the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

Point out that the move from the Articles to the Constitution was not, then, one from a central government of no powers to one with all powers; rather, it was a shift from one with fewer powers to one with more powers.

Outline the constitutional basis for the division of power between national and state governments, the establishment of national supremacy, and states’ obligations to each other.

LECTURE 1: The Constitution divides powers between the national and state governments. Explain that division of power to your students and provide examples of those powers.

3.2

Delegated, or enumerated, powers refer to those powers specifically granted to the national government. Article I, Section 8, for example, specifically grants 17 powers to the U.S. Congress. These include authority over war and foreign affairs, authority over the economy (“interstate commerce”), control over the money supply, and the power to tax and spend “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare.”

Implied powers. Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution also grants the Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.” This statement, often referred to as the necessary and proper clause, suggests that the national government has additional powers not specified in the Constitution but arising from the exercise of its delegated powers.

National supremacy clause. Article VI of the Constitution provides that the laws and agreements of the national government are binding on the states.

Concurrent powers refer to powers held by both the national and state governments. Examples here include the power to tax and spend, the power to enforce laws, and the power to establish courts.

Reserved powers. The Tenth Amendment establishes that “the powers not delegated to the United States . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is often referred to as the reserved powers clause. Examples of reserved powers include criminal law, the provision of education, and the enforcement of contract law.

Prohibited powers. The Constitution prohibits states from undertaking powers afforded the national government, including the power to coin (print) money, enter into treaties with foreign nations, levy taxes on imports or exports, or engage in war. Other powers are denied to both the states and the national government. Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, this has included the power to abridge individual rights.

LECTURE 2: A lecture on several contemporary areas where the idea of dual federalism plays out provides a more concrete grounding for your students to consider the theoretical implications of federalism. The defining feature of dual federalism—that the national and state governments collaborate even when they have separate areas of responsibility and authority—can be demonstrated using several contemporary examples.

Environmental protection. While the national government takes the lead in some areas, such as the management and disposal of nuclear waste generated by national defense needs, states have primary authority in others, such as limiting noise pollution and managing nonendangered wildlife within their borders.

Both of these are environmental concerns, but the two levels of government work on them independently. Similarly, the federal government must approve new pesticides, but a state, or a city if allowed by the state, may decide which of these allowable pesticides can be used within its borders and in what ways.

Perhaps one of the most striking examples of this tension in recent years has been the debate over immigration policy. Immigration is an area in which the federal and state governments historically collaborate. While the federal

government has responsibility for immigration itself, states often pass laws that address issues related to immigration.

From January 2011 through March 2012, states introduced nearly 2,500 proposed laws and resolutions concerning immigrants and immigration, with about 400 of these laws and resolutions enacted. Federal law remains supreme, but states have enforcement roles and can make decisions about which benefits and services immigrants may receive.

Sometimes, dual federalism results in conflicts between the national government and the states. In 2010, for example, the state of Arizona and the federal government clashed over a law passed by the Arizona legislature that authorized police to check the residency status of individuals when they were investigating them for other behavior, such as a traffic violation.

The U.S. Justice Department sued the state, and the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012, when the Court struck down most of the Arizona law as a violation of the national supremacy doctrine.

LECTURE 3: In designing the new government, the founders struggled to create a system in which no one person or small group could exercise excessive power. One way to accomplish this was the system of checks and balances that divided power among the three branches of the national government.

As an additional safeguard, they designed a system of federalism, with power and responsibility divided between the national government and the states. This “double security” provided another measure to keep the government in check.

This topic presents a variety of historical, theoretical, and practical explanations for the founders’ decision to adopt a

federal system and identifies the advantages and disadvantages of federalism.

The courts have played an important role in shaping the way federalism works in the United States. The topic shows how the position of the national courts has shifted over time, from upholding a system of “dual” federalism in the early years, to promoting “cooperative” federalism after World War II, and swinging back toward more limited national power and an expansion of state authority in recent years.

This topic also addresses the national government’s use of grants to encourage and, in many cases, pressure states to move in certain policy directions. Another financial source of tension is the unfunded mandate, where the national government imposes regulations that result in increased costs for the states.

LECTURE 4: Explain the limits on federal power under the American federal system using the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1816) and the clashing perspectives on federalism presented there. Remember that from the outset, the Constitution has been seen as creating a national government of vast, yet limited, legislative powers and that those powers must find their support in the Constitution itself.

The powers of Congress are outlined in 18 enumerated clauses in Article 1. “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the People” according to the Tenth Amendment

Article 1 also includes the so-called “Necessary and Proper Clause,” gives the Congress the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

After the Constitution was adopted, the necessary and proper clause and the issue of implied powers were the subject of much dispute between those who favored and those who opposed a strong national government.

The contours of the debate were drawn by a dispute from 1790 to 1791 between Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, and Alexander Hamilton, then secretary of the Treasury, over the constitutionality of the bill creating the First Bank of the United States. Jefferson took the narrow view, that the only powers

Congress had were those powers without which the express powers would be nugatory.

Hamilton took the broad view, that as long as a power was naturally related to an express power, the Congress could use that power.

McCulloch v. Maryland involved an 1816 attempt by the Maryland legislature to impose a tax on the Second Bank of the United States, chartered by the Congress. Chief Justice Marshall found the tax unconstitutional and upheld the power of Congress to charter the bank, authoritatively construing the necessary and proper clause, and thus the basic limits of congressional power: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Constitution are constitutional.”

Whether needed or not, the necessary and proper clause has long been, and still is, a useful tool in sustaining congressional legislation.

