FederalismUnit I Module 4

AP Gov Miller

ObjectivesBy the end of this module, SWBAT

Identify and explain the strengths and weaknesses of federalism

Explain the importance of John Marshall and the Supreme Court in the development of federal power

Describe the evolution of the federal/state power dynamic throughout American history

List the different types of grants-in-aid and mandates and connect them to either liberal or conservative political ideology

Explain the current trend of devolution in the American political landscape

RecapRemember that federalism is gov style in which

there is a roughly equal split between national and state power

In this module the words “federal” and “national” will be used interchangeably

Positives of FederalismMore access to gov for citizens due to the multiple

layers (federal, state, county, local, regional authorities, etc.)

Embraces diversity by granting some autonomy to different regions of the nation (i.e. gay marriage, legal marijuana)

Serves as training ground for future American leaders (state governor president, for example)

Political “test tube” – smaller governments can serve as experiments in new policies without affecting nation at large too much

Negatives of FederalismMore costly for citizens – pay more types of taxes to

more types of govs for more of the same types of gov agencies

More time consuming – more officials to vote for (especially in federal republic) which can cause “voter fatigue”

More corrupt – the more financial interactions different levels of gov have, greater the chance for corruption

More rebellious – localities and states often refuses to comply with laws and decisions made by higher level governments

Example 1 – Too Costly The 9/11 After-effects

Federal gov creates Dept of Homeland Security – but DHS essentially already does what the FBI does

DHS also begins to arm state and local gov law enforcement agencies to fight terror

Consistently across the nation the two budget categories for states that have decreased the least since 9/11 have been law enforcement and corrections

Example 2 – Too Much VotingEuropeans love to point out that the US’ voter

turnout rates lag far behind their respective nations

But a federal republic as large as the US needs FAR more elections than any European nation

As a result some Americans only vote every four years in presidential elections and don’t vote for other important offices such as State governor City mayor County supervisor Midterm Congressional elections

Example 3 – Too CorruptSome notable examples

Spiro Agnew – VP of Nixon had to resign after being caught for bribery during his time as governor of Maryland

Rod Blagojevich – Got caught trying to sell Obama’s old seat in the US Senate to the highest bidder – probably not even the most corrupt governor in Illinois history

Marion Barry – former mayor of DC who was videotaped by the FBI smoking crack in a motel – somehow re-elected 4 years after that incident

Example 4 - Too Rebellious

Jim Crow laws Southern state policies that directly contradicted the

federal law of the Civil War amendments that were not ultimately struck down until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1967 one hundred years later

Infrastructure projects Not all the freeways in LA that were proposed were

built There was supposed to be a “Reseda Freeway” that

went from the 118 to Santa Monica –wealthy homeowners on both sides of the hills blocked the plan due to pollution concerns

As a result the 405 is one of the most congested freeways on Earth being the only highway that connects the Valley to West Los Angeles

But How Could This Happen???

The answer is simple – our current federal/state relationship is nothing like is has been in the past

Times have changed but remember the phrase “the more things change, the more things stay the same”

Federalism has come around full circle, so to speak

In the beginning … The first phase of federalism featured a very

clear delineation between federal power and state power

This was called “dual federalism” aka dual sovereignty

The constitutional artifices that created this scheme were the Delegated powers Reserved powersProhibited powers

“Layer Cake Federalism”A popular nickname for this style is “layer cake

federalism”

On your own, draw a slice of layer cake and examine the innards

You’ll see clean separation between parts namely cake, icing, more cake, more icing, and so on

Which of the two do you think is the “icing” in this scenario? State or federal government?

Federal Power ExpandsAt this critical time in American legal history,

enter John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme CourtStaunch Federalist (even though his party is

effectively dead in national politics as of the ‘Revolution of 1800’ he lives on due to his appointment – for life)

Rules on a series of cases during the early 19th Century that favor the “icing” over the “cake” so to speak

Marshall CasesThe three most prominent are

McCulloch v. MarylandGibbons v. OgdenBarron v. Baltimore

Know thisMcCulloch case – all about Elastic AND Supremacy

clausesGibbons case – all about Commerce ClauseBarron case – Marshall finally stops extending

federal power and “resets” the boundaries of dual federalism

McCulloch v. MarylandGov’t of Maryland tries to tax the branch of the

Bank of the US in their state

Bank manager, McCulloch sues Maryland, thinking the Bank of US is exempt from state taxes

Marshall uses this chance to bolster TWO clauses in one case Can states tax federal agencies?Should the Bank of the US even exist?

