#3: The Evolution & Development of Federalism The allocation, or division, of powers in our federal system has changed dramatically over the years. The Supreme Court, in its role as interpreter of the Constitution, has been a major player in the redefinition of the federal system. Some early cases that addressed federalism include: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

McCulloch was the first major decision by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall about the relationship between the states and the national government. The Court upheld the power of the national gov’t. to establish a national bank and declined the right of a state to tax the national bank. “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The Court’s broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers.

The Gibbons case also focused on the relationship between the states and the powers of Congress. Could New York grant a license of navigation to a company on the Hudson River? The Hudson River forms part of the border between New York and New Jersey. U.S. Congress had also licensed a ship to sail the Hudson. The main constitutional question in Gibbons was about the scope of Congress’ authority under the commerce clause

Commerce Clause: Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3 “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

In Gibbons, the Court upheld broad congressional power over interstate commerce, giving ultimate authority to grant an operational license to Congress. Dred Scott v. Sandford: SCOTUS favored the idea dual federalism in which separate but equally powerful levels of government is preferable, and the national government should not exceed its enumerated powers. The Court held that Mr. Scott was not a U.S. citizen, nor were any people of African descent, and therefore not entitled to sue in federal court and Scott remained a slave.

Chief Justice Roger Taney also wrote that Congress had no power to abolish slavery in the territories and slaves were private property protected by the 5 th Amendment: “…no person…shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This was a narrow interpretation of the power of the federal government. – Narrow interpretations = less power for Congress

The Civil War & Beyond Dual federalism remained the framework for federalism in the Reconstruction and Progressive Eras. States actually believed they could nullify (void) federal laws they disagreed with. Dual federalism finally ended in the 1930s and cooperative federalism began when the crisis of the Great Depression demanded powerful actions from the federal government. The federal government needed the states to implement numerous New Deal policies and so the relationship changed. States, in turn, needed help from the federal government.

POST-FDR Cooperative federalism replaced the idea of dual federalism. Because of the New Deal policies, the federal government became more involved in domestic policies and economics. States are required to carry out, or implement, laws. Therefore, states rely heavily on the federal government for money.

Cooperative federalism is sometimes referred to as marble cake federalism. The federal government, states, and even cities have roles that overlap and mix together. Grants-in-aid money flooded states for public works projects, work programs, relief agencies, and entitlement programs. For example: social security, unemployment, food stamps, veteran’s benefits.

Creative (Regulated) Federalism; 1960s-70s: General Revenue Sharing (states can choose where to spend) and Block Grants (money for specific things) were general, broad funds that gave states money for their needs (i.e. education, transportation, urban development, etc.), but the Vietnam War and military expenses of the Cold War, as well as social projects under LBJ caused the government to become more strict about how states used money. They had begin to spend more money than they brought in (deficit spending).

Increase in categorical grants: allocation of federal money to the states for a specific purpose (i.e., aid to parents with dependent children, airports, highways, tech in schools). Federal leadership saw these grants as a way to compel, or force, individual states to behave in ways desired by the federal government. If the states refuse to cooperate with the federal government, it would withhold funds (i.e. interstate highway funds withheld if drinking age or speed limits aren’t enforced)

New Federalism- Reagan Revolution 1980s - Present Drastic cuts in federal domestic programs and income taxes in an attempt to reestablish the primacy of the states. For the first time in thirty years, federal aid to state and local governments declined. The idea was that federal government had gotten too big. States should have more responsibility and authority. Today, this trend has continued to some degree. Formula and matching components of categorical grants are more common and mandates, or legislation requiring states to carry out certain measures, are another way for the federal government to put responsibility on the states.  DEVOLUTION

#4: Federalism & the Supreme Court By the early 1990s, public opinion polls reported that Americans began to think that the national government was too big, too strong, and too distant to understand their concerns or meet their needs. SCOTUS, once again, played a role in interpreting the ideas surrounding freedom. They took more cases involving abortion, gun control, the environment, and the use of the Commerce Clause.

Rehnquist Court- Reinterpreting Federalism: Generally handing back power to the states; the pendulum of power swings in power of states. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): states can pass restrictive measures on abortions.

Returning Power to the States U.S. v. Lopez (1995): federal government cannot pass Gun Free Drug Free School Zone Act based on interstate commerce clause; education and safety laws have traditionally been left up to the states. U.S. v. Morrison (2000): federal government cannot pass Violence Against Women Act based on interstate commerce clause; civil suits dealing with assault have been in the states’ domain of power.

HOMEWORK: Complete left page Vocabulary Chart (with pictures!) Complete left page on block aid grants