Characterize the shift from dual to cooperative federalism, the role of fiscal federalism in intergovernmental relations today, and diversity in policies among the states.

LECTURE 1: “Dual federalism” refers to the idea that the two levels of government (national and state) have dual sovereignty; that they are both dominant over their separate functions and areas of authority. This model of federalism posits a distinct division between the powers of the national and state governments.

The idea of dual federalism dominated American politics from the founding until the 1930s, when New Deal–era reforms began to increase the power of the national government at the expense of the states.

The idea of dual federalism is reflected in the Constitution, which explicitly grants the federal government the power to set tariffs, grant patents, manage the currency, enter treaties with other countries, and provide for defense and postal services. The Constitution also specifies certain shared powers, possessed by both the national and state governments. These include the power to collect taxes, establish courts, build roads, and borrow and spend money. The Tenth Amendment—often called the reserved powers clause—reserves all other powers for the states.

LECTURE 2: Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, usually referred to as the commerce clause, gives the U.S. Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The commerce clause has arguably been one of the most important mechanisms through which the power of the federal government has expanded over time.

3.3

In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of the federal government in dealing with interstate commerce. The case centered on a decision by the State of New York to grant exclusive right to specific steamboat operators to ferry people and goods to and from the state. The Supreme Court ruled that New York could not impose such limits, as the power to regulate interstate commerce fell exclusively to the federal government.

In 1890, Congress used its authority under the commerce clause to pass the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which attempted to limit the growing power of monopoly corporations.

The courts also attempted to limit federal authority in some areas. In its 1892 decision in United States v. EC Knight, the Supreme Court ruled that federal authority was limited to commerce, ruling that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not grant the federal government authority to regulate monopolies in manufacturing. Similarly, the Court ruled the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, which prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced using child labor, unconstitutional because it regulated manufacturing methods.

LECTURE 3: Chief Justice John Marshall led the Supreme Court to strengthen the power of the national government in McCulloch v. Maryland. The case established the principle of implied powers, thus widely expanding the powers of the Congress and of national supremacy over the states.

The principle of implied powers refers to the idea that some powers specifically granted to the federal government under the Constitution rest on the ability of the federal government to take certain actions. In the McCullough decision, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that certain powers are “necessary and proper”

to exercise those powers explicitly granted to the federal government.

But at the same time, the reserved powers of the states as written in the Tenth Amendment reinforced the independent powers of the states. According to the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth Amendment thus effectively reserves a large number of powers over a broad area of authority to the states.

The result was the doctrine of dual federalism, with the national and state governments asserting their powers in separate spheres of activity. Dual federalism was called into question with the secession of the southern states and the outbreak of the Civil War. The war demonstrated the failure of the available pathways to reconcile conflict

LECTURE 4: The post–Civil War era saw a gradual restructuring of American federalism.

The Civil War Amendments (thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments) limited state power and enhanced the strength of the national government. In particular, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was used to incorporate much of the Bill of Rights so that state governments were bound to observe those protections.

The growth of industrialization and urbanization in the following years resulted in problems of urban poverty, leading the national government to pass laws addressing the worst excesses of capitalism. However, the Supreme Court invalidated many of the new laws and other social welfare measures as being too restrictive of business interests.

LECTURE 5: Perhaps the most dramatic restricting of American federalism occurred during the early part of the twentieth century, as the federal government responded to the challenges posed by the rapid industrialization of the United States.

As with the earlier laws, the Supreme Court overturned many of the New Deal programs on the grounds that the government did not have the power to intervene in the economy and place restrictions on business interests. President Roosevelt proposed a court-packing plan to increase the size of the Court. Possibly in response to Roosevelt’s plan, the Court shifted slightly and the pendulum began to swing toward greater national power, culminating in the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

The post–New Deal era was marked by cooperative (marble cake) federalism—national and state governments working together to solve problems. This ended the notion of separate spheres of interest for each level of authority, and Americans today are more likely to think of problems as national rather than local issues and look to the national government for action. Cooperative federalism can be messy, with overlapping power and difficulty in determining which level of government should be accountable for action.

Explain the consequences of federalism for diversity in public polices among the states.

LECTURE 1: “Grant-in-aid” refers to payments from one level of government (usually the national or state government) to be expended by another (usually lower) level of government for a specified purpose and according to prescribed rules or standards. In theory, governments can refuse to accept grants-in-aid. However, the amount of money allocated by

3.4

the federal government to state and local governments through grants-in-aid makes it difficult for local governments to decline. Grant programs are divided into several types:

Categorical grants are distributed for specific projects or based on a specific formula. Examples include Medicaid and food stamp programs, both of which are distributed from the federal government to the states based on specific, fixed formulas established by Congress.

Block grants are used to support a general governmental function, such as maintaining public health, providing for public security, or promoting education. Block grants afford state and local policymakers a much wider degree of latitude in determining where and how funds are spent.

LECTURE 2: Trace the evolution of state dependence on federal grant aid. Beginning with President Johnson’s Great Society program,

federal spending on social programs increased dramatically. A large portion of Great Society programs, including support for public housing, Medicaid, and other programs, was allocated by the federal government to the states via grants. Consequently, from the 1960s to the 1980s, federal grants as a percentage of state and local spending increased from 14.8 percent to 27.4 percent.

Under the Reagan administration, federal grant spending was cut dramatically, such that by 1990, federal grants represented only 18.9 percent of state and local spending. Most of this reduction was the result of transforming categorical grants into block grants and then reducing the total amount allocated to the block grant program.