McCulloch v. MarylandNO, states cannot tax a federal establishment

by the reasoning that “the power to tax is to power to destroy” so the federal gov’t can invoke the Supremacy Clause to avoid taxation

YES, the Bank of the US can exist as an application of the Elastic Clause so that the federal government can carry out its financial powers as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution

Gibbons v. OgdenState of New York granted one of these

businessmen an exclusive contract to provide steamboat services to customers up and down the Hudson River

The other applied for and received a similar contract from the federal gov’t to operate an identical steamboat service

Who’s contract is stronger?

Gibbons v. OgdenThe federal gov’t contract of course

Marshall’s reasoning is twofold – the Hudson River abuts more than one state – thus making it an interstate waterway and the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government via the Commerce Clause

Second, New York harbor and its ports and shipping concerns are of a national and even international importance and therefore a national concern

More Marshall After these two landmark cases, Marshall

continues to toss his national weight around, rebuffing the states in cases such as Fletcher v. PeckDartmouth v. WoodwardWorcester v. Georgia

Just when it seems he’s about to give ultimate power to the national government, he stops

Barron v. Baltimore The central issue of the case is “eminent domain” –

the lawful seizure of personal property by a government body in order to construct infrastructure for the public good

The particulars don’t matter here – only the outcome

Marshall refuses to apply the Bill of Rights (5th Amendment in particular) to a purely state & local matter

State governments in 1833 breathe a collective sigh of relief – Marshall has finally stopped his reign on national terror

Storm on the HorizonBy the 1830s federal/state rivalry is already

intense Nullification Crisis Jackson and the Force Act

Worsens in the 1840s and 1850s during the buildup to the Civil War – the ultimate battle (literally) between the federal government and the states

End of the Layer Cake … sort of

Civil War causes a massive shift toward federal power (any crisis especially war has this effect)

Confederacy is defeated and military law declared during the South’s Occupation (Reconstruction)

For a brief moment in America’s history (roughly equivalent to the twelve years of the Johnson and Grant administrations) a new phase of federalism is revealed

Behold the Marble Cake“Cooperative federalism” is the intentional

mixing of federal power structures into state and local matters

Aka “Marble Cake Federalism” – think of the swirls in marble cake or marble fudge ice cream and imagine them as local, state, and federal programs all mixed up together

It is the diametric opposite of the layer cake model

Adios Marble Cake Obviously the Southern states didn’t find the

national government agents to be so cooperative – called them the pejorative name “carpetbaggers” and those Southern Republicans who helped them were “scalawags” and they did everything they could to resist their efforts

Eventually a deal was reached that became the Compromise of 1877

Republicans get to have Hayes as president (even though Tilden won) if Reconstruction ends and states get their sovereignty back

Layer Cake Round TwoAs soon as federal troops leave, Southern states

revert back to layer cake with a vengeance – the aforementioned Jim Crow laws

Federal gov’t hesitant to even apply Commerce Clause to trusts and rampant corporate abuses

This situation lasts until the beginning of the 20th Century

A Game ChangerThe seeds for the next phase of federalism

history (Marble Cake Strikes Back) are sown during the Progressive Era

Most important here is the 16th Amendment – the federal income tax

Before this time, the federal government’s earnings were generally more than any one state’s but after the income tax begins, the federal government will earn MUCH more money than any state

Money WordsQuick note on money terms

Money flowing INTO government = revenueMoney flowing OUT OF government =

expenditureExpenditures go through two phases

Authorization – deciding to spend the moneyAppropriation – deciding how much money to spend

From now on, no one is allowed to say “money” in this class anymore except as a case of last resort

Marble Cake Strikes BackAs of the early 20th Century, federal revenues soar

compared to state revenues

States are still ok though as long as there is no major financial crisis – then the market crashes and the Great Depression begins

Federal government is the sort of “last person standing” with any real funds to appropriate

In concert with Keynesian economic policy, the Democratic Party under FDR begins the New Deal and this is the last nail in the coffin for layer cake aka dual federalism aka dual sovereignty

A New Deal The New Deal is the poster child for cooperative

federalism because of its extensive injection of federal funds into states and citiesTVAPWACCCWPANLRB

States tried to resist by attacking the federal government in court but in reality they needed the funds desperately

A One-Two PunchWorld War II caused another huge increase in

federal power (boost in numbers of bureaucrats, nationalization and coordination of private industry, rationing, etc.)

