Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Howard Henry

Period 5

 

Chapter 3: Federalism

 

Governmental Structure

 

Federalism is where a National Government makes the final decisions over smaller state and local governments which make up the country.  These states are protected under this system.  A system isn’t federalist unless the smaller governments have at least some decisions they can make on their own, however.  France, Great Brittan, Italy and Sweden are not federalist countries because the local governments can be destroyed by the national government, and they hold little say in national matters.

The independence of the local governments comes from the country’s constitution, as well as the attitude and preferences of the citizens, and the power that the national government holds.  The former Soviet Union was not really a federalist country because none of the local governments were independent of the national government.  Federalism “creates separate, self-sustaining centers of power, prestige, and profit.”  The federal government uses most of its power by giving it to the states through grants for things like roads and hospitals.

One complaint about Federalism is that it allows state governments to block action and slow down the governmental process.  It is said that the system does not work, and may lead the country in the wrong direction. (The example used in the book is the advancing of racism.)  It’s also argued that federalism protects individual liberties.  Depending on where you are, power will be used in different ways.  This can be used for, of course, good and bad decisions without national government intervention.  Just as one state can help advance racism, another can pass a law to ban it.  A small group of people can work towards something they believe in, but this would not happen in a non-federalist country. 

People are more inclined to participate in government if they feel they can change it.  There is a better chance of a person getting a change made if many officials are elected.  This allows for many different areas where one could try to get the change started.  This makes political involvement in the United States greater than in other countries. 

 

The Founding

 

Federalism was issued by the Framers to protect personal liberties.  As with the separation of power, this was to keep one person from gaining too much power.  In a confederation, power comes from the state and local governments, which is then used to form a federal government.  This is what the states were running under the Articles of Confederation (1776-1787).  Under this system, the national government depends on the states’ unity, which causes a lot of problems.  Federalism was meant to have the Federal and Local governments, neither having more power than the other, so that if a citizen was having problems with one, he could turn to the other for help.  At the Philadelphia convention, nobody knew what to expect.  The Constitution didn’t say, and was added in the Tenth Amendment what powers the States held. 

The Founders knew that they could not spell out every little detail of the government in the constitution, so they used elastic language that could be interpreted as needed depending on what circumstances arose.  Hamilton felt that the National Government was supreme and that its power should clearly be stated in the Constitution.  Jefferson felt that the National Government’s power came from the people, and therefore, the power of the federal government should be limited and loosely defined in the constitution.  (In short, Hamilton argued for national rights, Jefferson wanted states rights.)

 

The Debate on the Meaning of Federalism

The Civil War proved that the National government was supreme, and that the states could not secede from the union.  Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, in a series of cases, gave definition to the constitution.  In McCulloch vs. Maryland, it was determined that Congress had the power to set up a bank, using the Necessary and proper clause:
"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 spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."
The case also determined that a state could not tax the federal government, since "the power to tax is the power to destroy."  Later on, the Supreme Court declared that just as the state could not tax the federal government, that the government could not tax the interest people earn on state and municipal bonds.   In 1988, they changed their minds, though, yet Congress hasn't used this power.  Nullification is the power of states to void federal laws.  John C. Calhoun of
South Carolina revived the doctrine on the issue of slavery.  The North winning the civil war settled the issue that the federal union is supreme and indissoluble.  Duel Federalism is the idea that the federal government is supreme in its sphere and the states are supreme in theirs, and that these spheres should be kept separate.  Interstate commerce is obviously controlled by the federal government, while intrastate commerce is controlled by the states.  The definition of interstate commerce was where the problem was.  Commerce was defined as a “stream flowing though the country,” and that the federal government could regulate anything that affected the stream. 

In may 2000, the supreme court overruled the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, claiming that attackers against women do not disrupt the stream of interstate commerce and thus Congress could not pass a law that would allow women to sue their attackers in a federal court.  In Printz v. United States (1997), the court said it can’t be required for all police to do background checks on all gun purchasers because the federal government didn’t hold that power.  In 1999, however, the court ruled that state welfare programs could not exclude new residents from the benefits they received in the state which they moved from.  One widely accepted state power is police power, which is unconstitutional laws that promote the health, safety, and morals of citizens. 