Under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, federal grant spending increased. Today, federal grants represent

approximately one-quarter of all state and local government spending, the same proportion they represented in the early 1980s.

LECTURE 3: “Competitive federalism” refers to the theory that federalism treats state and local governments like firms in a competitive marketplace, forcing them to compete against one another across a number of areas. Examples might include competition for residents, businesses, and tax revenue.

Under competitive federalism, state and local governments compete against one another by offering “market baskets” of taxes, land use zoning, and public policies designed to attract residents and businesses. A city might, for example, place a premium on good schools or creating public goods like parks and bike paths to attract residents.

Competitive federalism most often centers on attracting business investment. For example, a city government might offer a property tax waiver to attract the construction of a new factory or store that will increase taxable sales revenues from surrounding communities or to attract a manufacturer who will bring jobs and residents.

Competitive federalism can result in common problems: A “race to the bottom” occurs when local governments are so

aggressive in attracting potential businesses that the costs to government and the community outweigh the benefits of attracting the new investment.

A “moat and gate” problem arises from using zoning and public services to make a city or county unattractive or cost prohibitive to many potential residents. By requiring large lots for homes, prohibiting multifamily dwellings, and not offering mass transit or social services, municipalities can

limit population density and make their community unattractive to the poor and the working class. This creates a de facto system of segregation.

LECTURE 4: In drafting the U.S. Constitution, the founders chose a federal system for several reasons. Outline the benefits of federalism from the perspective of the founders.

Dispersing political power. Federalism divides political power across a larger number of people at the national, state, and local level. From their perspective, federalism might be seen as the vertical application of the idea of separation of powers.

Increasing political participation. There are more than 89,000 governments in the United States, ranging from local school boards to city and state governments to the national government. Federalism thus increases the opportunities for political participation in the United States.

Improving efficiency. Federalism makes government more efficient by locating many governmental services—police, fire, schools, sanitation, and so on—close to the people in their individual communities. From this perspective, decentralization softens the rigidity of the law.

Encouraging policy responsiveness. Federalism permits the creation of different policies suited for different regions of the country. People are free to move to a state or community whose values—and thus policy preferences—more closely align with their own. It also promotes competition between states and communities, encouraging the delivery of improved services at lower costs.

Encouraging policy innovation. Federalism, in the words of Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, encourages states to be

“laboratories of democracy,” permitting states to experiment with solutions to a wide range of social and economic problems.

LECTURE 5: While the Constitution provides for a specific division of power between the federal and state governments, the national government often makes use of mandates and spending to influence state behavior.

Mandates. Beginning in the 1960s, the federal government began to increase the number of mandates it issued to the states. In education, for example, state governments must abide by certain requirements imposed by the national government. State governments often oppose the introduction of mandates by the federal government. Mandates limit the scope of choices available to state

governments. The national government may require states to provide services or develop policies they would rather not undertake.

Even more importantly, the federal government may introduce a mandate without providing funding to support that mandate. These are often referred to as “unfunded mandates” and have drawn sharp criticism from state officials in the 1990s.

As a result of reforms introduced at the national level and extensive lobbying by state and local officials, Congress is now required to include estimates of the cost of unfunded mandates in any legislation. As a result of the increased attention placed on unfunded mandates, their use has declined in recent years.

Perhaps the most controversial unfunded mandate in recent years—the No Child Left Behind Act—was not even deemed an unfunded mandate. Indeed, many local government officials complain that the Congress has defined unfunded

mandates too narrowly, allowing them to continue the practice despite laws limiting their use.

“Preemption legislation” refers to laws passed by the U.S. Congress that prohibit states from taking certain actions. Examples here might include a 2005 federal law that prohibits certain kinds of liability lawsuits from being filed against firearms manufacturers in state courts or the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act, which preempts some state laws regulating the production and sale of certain tobacco products.

Fiscal federalism. Arguably the most common way the federal government influences decisions made at the state level is through its power of the purse. The federal government might choose to provide resources to encourage certain actions or may threaten to withhold resources to prevent other actions. Categorical grants are provided by the federal government to

state and local governments to undertake specific actions. An example is funds to promote science education in certain low-income schools. To receive categorical grants, state or local government must agree to abide by all restrictions placed on their use. Categorical grants can be either formula based or competitive.

Formula-based grants are based on a formula that determines the amount of funds a state will receive.

Competitive grants require an application or proposal and are rated based on criteria specified by the granting agency. The highest-rated applications are then funded.

Block grants provide greater flexibility to state and local decision makers. These grants are provided for broad policy areas—transportation, welfare, child services, substance

abuse prevention, and so on. States are free to spend these funds—within certain very broad guidelines—as they see fit.

LECTURE 6: Explain how state constitutions have evolved over time, reflecting the changing nature of federalism in the United States.

Early in the history of the United States, state constitutions reflected the same distrust of centralized political authority as is reflected in the U.S. Constitution. Most state constitutions include strict limits on the ability of

state officials to restrict freedoms of speech and assembly and also include prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure and cruel and unusual punishment.

State governments were designed to be weak. Governors usually only served two-year terms, and their powers were primarily ceremonial. Indeed, only 3 of the original 13 colonies—Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina—granted their governors veto power. Legislatures were part time.

The general weakness of state governments continued even after the Civil War.

The Progressive Era reforms instituted early in the twentieth century were intended to prevent the emergence of informal political institutions—political party machines—at the state level, further limiting the power of state governments. These reforms focused on expanding direct democracy. Initiatives empowered voters to enact legislation directly,

bypassing the state legislatures. Recall enabled voters to remove sitting officials from office

through popular vote rather than impeachment by the state legislature.