After this roughly 15 year long expansionist period of federal power, there will be no going back … for a while

Dollars and SenseThink about yourself for a moment

If you were accustomed to receiving a large allowance from your parents every week because of some “crisis” you were in for so long, that you came to depend on it wouldn’t it utterly horrify you if all of the sudden you stopped receiving the allowance?

Dollars and SenseWhat about this scenario?

Same scenario as before except that let’s say that you receive the allowances for yourself and all of your siblings. You receive a little more than the others for your “distribution services” and all of you have come to depend on the allowance system as it is. Suddenly, it vanishes because the “crisis” is over.

How would you react?

Dollars and SenseThe siblings in the previous example were the

states and you in the previous example would be the bureaucrats working for the various governmental agencies at every level disbursing the federal funds

Yes, the crises of the Depression and WWII were over but luckily an economic boom occurred as a result this boom led to surging tax revenues this led states and bureaucrats to lobby for more expenditures this led to …

Fiscal Federalism… the next phase of American federalism –

fiscal federalism

Fiscal refers to financial matters and in this stage federal expenditures will be the preferred means of federal intervention in state and local matters

These expenditures are called “grants-in-aid” and they come in four flavors

Grants-in-aidCategorical grants – extremely specific grants

with details prescribed by Congress

Formula grants – specific grants with disbursement amounts tied to census data

Project grants – generic grants that allow states to craft their own proposals and compete with each other

Block grants – extremely generic grants that allow states to spend the funds on a general policy objective

Prom Example 1 - Categorical

If your parents gave you a categorical grant for prom it would look like thisExact instructions on which dress to buy at which

store on a particular day Instructions to keep your receipt so you can then

come home and prove that you followed instructions

No extra funds left over to buy anything elseMassive penalties for you if you disobeyed the

instructions, including the forfeiture of possible funds for future formal engagements

Prom Example 2 - FormulaIf your parents gave you a formula grant for

prom, it would look like this:Your parents would do research into the

socioeconomic data of your family Then they would compare the average amount of

funding for prom made by a statistically significant amount of families like yours

An average amount of funds would be identified as being “reasonable” in your effort to have a good time and then disbursed to you

Prom Example 3 - ProjectIf your parents gave you a project grant for

prom, it would look like this:A certain amount of time before the dance, your

parents would announce the future award of the prom grant

The winning grant proposal would include items such transportation, dress or tux, corsage or boutonniere, dinner, etc.

You would then create an array of different proposals each with their own pricing and your parents would pick one, fund it, and disburse the funds to you

Prom Example 4 - BlockIf your parents gave you a block grant for prom,

it would look like this:You’d ask your parents for some prom moneyThey’d then haggle a bit with you over the final

amount but then agree with you on a numberThey would disburse the funds and tell you the

have a good time

Grants-in-aid ReflectionsWhat do you think is the best grant option for

you, the child?

What about for your parents?

Grants-in-aid ReflectionsWhat do you think is the best grant option for you,

the child?

What about for your parents?

The name of the game here is all about autonomy vs. accountability States favor project or block grants (more autonomy

and more license to pursue their own agendas) Federal government favors categorical or formula

(more accountability by taking away state autonomy)

Real Examples of GrantsCategorical grant – Head Start, Medicaid

Formula grant – Model Cities, IDEA

Project grant – Stem Cell Research grant won by Massachusetts (and lost by California), Race to the Top

Block grant – Temporary Aid to Needy Families

Grants-in-aid IdeologyPolitical ideology focuses on “why” certain policy

objectives are pursued by stakeholders in a system

The “why” in the case of fiscal federalism is clear – perpetuation of national dominance in state affairs

Even the block grant is still an expression of national power because the federal government still dominates the states financially

Grants-in-aid IdeologyThe party at the time in control of the White

House and Congress was the Democrats (Truman through Johnson – look at Eisenhower’s policy again and you’ll see he was no Republican in a classical sense)

This is the essence of the liberal Democrat of the mid-20th Century – attempting to address social problems with aggressive spending programs

A recurring theme The belief that spending could mend America’s social

wounds was idealistic

But America was also still spending money on war – the Cold War that is Marshall Plan Korea Vietnam Nuclear stockpiling for M.A.D.