“The initiative allows voters to place legislative measures (and sometimes constitutional amendments) directly on the ballot by getting enough signatures (usually between 5 and 15 percent of those who voted in the last election) on a petition.”  A referendum allows voters to reject a measure adopted by the legislature   A recall lets voters remove elected officials from office.

 

Federal-State Relations

 

What Washington does may not be what the politicians in Washington want to happen.  For example, a Supreme Court case declared that the federal government had control over oil drilling off the nation’s coast, but 6 years later, congress gave the power back to the states. 

A land grant was money given to states to develop roads, canals, railroads, and flood control projects.  These grants’ use was left almost entirely to the sates.  Grants-in-aid amounted to less than $6 million per year in 1915, “by 1925 over $114 million was spent; by 1937 the figure was nearly #300 million.”  By 1985, there was over $100 billion a year used for grants-in-aid, spent through more than 400 programs.  The federal government cannot spend money not authorized by the constitution, so they give the money to the states to run the programs they want done. 

There are four reasons why states like federal money.  The first is that there was money available at the time.  In the 1880’s Washington had more money than it could spend, so some of it was used for national improvements.  Reason two is the federal income tax.  This brought in more money because the nation was more economically active.  Reason three was that the federal government could print its own money.  And since it borrowed money from itself, it never had the intention to pay it all back.  If states want to borrow money, they have to pay it back in full.  The forth reason is politics.  If the federal government gives money to one state, they’ll have to give money to all states.  If one state gets money to improve roads, then every other state can ask for the same thing. 

During the 1960s, the federal government stopped focusing on what the states needed and started focusing on what was important for national needs, such as drug abuse.  This took power away from governors who wanted to spend the money on what was best for their communities.  This happened to stop states dependant on the federal money.  State and Local officials made a lobby consisting of mayors, goobers, school superintendents, state directors, county highway commissioners, police chiefs and others who depend on federal funds.  This lobby didn’t work because they could only increase the amount of money, but not how much of it went to any specific area.  So now, over 31 states, more than 2 dozen countries and more than one hundred cities are represented in Washington, some small, some large. 

A categorical grant is one granted with a specific purpose, such as to build an airport.  These usually require states to put up some of its own money as well, although it’s usually a small amount.  Governors don’t like these because they are too narrow, not allowing them to adopt the money to local needs.  As a result, block grants came into play.  Block grants are grants given for a general purpose, allowing a bit more freedom in how they are spent.  Revenue Sharing gave even more freedom, allowing the state to spend the money with no matching, or requirements by the government on what to spend the money on.  This program was ended in 1986 after the government spent #85 billion in 14 years. 

 

The Slowdown in “Free” Money

 

Congress and the bureaucracy liked categorical grants because of their specificity, which allowed for great federal control.  Therefore, they grew faster than Block Grants.  Whenever Congress wanted to solve a problem, they set up a block categorical grant so they, and not the states, could decide who controlled the money.   Also, because block grants and revenue sharing were so broad based, a single interest group didn’t have an advantage in pressing for one to be given.  Categorical grants often control many agencies depending on the money.  The amount of spending on revenues sharing (increased 11% between 1975 and 1978) is less than the amount of categorical grants (increased 56% between 1975 and 1978).  Revenue sharing resulted in a wasteful way of helping the poor because every community (including the rich and the poor) got the revenues sharing money. 

States that depend on federal money will, of course, compete over it for the larger share.  How this money is spent is determined by a formula which takes a cities population, personal income, and housing quality in an area into account.  A city losing population may lose millions in federal aid money. 