The tradition of weak state governments only began to reverse in the 1960s. A 1962 U.S. Supreme Court ruling mandated legislative

redistricting in the states, prompting reforms that give state governments a larger role in policymaking.

All governors now have the power to veto legislation. Except for New Hampshire and Vermont, all governors now

serve four-year terms. More legislatures are full time. State courts have become more streamlined and professional

and, as a result, have a greater role in the political process.

Assess the impact of federalism on democratic government and the scope of government.

LECTURE 1: Since the 1990s, the nature of American federalism has undergone significant change. Republican majorities elected to Congress in the 1990s generally supported a policy of devolution, under which political power and authority was transferred from the federal government to the states. Both the welfare reforms introduced in the mid-1990s and the transfer of responsibility for administering many federal environmental programs to the states provide examples of this trend.

LECTURE 2: Since the mid-1990s, several Supreme Court decisions have started to reverse the general trend of increasing federal power that characterized American federalism throughout much of the twentieth century. A lecture on these cases helps to illustrate the Court’s changing thinking on American federalism.

United States v. Lopez (1995). The Supreme Court ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibited the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, was

3.5

unconstitutional. The Congress had contended that such regulation fell within its broad authority under the commerce clause. The Court ruled that such a reading was unconstitutional and that policing was generally a power reserved to the states.

United States v. Morrison (2000). The Supreme Court struck down the Violence Against Women Act, passed by Congress in 1994. The act, passed as part of a broader anticrime initiative, permitted women to file suits in federal court against their attackers. Congress justified the legislation on the grounds that fear of violence suppressed women’s full participation in economic life. The Court struck down the law, asserting that the federal government could not extend its reach into local criminal activity by using the commerce clause.

In a set of controversial decisions, the Court also held that states had sovereign immunity, asserting that states could not be sued in federal courts unless they agreed to permit the case to proceed. These included the following decisions: Printz v. United States (1997). The Court declared that the

federal government could not require state officials to perform federal functions; specifically, that the provisions of the Brady Bill, which required local officials to run federal background checks on handgun purchasers, was unconstitutional.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). The Court concluded that Congress had exceeded its power under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by attempting to impose restrictions on local zoning, health, and other regulations in order to prevent perceived threats to religious freedom.

Various other cases, which ruled that states could not be sued in federal court for violations of the Fair Labor

Standards Act (requiring overtime pay), violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Gonzales v. Oregon (2006). The Court ruled that federal government did not have the authority, under the Controlled Substances Act, to prohibit the use of regulated but legal drugs for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon.

LECTURE 3: All too frequently, federalism is discussed in terms of abstract constitutional principles or an ideology such as states’ rights. There is some merit, therefore, in a lecture that begins at the other end of the scale, with a specific national problem: the American environmental crisis.

The crisis attempts to clean up the environment conflict with the need for an adequate supply of cheap energy. Both the national and state governments are attempting to deal with this dilemma. Often, the goals of the two levels of government are in conflict.

In some states, pollution control is the top priority; in others, economic survival has top billing. For example, the national government has set standards for automobile emissions.

California has set a more stringent standard; some Pennsylvania urban centers oppose the lower national requirement. Ohio miners protest standards that bar the use of their coal in power plants. Montana levies a heavy tax on the low-sulfur coal that is exported to the East. New York farmers and sportsmen denounce the acid rain that originates from the smoke stacks of Indiana and Illinois.

Arkansas residents grumble over the sewage and industrial wastes that come from the upstream Mississippi. Residents of Alabama and Florida complain over Georgia hogging (and polluting) the waters of the Chattahoochee River.

Oregonians have protested over the federal protection of old forests.

In the midst of such confusion, how can a comprehensive program be worked out that combines these conflicting goals? Should states be allowed to develop their own individual plans? Should we have a national super plan into which all of these pieces fit? What criteria should be used? What portion of the total cost should be borne by consumers? The national government? The state governments? City governments?

LECTURE 4: Explain how the nature of American federalism has evolved as a result of Supreme Court decisions in various cases. The following list provides a useful starting point for your discussion:

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816). The Marshall Court ruled that state court decisions in civil cases could be appealed to the federal courts.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Marshall Court ruled that the necessary and proper clause meant Congress had implied powers that were appropriate to exercising the enumerated powers (rather than Jefferson’s stricter notion of it being indispensable to exercising enumerated powers).

Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Marshall Court ruled that the decisions of the state courts in criminal cases could be appealed to the federal courts.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The Marshall Court ruled that the Congress’s power to regulate commerce among the states was broad enough to include all aspects of economic activity.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The Taney Court ruled that states had reserved powers that kept the Congress from interfering with the states’ authority to allow slavery: an early statement for dual federalism.

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918). The Court ruled that the Congress could not indirectly regulate child labor by prohibiting items manufactured by children from interstate commerce, following the doctrine of dual federalism.

National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937). This is the “stitch in time that saved nine” case in which the Court reversed itself and rejected its earlier dual federalism position and began recognizing that Congress could regulate intrastate commercial activities if they affected interstate commerce.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The Court upheld the New Deal legislation known as the Agriculture Adjustment Act. Even miniscule economic activity (planting of 11 acres of wheat) could be regulated by the Congress because of the cumulative effects on interstate commerce.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964). The Court upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibited certain public accommodations (public hotels, motels, and restaurants) from refusing to serve people on the basis of race. The Congress based its authority to pass this portion of the law on its power to regulate commerce among the states. Evidence was presented to the Congress that showed that African Americans would not travel across state lines as much if they knew they would be denied service in public accommodations.

