Figure 3.1: Lines of Power in Three Systems of Government

Unitary Government National Government Supreme

Confederation States Supreme

Federal Government Shared Power-Federal Government - Supreme in Some Areas Only

American Federalism – A bold, new plan to protect personal liberty Founders believed that neither national nor state government would have authority over the other because power derives from the people, who shift their support. New plan had no historical precedent. Tenth Amendment was added as an afterthought, to define the power of states

John Marshall Chief Justice of Supreme Court (1801-1835)

Marbury vs Madison (1803) Judicial Review

McCulloch vs Maryland (1819) “necessary and proper clause”

Article I, Section 8 Article VI, the Supremacy Clause 10th Amendment Article IV

Dual federalism Both national and state governments supreme in their own spheres Hence interstate versus intrastate commerce – Early product-based distinction difficult – "Original package" also unsatisfactory

Grants-in-aid Grants show how political realities modify legal authority. Began before the Constitution with "land grant colleges," various cash grants to states Dramatically increased in scope in the twentieth century Were attractive for various reasons – Federal budget surpluses (nineteenth century) – Federal income tax became a flexible tool – Federal control of money supply meant national government could print more money – "Free" money for state officials

Meeting national needs: 1960s shift in grants-in-aid – Meeting national needs: 1960s shift in grants-in-aid From what states demanded To what federal officials found important as national needs

Categorical grants versus revenue sharing Categorical grants for specific purposes; often require local matching funds Block grants devoted to general purposes with few restrictions Revenue sharing requires no matching funds and provides freedom in how to spend. – Distributed by statistical formula – Ended in 1986

Mandates Most concern civil rights and environmental protection Administrative and financial problems often result Growth in mandates, 1981 to 1991 Features of mandates – Regulatory statutes and amendments of previous legislation – New areas of federal involvement – Considerable variation in clarity, administration, and costs

Federal courts have fueled the growth of mandates Court orders and prisons, school desegregation, busing, hiring practices, police brutality

Conditions of aid Received by states voluntarily, in theory – Financial dependence blurs the theory – Civil rights generally the focus of most important conditions in the 1960's, a proliferation has continued since the 1970's

Devolution

Renewed effort to shift important functions to states by Republican-controlled Congress in program) 1994 Key issue: welfare (i.e., the AFDC These and other turn-back efforts were referred to as devolution. Old idea, but led by Congress Clinton agreed with need to scale back size and activities of federal government.

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

Source:

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1999

, Table 12.2, 205-210.

Figure 3.3: Federal Aid to State and Local Governments, 1980-2000

Source:

Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1998

, Historical Tables, Table 6.1, 99.

Figure 3.5: Devolution in the Polls: The States over Washington

For more information about this topic, link to the Metropolitan Community College Political Science Web Site http:// socsci.mccneb.edu/pos/polsc main.htm