federalism (ch 4)

Points to ponder:

1. Federalism offers several constitutional advantages

·     like separation of powers (with its checks and balances) federalism fragments power

·     federalism allows governments to tailor solutions to local problems, letting Bono figure out the best trash collection system for Bono while allowing Jonesboro to determine what works best for Jonesboro

·     federalism allows for the possibility that groups of people who may be a minority nationally but who dominate at lower levels can set policy which conforms to local preferences; for example, Arkansas, with strong Protestant churches, was for a long time one of the few states without a lottery, which used to suit most local people just fine

·     with state and local governments closer to the people than is the US government in Washington, federalism should promote more opportunities for political participation (though, in fact, participation measured in terms of voter turnout tends to be lower for state and municipal elections)

·    federalism allows for the possibility that different local jurisdictions will experiment with different policies, some of which may prove very effective and from which other states or municipalities, or even the federal government, can learn; for example, changes in welfare policy, on which President Clinton and Republicans in Congress collaborated, drew on the changes launched by the former Republican governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson

2. While there have been inevitable ebbs and flows in the tide, over two hundred years the clear trend has been in favor of national government power at the expense of the states, and this is for several reasons

·    when state policies and programs compromise the national security of the US (national security broadly defined), Washington tends to step in; a good example of this is education, dating back to land grants to support public universities in the US in 1870s, through World War I in which it was found that many potential servicemen were unfit for military service because of deficiencies in their schooling, through the federal investments in science and mathematics training to help the US in the space race against Russia in the 1950s; another example is the Eisenhower interstate highway system which it is often forgotten was established for defense purposes as a way of improving the movement of military equipment in the event of a war

·     national standards of justice have been used to justify interventions in state policy and politics; civil rights for African Americans obviously illustrate this point, but so, too, would such things as Title IX which requires equity in the support of women’s athletics at the high school and university level and the provisions guaranteeing accommodations to the disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act

·     the national government has assumed a more prominent role because of its more extensive financial powers—specifically, Washington’s access to a wider variety of tax sources and its control over the money supply which allows it to spend freely to the extent that it wishes to assume additional debt (many state constitutions, on the other hand, bar running a deficit and, in any event, states are leery of raising taxes for fear of running off businesses and residents)

·     many businesses which operate across state lines prefer a single national regulation to a crazy quilt of regulation by 50 states and even more localities, and so encourage Washington to adopt a uniform set of rules, again shifting power from the states to the national government; an example was the May 2009 embrace by auto manufacturers of higher US mileage standards for automobiles, something they preferred to having California and other states adopt tighter rules than obtain nationally (Coleman, et al.: 143), thus creating a patchwork which would be difficult for carmakers

3. Although there are serious philosophical issues involved in federalism and in preferring stronger state governments (and a correspondingly weak national government), or the reverse, one of the important effects of federalism is the tendency for all political groups to take advantage of a federal system to try to move political issues from the national level to the state level or from the state level to the national level for their own advantage; an example of this is the saga of Terri Schiavo, an instance in which Republicans, who often express a belief in the importance of allowing state governments to decide as many issues as possible, “nationalized” her case when the Florida courts struck down the efforts of the Florida legislature to prevent removal of the woman’s feeding tube (here are a few chronologies of the case: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm; http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline)

Question to consider:

1. Why does federalism require a big-C Constitution?
2. What is the supremacy clause?
3. What is the story of McCulloch v Maryland (1819)?  What constitutional provisions were at stake?  Of what significance is the case?
4. How has Congress used its power to regulate interstate commerce to enhance the power of the national government, and how has the Supreme Court responded to such efforts?
5. What is the distinction between dual and cooperative federalism?
6. Why might states be inclined to view the term "cooperative federalism" as a little bit odd?
7. Why is the Supreme Court such an important force in reshaping the relative powers of states and the US government in our federal system?