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). The Court overruled its National League of Cities v. Usery decision from just nine years earlier. Both cases dealt with intergovernmental immunity. In Garcia, the city of San Antonio unsuccessfully argued that it was immune from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act since mass transit was a traditional state function, which, based on Usery, would have made it exempt.

The Court threw out its traditional-nontraditional standard, stating that in future cases it would leave such decisions to the political process, since the framers had designed federalism into the political process.

New York v. United States (1992). The Court ruled that while the Congress can issue conditions or regulations that states must follow to get federal grants, it cannot merely issue an order to states. In this case Congress had ordered states, in some cases, to dispose of nuclear waste.

United States v. Lopez (1995). The Court ruled that the Congress could not prohibit guns within a 1,000-foot radius of public schools on the grounds that it was regulating interstate commerce.

Jones v. United States (2000). A homeowner cannot rely on a federal law, which makes it a federal crime to “maliciously damage or destroy by means of fire or an explosive, any building . . . used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce, if the residence is not a commercial enterprise,” even if the home is insured by a company that operates nationally or it received natural gas from across state borders.

Johnson v. California (2003). California prisoner Garrison Johnson alleged in a federal district court that the California Department of Corrections used race to assign temporary cell mates for new prisoners. Johnson alleged this violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The district court and a federal appellate court ruled against Johnson.

The appellate court pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in Turner v. Safley, which said a relaxed standard—as opposed to a “strict scrutiny” standard—should be used to determine whether prison regulations are constitutional. The

prison’s policies were “reasonably related to the administrators’ concern for racial violence and thus must be upheld,” the appellate court wrote.

LECTURE 5: The recent debate over the decriminalization of medical marijuana makes an interesting case study with which to illustrate the complexity of federalism in the American system.

Explain the tension between federal and state law in this area. While numerous jurisdictions have legalized the use of medical marijuana, California can be used as a case study. Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the federal government makes it illegal to possess, use, or sell marijuana.

But in 1996, California voters approved the Compassionate Use Act by referendum, legalizing the medical use of marijuana with a physician’s prescription. Since 1996, nearly 1 million Californians have obtained a physician’s recommendation for marijuana. In 2012, Washington and Oregon went further, decriminalizing recreational use of marijuana. State and federal laws are clearly at odds in this area.

How does this affect local industry? A thriving industry of small- and medium-scale producers and dispensaries has emerged. These producers and retailers pay substantial fees and taxes to state and local governments. Despite this, the federal government still considers such producers and retailers to be engaged in illegal activity.

Operating under the principle that national law preempts state law and asserting that the interstate commerce clause grants the federal government authority to regulate marijuana production and sales, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has routinely arrested growers and retailers, detained medical

marijuana patients, and seized the assets of growers and dispensaries. The Internal Revenue Service also began a crackdown, denying some sellers the right to deduct marijuana-related business expenses. Yet the California state government continues to assert their activity is legal and should be taxed and regulated.

Medical marijuana users contend the national government has exceeded the power granted it under the interstate commerce clause because the marijuana they used was grown, transported, and consumed entirely within California. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), however, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the federal government, ruling that Congress may criminalize the production and use of marijuana even if production and use occurs entirely within a single state that has approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Even after the Supreme Court’s ruling, state and national laws remain in conflict, creating ongoing issues and illustrating the complexity of American federalism.

Class ActivitiesCLASS ACTIVITY 1: Ronald Reagan labeled his proposals on the roles of state and local government “new federalism.” He pictured millions of Americans as resentful of the idea that “a bureaucratic elite in Washington knows best what is best for people everywhere and that you cannot trust local governments. Local government is the government closest to the people; it is most responsive to the individual person; it is a people’s government in a far more intimate way than the government in Washington can ever be.”

In what sense can it be argued that government at the local level is closer to and more responsive to the people? Which people?

How does Reagan’s understanding of federalism differ from that presented in Federalist No. 10?

This discussion item encourages students to think about how federalism has evolved over time.

CLASS ACTIVITY 2: Former speaker of the House Tip O’Neill (D-MA) once famously quipped that “all politics is local.”

Ask your students what they think he meant by this. Was he correct?

Explain to your students what Tip O’Neill meant. Then ask them to think about how his view reflects the politics of the American federal system.

You can also make the discussion more meaningful to your students by providing them with a list of issues (for example, gun control, capital punishment, abortion, marijuana decriminalization, or other contemporary controversies) and asking them if it is better to leave these issues to the states to decide (meaning that we will have different policies in different states) or to have a uniform national policy on the issues covering the entire country.

This discussion question provides an opportunity to apply theoretical understandings of federalism to contemporary issues of political controversy.

CLASS ACTIVITY 3: “What if” exercises can push students to shift to a higher level of engagement and critical thinking.

Ask your students the following questions: What if the United States had adopted a unitary system of government instead of

federalism at the Constitutional Convention? How would politics and policies in the United States be different?

Ask them how the U.S. system would be different if we had retained the confederal system that existed under the Articles of Confederation.

Ask why a political system should be unitary, federal, or confederal. If the United States were to have another Constitutional Convention, would we keep a federal system or change it? Why?

This critical thinking question contrasts federalism with other systems of organizing relations between national and subnational governments.

CLASS ACTIVITY 4: Ask your students to create a list of the ways in which government affects their daily lives (or use the list developed by your students in the activity from Chapter 1). Then ask your students to think about the level of government that influences or regulates that activity.