 

Federal Aid and Federal Control

 

The conditions some federal money comes with may void the tenth amendment.  Categorical grants continued to grow rapidly after block grants and revenue sharing slowed down. The two kinds of federal control over state governments when referring to federal money are conditions of aid and mandates.  Conditions of aid are strings attached to federal money which a state must do in order to qualify for the money.  Mandates are rules that are set by the federal government that must be followed if a state takes a grant; sometimes they have nothing to do with federal aid. 

Mandates usually protect civil rights, stopping discrimination against race, sex, age, ethnicity, or any physical or mental disabilities.  Environmental mandates for pollution control have also been required by the federal government.  Mandates create problems when the language is vague.  Mandates can vary greatly in what they ask for.  Efforts were made by the 104th Congress to slow down mandates by not funding them.  The courts have helped the growth of mandates, the most noticeable example being the desegregation of schools. 

Conditions of aid, in theory, can be avoided by simply not taking the money, but this isn’t always practical.  When a state depends on the federal money, they have to take the strings that come along with it.  Some conditions are consistent with the grant, such as loosing highway aid money if the state doesn’t start a highway beautification program.  Other conditions are more general, pertaining to most grants, such as a state having to conduct an environmental impact study if they build something with federal money.  States and the federal government disagree about the costs of these rules.  Congress began to pass laws requiring states to do something, and leaving them with the bill.  State and local officials must try to balance their benefits with the costs of the conditions.  Reagan wanted congress to change 83 categorical grants into 6 large block grants, all without limits on how the states could spend the money.  But Congress change the categorical grants into 9 block grants, all of which with conditions of aid.  The public did not revolt against this but instead produced “higher service levels than otherwise would have been the case.” 

 

A Devolution Revolution?

 

When Congress wanted to shift power back to the States, the first issue was welfare.  The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) since 1935 has helped low income, unmarried mothers and their children by giving them money through the states.  Since it started, the number of children born out of wedlock has risen dramatically.  Clinton signed a bill ending it, saying that every woman on the program should begin working within 2 years, and no woman should be on the program for more than 5 years.  This process, called Devolution, passes on powers of the federal government back to the states. 

There are three types of block grants:  Operational grants give money for running programs, Capital grants give money for building things, and Entitlement grants give money to families and individuals.  From 1966 to 1994, none of the funds were for major entitlement programs.  So in 1995, 29% of the money went to operating programs, 67% to capital programs, and only 4% went to entitlement programs.  Together, AFDC and Medicaid accounted for half of all grant spending, and were considered entitlement programs.  Since they’re block grant programs, every state gets a share of its funds.  Devolution of welfare programs has started second-order devolution (“a flow of power and responsibility from the states to local governments”) and third-order devolution (“an increased role of nonprofit organizations and private groups in policy implementation.”).  The number of people on welfare dropped from 14.1 million to 8.9 million.  Devolution has increased spending, instead of decreasing. 

Devolution is increasing because of three reasons:  “the beliefs of devolution’s proponents, the realities of deficit politics, and the views of most citizens.”  People believe, guided by mistrust in the government, that if the state governments had more power, the programs that are wasteful will be eliminated.  Congress wanted to make cuts in entitlement spending, so they gave the responsibility to the local governments.  Most citizens favor the idea of devolution.  73% opposed cutting Medicaid and other programs, the only exception being AFDC, in which only 35% opposed cutting it. 

 

Congress and Federalism

 

The United States will remain un-centralized partially because state and local governments having constitutional protection, and partially because Congressmen represent their constituents for Washington, and not the other way around.  The reason congressmen pass bills that create problems for mayors and governors is that there may be many representatives from the same location representing different constituents, and they will vote different ways.  Political Parties now play less of a role in congress and their representation of their area, as congressmen now “operate as free agents, judging local needs and national moods independently.”  There are exceptions to this, with some areas still strong in political parties.  When a person speaks for a state in Washington, he is not representing everyone’s opinion, and depending on whom you ask, you will get many different opinions on the same state or city.  The final reason the USA is not centralized is that Americans have varying opinions on which level of government works the best.  Because Americans don’t agree on many issues, we will remain federalist.