Presentation on theme: "AP Government & Politics Unit 1. Federalism System of government where political authority divided between national (federal) government, and its political."— Presentation transcript:
AP Government & Politics Unit 1
Federalism System of government where political authority divided between national (federal) government, and its political subdivisions. In this system, national and state govt’s each have defined powers, with some being share by both and some being denied both.
Types of Governments 1. Democracy: literally means "rule by the people.” The people govern. 2. Republic: Literal democracy is impossible in political system containing more than a few people. All "democracies" are really republics. In a republic, people elect representatives to make and enforce laws. 3. Monarchy: rule by a king/queen. Sometimes king called an "emperor," especially if there is a large empire, such as China before No large monarchies today. UK is really a republic because queen has virtually no political power. 4. Aristocracy: rule by wealthy, educated people. Many monarchies have really been ruled by aristocrats. 5. Dictatorship: rule by one person or a group of people. Very few dictators admit they are dictators; almost always claim to be leaders of democracies. Dictator may be 1 person, such as Castro in Cuba or a group of people, such as the Communist Party in China. 6. Democratic Republic: Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic and is not a republic. Usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China."
Three Ways Power is Shared Between National Government and States/Sub- Units Unitary One strong national government Example: Great Britain Most of world uses this type Confederal Strong states or regions with weak national government Example: Articles of Confederation, the Confederacy Federal* Strong central government that shares power with states or regions Example: US
Federalism Final authority divided between sub-units and a center. Refers to apportioning of power between federal government and states. In federal system, national government holds significant power, but smaller political subdivisions also hold significant power. EX: US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil
True or False?? Most governments in the world have both state and national governments, as in the U.S..
True or False?? The powers of the state and national governments were clearly established in the Constitution.
True or False?? Under federalism, states surrender their power to the national government.
True or False?? The Framers themselves had a hard time agreeing on what was meant by federalism.
True or False?? The nature of federalism has remained consistent throughout U.S. History.
True or False?? The complexity of federalism tends to discourage citizen participation in government.
Discuss What reasons exist for the states to continue exercising independent power?
Discuss The speed limits vary across the nation’s roads and highways. Could the national government legally intervene to rectify these conflicting state laws ? Should it?
Discuss Gay marriage is allowed in 13 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Maryland, Maine, Washington, Delaware, California, Rhode Island, Minnesota) and Washington, D.C. The Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon also grants same-sex marriage. Could the national government legally intervene to rectify the conflicting state laws ? Should it?
Discuss Certain areas in Nevada permit prostitution. Could the national government legally intervene to forbid such practices? Should it?
Discuss Alaska and Colorado have held referendums concerning the private possession of small amounts of marijuana. Could the national government legally intervene to forbid such practices? Should it?
Discuss California has laws allowing for the distribution and use concerning the medical marijuana. Could the national government legally intervene to forbid such practices? Should it?
Discuss Georgia, Texas, and other states have laws that allow the death penalty. Massachusetts and others have laws forbidding it. Could the national government legally intervene to rectify these conflicting state laws ? Should it?
Federalism Terms to Know Dual Federalism Cooperative Federalism AKA Creative Federalism New Federalism
Models of Federal Governments Cooperative Federalism Dual Federalism
Fed. And state governments co-equals Constitution interpreted very narrowly. Fed. limited to only powers explicitly listed Ex: 10th Amendment, Supremacy Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and Commerce Clause. Dual Federalism
AKA… “Layer Cake Federalism"
Examples of Dual Federalism Laissez faire or hands off business Gilded Age Dred Scott decision States can decide about slave laws Jim Crow laws States can decide about segregation/integration Plessey v Ferguson Dual Federalism
Switch from Dual to Cooperative Federalism Steady from New Deal to late 20 th century. Dual federalism not completely dead, but branches of government operate under cooperative federalism. Dual Federalism
Cooperative Federalism Fed. gov supreme over states Broad interpretation exemplified by Necessary and Proper Clause aka Elastic Clause.
AKA… “Marble Cake Federalism"
Examples of Cooperative Federalism New Deal Government programs to end Great Depression Great Society Government programs to end discrimination AND to provide for those less fortunate NCLB and Race to the Top Federal government regulation and grants concerning K-12 education
Cooperative Federalism & Grants Explosion of grants reached beyond states Established intergovernmental links at all levels, often bypassing states entirely. AKA “picket fence federalism" AKA Creative Federalism Started with Morrill Land Grant of 1862 Fed. gave each state 30,000 acres of public land for each representative in Congress $$$ from sale of lands establish/support agricultural and mechanical arts colleges (UGA, Texas A & M, Michigan State…)
New Federalism Devolutionary objective: attempt to limit powers of fed. gov to impose its policies on states Idea began starting with Nixon and Reagan Included decentralization of national programs to regions Included efforts to reduce national control over grants-in-aid programs Revise character of federal involvement in general welfare spending.