Are they more influenced in their daily lives by the national or state and local governments?

Ask them to think about what daily life would be like in the United States if we had a unitary system where most decisions were made by the national government. Could such a system function effectively in the United States? Why?

This activity encourages students to reflect on the ways in which the American system of federalism impacts their daily lives.

CLASS ACTIVITY 5: Hold a meeting of the Editorial Board of Publius: The Journal of Federalism. Students may wish to visit the journal’s website (http://publius.oxfordjournals.org) and explore some recent articles to see what types of issues they address.

Have the board discuss what the table of contents should look like for this year’s “State of Federalism” issue.

Ask students what issues it should address, what trends one can discern, and so on.

This role-playing exercise provides students with an opportunity to engage with contemporary academic literature on federalism while learning more about how the academic community operates professionally.

CLASS ACTIVITY 6: Try to identify all of the governments that have authority and policymaking responsibilities in your area, from the federal and state governments to the types of local government. At the same time, identify the types of public policies for which they are responsible.

Map each of these policies on to specific grants of or restrictions on power in the Constitution.

Briefly discuss your impressions of the federal system from your own vantage point. Indicate whether or not you found what you expected, based on your understanding of the American federal system.

This activity gets students to consider how policy responsibilities are divided across the national, state, and local governments under federalism.

CLASS ACTIVITY 7: The Northern victory in the Civil War decisively established that the Union was indissoluble.

Ask your students to contrast our views toward the nature of the United States as an “indissoluble union” with our views toward the right of new countries to secede from existing countries in the 1990s, as Croatia and Bosnia did from Yugoslavia.

Ask for volunteers to look up articles in weekly news journals (or bring them yourself and have your students briefly review them in class) to see how these events were described at the time they were unfolding. Students should review the articles and present an outline of key issues and events to the class.

Ask the class whether the secession petitions filed on the White House petitions website following the 2012 election should be honored.

This discussion item encourages students to draw connections between historical challenges to federalism (the Civil War) and contemporary challenges both in the United States and abroad.

CLASS ACTIVITY 8: Assign two groups of students to serve as panels to debate the following question: does the American form of federalism increase democracy, or does it have a negative effect on democracy?

This activity gives students an opportunity to think critically about the relationship between federalism and democracy in the United States.

CLASS ACTIVITY 9: Ask students to brainstorm and develop a short list of the major domestic policy controversies or problems in American politics. Divide students into two groups: cooperative and dual federalists.

Have each group describe how the problem might be addressed in its system of federalism and report back to the whole class on its solution(s).

Encourage a discussion, critique, and debate of each group’s ideas.

This activity gets students to think about how two types of federal system s (cooperative and dual) have different policy effects.

CLASS ACTIVITY 10: Screen the “In Context” video for your class. In the video, Barnard College political scientist Scott L. Minkoff explains how the national government tries to force state governments to adopt its policies and how state governments respond. Then ask your students to discuss the following questions:

In the video, Minkoff poses the question, What is it that the federal government can force the states to do? How would you answer his question?

Are there areas where we might prefer greater coordination of policy at the national level? What are these areas? Are there areas where we want greater local control and policy autonomy? What are these areas? How have recent political trends reflected or not reflected these preferences?

Do we “pick our politics by where we live”? What limitations might there be on our choices?

As an alternative, use the video as a lecture starter or as a prompt for a short writing assignment using the questions just outlined.

This video exercise provides students an opportunity to discuss the power relationship between the national government and state and local governments.

Research ActivitiesRESEARCH ACTIVITY 1: Using the list of government activities from the Landmark Cases website at www.landmarkcases.org/mcculloch/pdf/Federalism_Activity_Diagram.pdf, create a Venn diagram to determine which of the activities falls into each of these categories: enumerated powers, implied powers, reserved powers, concurrent powers.

This activity illustrates the division of power under the American system of federalism.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 2: Present Justice Brandeis’s concept of states in a federal system as the “laboratories of democracy.” Assign small groups of

students to research online the ways states have tried to improve education outcomes. The Cornell Law School has useful resources for this activity (www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes.html).

This activity provides students an opportunity to explore the variations and experimentation in policy under a federal system.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 3: Ask your students to watch either Mississippi Burning (1988) or Murder in the First (1995). Mississippi Burning is a fictionalized account of the 1964 murder of civil rights activists Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney. The film focuses on the conflict between state and local authorities during the murder investigation that followed the tragedy.

Murder in the First (1995) portrays the story of petty criminals in 1930s Alcatraz and depicts the early stages of the federalization of criminal law in the United States. In a short paper, ask your students to reflect on the specific ways in which federalism and the tension between national and state and local governments play out.

This video activity provides students with an opportunity to reflect on a powerful historical example of tensions between the national and state governments regarding civil rights.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 4: States frequently argue that federal grant money is not distributed fairly. Assign students to gather data on the amount of grant money each state has received for the past five years, either in total or for specific programs. Have them compare data, looking for factors that would explain the differences: population size, poverty levels, business interests, leadership positions of the congressional delegation.

This activity provides students with an opportunity to explore the financial and budgetary side of federalism while also developing data literacy skills.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 5: Conservatives generally support a return of power and responsibility to the states. Liberals wish to maintain the strong role of the national government. Have students write an essay in which they present and defend both the liberal and the conservative analyses of American federalism. Useful starting points include Hendrickson’s “Conservative Perspectives on American Federalism,” the introduction to a special issue of the journal Publius, Young’s “The Conservative Case for Federalism,” and Foer’s “The Joy of Federalism.” All are cited in Suggested Readings.