Eisenhower’s dreaded “military industrial complex”

The federal government by the 1960s is already running a massive federal deficit and accruing debt (too many expenditures and not enough revenue sources)

Setting the StageAs of the late 1960s, the American public is

ready for a regime change

The Liberal Era is over as of Nixon’s election in 1968

He begins a new phase of federalism and it takes the ingenious name of “New Federalism”

It will also be known as “creative federalism”

Party’s OverThe underlying assumption of New Federalism is

that there must be a severe decrease in the overall amount of grants of ANY kind that can be given to states

The fed gov’t can’t spend anymore as it tries to pay its debts

Republican presidents (usually states’ rights advocates) push for more project, block grants but Democrats in Congress resist, much of liberal spending platform already locked in budgets in form of “entitlements”

Animal PlanetWhatever funds are left are called “discretionary

funds”

As these funds shrink over time, states or bureaucratic agencies battle over rights to the smaller expenditures

Just think of every Animal Planet show you’ve seen about watering holes in the SerengetiA lot of water, all types of predators and prey drink

together no problemAlmost out of water, even prey will attack

predators more access to the mud

Creative ControlIn this new landscape of decreasing federal

intervention due to lack of federal funds, states find themselves in the driver’s seat again

Remember, taxation is a concurrent power so if states can boost their own revenue streams they can reclaim control over their own programs they might have ceded in the past to the federal government

This is where the moniker “creative federalism” comes from

Creative Control The federal government begrudgingly must give

powers back to the states in a process called “devolution” OR

The federal government must attempt to control state actions with little or no fiscal connection giving birth to the “unfunded mandate”

MandatesA mandate is a directive or order given by a

higher level of government or court that coerces a lower level of government or private party into submission

They can be “funded” which means they can be connected to expenditures or they can be “unfunded”

“Unfunded mandates” are directives given by the federal government to the states with no financial assistance attached

NCLB – An ExampleIf you ask an educator, the most notorious

example of an unfunded mandate is No Child Left Behind

Created during the Bush II Administration, it mandates that schools throughout the nation must adopt high stakes testing and show improvement over time, all without little or no additional funding

Obama’s remixed version called A Race to the Top was eerily similar

NCLB – An ExampleThe rationale was simple – for decades state

school systems have received hundreds of millions of dollars and distributed these funds to regional and municipal school districts

There must be school “stuff” laying around somewhere and instructional materials available – so just revisit the old stuff and use it better and re-apply it

Orange Line – An Example A good local example of a funded mandate is the Orange

Line

It is still the only dedicated busway in LA

The original agreement to build it was predicated on a contract MTA had with a Brazilian busing firm to supply the big “accordian-style” buses

About halfway through the process though, MTA began to favor a light rail system instead since the train-tracks were already there and they tried to renege on the deal with the Brazilians

The Brazilians sued and the California state court ordered the MTA to honor its previous contract, disburse the rest of the money to the vendors, and finish the Orange Line as originally planned

Common Core – An Example

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) that all Americans so dearly love did not originate at the federal level

44 state delegations convened at the National Board of Governors to devise, revise and adopt these new standards

Its new testing protocol contradicts previous federal iterations of NCLB and RTTT but fed gov’t can’t do much to object

The Federalism of TodaySo today we are in the middle of the New Federalism

aka Creative Federalism stage

Grant opportunities are limited and the size of grants are gradually shrinking (to the dismay of bureaucrats everywhere)

States are paying for their own programs in novel ways Bond measures Higher state licensing fees Drug legalization and taxation

Federal elected officials are toying with the idea of dismantling entitlement programs to put more funds available at the discretionary level

The Federalism of Today If the federal government is successful and somehow

allocates more funds for discretionary purposes then there will be more grants-in-aid available

Expect, however, two trends to occur as well “Cross cutting sanctions” will be applied, meaning

that penalties will be levied on states who abuse these grant funds that might harm other grants in other policy areas that the state receives

“Creeping categorization” might begin, since these new funding sources will be scarce and Congress might be tempted to be very specific in terms of the application and spending rules for these new grants

SummaryTo fully understand this module you will need a

handy reference or two Federalism TimelineGrants-in-aid Graphic OrganizerX-Word for the Module Vocabulary

You will also need to engage either me or your classmates in discourse so email me and ask me a question or come by during lunch and see me

Module Vocabulary Types of federalism

Types of grants-in-aid

Types of mandates

Important Marshall cases

Eminent domain

Cross cutting sanctions

Creeping categorization

Revenues and expenditures

Important PeopleMarshall

FDR

Eisenhower

Nixon

Important Events/Movements

Civil War

Reconstruction

Progressive Movement

Great Depression

World War II

Great Society

Cold War