Federal Mandates (the stick) Direct state/local governments to comply with rules/regulations Federal Clean Air Act Sometimes mandates may not make up full costs of program. Unfunded Mandate Endangered Species Act (1973) NO CHOICE but to follow whether or not money is supplied by feds
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Prevented Congress from passing costly federal programs along to states with at least debate on how to fund them Devolution Origin—designed to make it more difficult for fed. government to make state/local governments pay for programs and projects that it refuses to pay for itself. Proven to be case of promises unfulfilled
Federal Grants (the carrot) Fed. government transfers payments/shares revenues with lower levels of government via federal grants. It’s all about the money!!!! Who has it (the national government) Who wants it (the states) And who gets it (the states who jump through the right hoops) Federal governments use power to enforce national rules/standards by opening and closing its “purse strings” for states
Revenue Sharing Transfer of tax revenue to states Congress gave an annual amount of federal tax revenue to states and their cities, counties and townships. Revenue sharing extremely popular w/state officials, but lost fed. support during Reagan Administration. 1987: revenue sharing replaced with block grants in smaller amounts to reduce federal deficit
2 Types of Grants-in Aid Block grants Grants provided to states from fed. government with few strings attached Ex: a grant for transportation but state can decide which roads will be built/where they will be located Categorical grants Grants provided to states from fed. government with many strings attached Ex: a grant for roads but fed. government decides where road will go/which road can be widened
Welfare Act of 1996 AKA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Signed August 22, 1996 (Clinton) Required work in exchange for time-limited assistance. Law contained: strong work requirements performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs state maintenance of effort requirements comprehensive child support enforcement supports for families moving from welfare to work (increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage)
Important Supreme Court Cases Concerning Federalism South Dakota v Dole U.S. v Lopez Printz v U.S. District of Columbia v. Heller MacDonald v Chicago Boumediene v. Bush Bush v Gore
South Dakota vs. Dole (1987) Fed. government required states to raise drinking age to 21 in order to receive highway funds SD claimed law unconstitutional because 21 st amendment gave power to states for regulating alcoholic beverages. State filed suit against Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole Can Congress withhold federal funding in order to force a state to pass legislation it deems useful?
Decision and Importance Decision: “Yes!” Why important? Provision designed to serve general welfare “Non-requirement” aspect was valid exercise of Congress' spending power
United States vs. Lopez (1995) 1 st modern Supreme Court case to set limits to Congress's lawmaking power. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. carried handgun and bullets into his high school. Charged with violating Section 922(q) of Gun-Free School Zones Act of Government believed that possession of firearm at school falls under jurisdiction of Commerce Clause.
Decision and Importance Court said, “NO!” to Commerce Clause in Lopez Fed. government overstretched its boundaries Forced states to create gun laws themselves. Why important? Interstate commerce, gun-free school zones cannot be federally mandated (states rights) Was this a change in the direction of Court?
Printz vs. United States (1997) Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady seriously injured during assassination attempt Lobbied for stricter gun controls and background checks – passed, known as “Brady Bill” Printz (a sheriff) challenged Brady Bill charging that it violated 10 th Amendment Did the federal mandated law take it too far??
Importance Court said “YES!’ Ruled in favor of Printz Congress may not require States to administer federal regulatory program and violated 10th Amendment to Constitution Decision overturned requirements for local enforcement of background checks Why important? States no longer subordinates in all power disputes involving unfunded mandates
Amendment II Well regulated militia, being necessary to security of a free state, right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What exactly does that mean???
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Regarding meaning of II Amendment and relation to gun control laws. After DC passed legislation barring registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating all legal firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming laws violated 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Do local government have right to impose such strict laws concerning guns? **
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Decision: No! In a 5-4 decision, Court held that 2 nd Amendment protects individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense at home.
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010 Facts of the case Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Here, plaintiffs argued that 2 nd Amendment should also apply to states. **
McDonald v. Chicago, 2010 Ruling and Importance (5-4) Supreme Court ruled that 14 th Amendment makes 2 nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purpose of self-defense applicable to states Court reasoned rights that are "fundamental to Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to states through 14 th Amendment.
Habeas Corpus “You have the Body” Writ of habeas corpus: judicial mandate to prison official ordering inmate be brought to court to determine if imprisonment is lawful Prisoners often seek release by filing petition for writ of habeas corpus. Filed with court by person who objects to own or another's detention or imprisonment. Petition must show that court ordering detention/imprisonment made legal/factual error.
Boumediene v. Bush (2008): Facts of the Case: 2002: Lakhdar Boumediene and 5 other Algerian natives seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected involvement in plot to attack U.S. embassy there. U.S. gov. classified men as enemy combatants in war on terror and detained them at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO), located on land U.S. leases from Cuba. **
Boumediene v. Bush (2008): Questions of Law 1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? 2. If so, is Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of Suspension Clause of Constitution? 3. Are detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to protection of 5 th Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of Geneva Conventions? 4. Can detainees challenge adequacy of judicial review provisions of Military Commissions Act?
Importance No and Yes to questions (5-4 split decision) Court ruled in favor of detainees in each question. Procedures laid out in Detainee Treatment Act not adequate substitutes for habeas writ. Detainees not barred from seeking habeas or invoking Suspension Clause because had been designated as enemy combatants/held at Guantanamo Bay.
Bush v. Gore (2000) Facts of the Case: FL Supreme Court ordered Circuit Court manual recount of 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. Recount all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) Gov. George Bush and Richard Cheney sought emergency petition to reverse FL Supreme Court's decision.
Bush v. Gore (2000) Questions of Law: 1. Did FL Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of Constitution by making new election law? 2. Do standardless manual recounts violate Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of Constitution?
Importance In 5-4 decision Supreme Court ruled for. Bush and Cheney 1. Yes, FL Supreme Ct. acted incorrectly Equal Protection clause guarantees ballots can’t be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment” 2. Yes, manual recounts were unconstitutional Recount fair in theory, unfair in practice.
Read Your Chapters!! (Many) More Supreme Court cases to come…