This reading and writing activity helps students understand competing perspectives on the benefits and limitations of federalism in the United States.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 6: In a short reaction paper, ask your students to evaluate the federal response to the BP oil spill. You may wish to assign additional articles to supplement this discussion. The Guardian’s website (www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bp-oil-spill) offers an archive of extensive coverage of the event. Ask them to consider the following questions in their analysis:

The response was largely viewed as a massive failure. Is this a fair assessment? If so, who or what institutions are to blame?

How much responsibility should the states and BP assume, and how much should the national government assume? What should be their respective roles?

Should the levels of government react differently than they would in response to the loss of homes or businesses during a national crisis?

This activity encourages students to think about how federalism might undermine more efficient and effective public policy in some areas.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 7: Have students research the contemporary debate over immigration reform and enforcement. Start with Arizona’s controversial SB 1070, which was widely viewed as one of the broadest anti-immigration measures in recent U.S. history.

Ask your students to provide a short summary of Arizona’s SB 1070 or similar measures in other states.

Ask them to write a short position paper responding to the question, Should states and cities be responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws?

As an alternative, the same prompt could be used for a class debate.

This activity helps students understand the dynamics of federal-state relations in an area of considerable difference in policy preference between the layers of government.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 8: Have students read “It’s Not About Federalism #14: Gay Marriage” from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYC School of Law (www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/inaf_14.pdf). In a short response paper, ask your students to reflect on the question of whether legal recognition of gay marriages should be determined by the states or by the national government.

This activity helps students understand the dynamics of federal-state relations in an area of considerable difference in policy preference between the layers of government.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 9: Simulation: You Are a Federal Judge. Although the national government has always held supremacy over state government in our federal system, the relationship between the levels of government has changed over time. In the “You Are a Federal Judge” simulation, you will explore the current relationship as you play the role of a federal judge.

Have your students complete the simulation and explore the ways in which the American system of federalism affects the decisions and policies of national, state, and local governments.

Have them complete the associated quiz in MyPoliSciLab. As an alternative short writing assessment assignment, ask your

students to complete a short response paper in which they discuss the themes raised in the simulation as they relate to the material covered in lecture and the chapter.

This active learning exercise gives students a better understanding of the role of the judiciary in resolving disputes over federalism.

RESEARCH ACTIVITY 10: Which states win and lose the federal aid game? Use the infographic from the textbook to answer the following questions:

Which states are “recipient states,” receiving more from the federal government than they contribute? Which states are “donor states,” paying more to the federal government than they receive?

Can you explain in your own words precisely what the data show? What are donor and recipient states? How are they calculated?

How does politics help explain whether a state is a recipient or donor state? What is the relationship between party politics and recipient/donor state status? Were you surprised by these results? Why?

You can have your class go further, creating a scatterplot using donor/recipient amounts and another variable of their choice, such as poverty rates, unemployment rates, average educational levels, or other variables.

This activity helps to develop data literacy and encourages students to think about the politics of federalism in the federal budget process.

Participation ActivitiesPARTICIPATION ACTIVITY 1: Ask your students to attend a local government meeting. This could be a meeting of the city council, a local school board, a local services district meeting, or some other local government organization. While there, ask them to listen to the kinds of issues being considered.

After they attend the meeting, ask them to write a short paper in which they reflect on the issues raised. How does that discussion reflect the division of power under American federalism?

Have students compare the local government’s relation to the federal government with its relationship to the state government.

This participation activity gives students an opportunity to see firsthand the operation of local government and to reflect on how this operation is affected by the American system of federalism.

PARTICIPATION ACTIVITY 2: Have students conduct interviews of public administrators responsible for the intergovernmental implementation of policy at the local level (e.g., school principals, teachers, Medicaid administrators, public assistance caseworkers, emergency first responders). Students should ask questions about the nature of the relationships among national, state, and local government agencies, paying special attention to how implementation at the local level is impacted by federal regulations, mandates, and budgeting.

Ask students to prepare an organizational chart and/or a policy process chart depicting intergovernmental implementation in their policy area.

Have students present their interviewee(s) with a poster or pamphlet describing the process. (Local agencies can use these materials when training new workers or communicating with the press or public.)

This participation activity encourages students to think about how federal policies are implemented at the local level.

PARTICIPATION ACTIVITY 3: To test the relative importance of national, state, and local governments in the day-to-day lives of our people, have students conduct the following experiment:

Journal their activities for two consecutive days. Ask them to determine to what extent and in which ways the

levels of government (national, state, and local) influence their daily lives. Results could be presented either in a paper or through a pie chart with a short accompanying description.

This participation activity provides students with an opportunity to reflect on how federalism impacts their daily lives.

Suggested ReadingsREADING 1: David Brian Robertson. Federalism and the Making of America. (New York: Routledge, 2011). Robertson’s accessible history explores the evolution of American federalism from the founding though the contemporary debates between liberals and conservatives over the proper scope of the national government.

READING 2: There is a rich literature on the comparative politics of federalism. Good starting points to explore this literature include the following:

Gerald Baier. Courts and Federalism: Judicial Doctrine in the United States, Australia, and Canada. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2007).

Michael Burgess. Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice. (London: Routledge, 2006).

Thomas Hueglin and Alan Fenna. Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005).

Ronald L. Watts. Comparing Federal Systems. (Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press, 2008).

READING 3: Saul Cornell. The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999). An engaging text that explores the deeply rooted mistrust of centralized political authority in the early years of the nation. Cornell’s book provides an alternative perspective on the debates over ratification and the role of federalism in the United States, focusing on the debate between those who supported a stronger national government and those who favored a more local vision of politics.

READING 4: The early debates over federalism in the United States provide ample ground for reading. Possibilities include the following:

Samuel H. Beer. To Make a Nation: The Rediscovery of American Federalism. (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1993).

Stanley Elkins and Erik Elkins McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Michael C. Remington. Federalism and the Constitution: Limits on Congressional Power and Significant Events, 1776–2000. (Huntington: Novinka Books, 2002).

READING 5: Timothy J. Conlan and Paul L. Posner. Intergovernmental Management for the 21st Century. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008). Explores the practice of intergovernmental relations in the context of American federalism. Topics covered include fiscal relations, devolution and power-sharing arrangements, and emerging best practices in governmental administration.

READING 6: Tracy Gordon. Crisis Federalism: How the Stimulus Reshaped Federal-State Relations. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2013). Gordon analyzes the effect of the sharp increase in federal spending under the 2009 Stimulus Act through the lens of fiscal federalism. She concludes that the act provides a possible template for future intergovernmental cooperation, rooted in targeted aid and efficient oversight.

READING 7: Shama Gamkhar and J. Mitchell Pickerill. (2012). “The State of American Federalism 2011–2012: A Fend for Yourself and Activist Form of Bottom-Up Federalism.” Publius. 42(3): 357–383. Gamkhar and Pickerill analyze recent developments in American federalism to explore the ways in which local activism affects policy decisions at the national and state and local levels. Their article is part of the annual special issue of the journal Publius assessing the state of federalism in the United States.

READING 8: Joel Lieske. (2012). “American State Cultures: Testing a New Measure and Theory.” Publius. 42(1): 108–133. If one of the strengths of federalism is that it allows a diversity of policy choices to be explored across the country, then the relative differences in political cultures must be part of that consideration. Lieske’s article explores the intersection of divergent state cultures, federalism, and policy outcomes in the United States.

READING 9: John Dinan. (2008). “The State of American Federalism 2007–2008: Resurgent State Influence in the National Policy Process and Continued State Policy Innovation.” Publius. 38(3): 381–415. A recent assessment of the state of American federalism, focusing on the role of states as “laboratories of democracy.”

READING 10: Kimberly Hendrickson. (2004). “Conservative Perspectives on American Federalism: An Introduction.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 31(4): 1–8. Hendrickson’s brief article traces the evolution of conservative thought on American federalism from the New Deal through the 1980s. Her article also serves as the introduction to a special issue of the journal Publius that focuses exclusively on conservative political thought and American federalism.

READING 11: Ernest A. Young. (2006). “The Conservative Case for Federalism.” The George Washington Law Review. 74(5/6): 874–887. An interesting paper that explores the “liberal” legacy of the Rehnquist Court’s decisions affecting federalism, drawing from a wide array of issues including freedom of speech, gay rights, and substantive limits on the death penalty. Young argues in favor of a conservative interpretation of national power under American federalism.

READING 12: Franklin Foer. (2005). “The Joy of Federalism.” New York Times. (March 6). Available online at www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/books/review/006FOERL.html. Foer’s essay argues that liberals should embrace federalism and the diversity of policy it promotes across states.

READING 13: The journal Publius: The Journal of American Federalism (http://publius.oxfordjournals.org) offers coverage and analysis of a wide range of issues arising from the American federal system. It is an

outstanding resource for students researching topics related to federalism in the United States.

READING 14: The Council of State Governments (www.csg.org) is an organization that brings together state government officials to foster the exchange of insights and ideas to help state officials develop public policy. Their website offers insights into state and local government in the United States. Their publication, The Book of States, available via http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/view-content-type/1220, provides excellent analysis of recent developments in state and local politics across the United States.

READING 15: State governments have several avenues to facilitate cooperation and coordination between them.

The National Center for State Courts. Links to the home pages of the court systems of each of the states. www.ncsconline.org

The National Conference of State Legislatures. Information about state governments and federal relations, including the distribution of federal revenues and expenditures in the states. www.ncsl.org

The National Council of State Legislators site offers analyses and information on intergovernmental relations. http://geodatapolicy.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/is-a-national-gis-on-the-map

The National Governors’ Council is a nonpartisan organization that looks at solving state-focused problems and provides information on state innovations and practices. The website has stories and articles of interest to the states and provides links to similar issues and organizations. www.nga.org

READING 16: The U.S. Supreme Court online. You can find information about current and past Supreme Court cases and biographical information about the justices on this site. www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage

READING 17: The Findlaw website offers a searchable database of state constitutions at www.findlaw.com.

READING 18: The American Enterprise Institute’s Federalism Project offers conservative analysis on federal issues, publications, working papers, and links at www.federalismproject.org. The Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute offers a similar perspective: www.federalismproject.org.

READING 19: The Federalist Society: For Law and Public Policy Studies offers many resources and publications on the current study of modern and past federalism on a great variety of issues in the United States. www.fed-soc.org

READING 20: Many films, particularly those that deal with criminal activities, can be used to highlight the challenges of American federalism. Perhaps one of the most salient is Mississippi Burning (1988), which is a fictionalized account of the 1964 murder of civil rights activists Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney. The film focuses on the conflict between state and local authorities during the murder investigation that followed the tragedy.

Murder in the First (1995) portrays the story of petty criminals in 1930s Alcatraz and depicts the early stages of the federalization of criminal law in the United States. Both films offer powerful insights into the functioning of American federalism.