AP Government Ms. Ozzimo

AP Government Ms. Ozzimo
Federalism AP Government Ms. Ozzimo

Federalism The sharing of power between a central government and equally sovereign regional governments

Federalism decentralizes politics & policies
Multiple levels of government – more opportunities for people to participate Federal and state governments handle different issues States can solve the same problem in different way and tend to be policy innovators States are laboratories for democracy States regulate drinking ages, marriage laws, and speed limits

Constitutional Provisions that Guide Federalism
Article 1, Section 8 enumerated powers of Congress necessary & proper clause Article 1, Section 9 powers denied Congress states to be treated equally Article 1, Section 10 powers denied to the states Article IV Full Faith and Credit Privileges & Immunities Extradition Article VI Supremacy of Constitution & national govt 9th Amendment Rights not listed are retained by the people 10th Amendment Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Full faith and credit clause
Reserved powers clause 5:4 ruling The right to same sex marriage is guaranteed by the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment FF&C clause – if Vermont sanctioned the marriage of 2 men, Missouri would have to honor it 10th Amendment – Missouri has the right to define marriage within its borders

McCulloch v. Maryland Date Background/details Ruling Significance

Confederal System Power center: the states
Examples: the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation, the Confederacy during the Civil War Costs & Benefits? Example: The EU

Unitary System Power center: national/central government
Examples: China, France Costs & Benefits?

Federal System Power center: power is divided between the states and the national government Examples: the modern U.S., Germany, Canada Costs & Benefits?

Federalism Advantages for Democracy Disadvantages for Democracy
Increases access to government services Local problems can be solved locally Hard for political parties or interest groups to dominate all politics States have different levels/quality of service Local interest can counteract national interests Too many levels of government Too much overlap; lots of money spent Spending on education per student in each state

Medical Marijuana & Laboratories of Democracy

Fiscal Federalism the pattern of spending, taxing, and providing grants in the federal system cornerstone of the national government’s relations with state and local governments the national government relies on the states to administer some federal policies Kelsey Falkowski Sharing of power  sharing of funds Federal budget (include pie chart) Graph of increase in the amount of money

The Grant System Type 1: Categorical grants – federal grants that can be used for specific purposes; usually with strings attached project grants – based on merit formula grants – amount varies based on formulae Type 2: Block grants – federal grants given more or less automatically to support broad programs; no strings attached Kelsey Falkowski How we distribute the federal pie Categorical grants – we’ll give you this money, but you have to do this 90% of federal money that is given to states is given in the form of categorical grants Preferred by the federal govt./Congress Conditions of aid – the “strings attached”; what states must do to receive money State of Florida – drinking age was 18 until the mid 1980s. Reagan decided he wanted to make the drinking age 21 nationally. But this is a state power. If states want to continue receiving money for transportation (categorical grant), then they have to raise the drinking age. Technically the states can say no, but . . . Project grants – used to fund specific building projects (building a bridge) Block grants – states LOVE these because they leave more up to their discretion Here’s money for education (categorical grant – would say ”here’s money for textbooks”)

Mandates Mandates direct states (or local govts.) to comply with federal rules under threat of penalties or as a condition of receipt of a federal grant. Not optional Unfunded mandates The federal government mandates states to comply with regulations that cost money money is not provided  the states must use their own funds Kelsey Falkowski States have to follow the rules/guidelines of the federal govt or money might be withheld, they might lose a grant, etc. States hate mandates Unfunded mandate examples – the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (public buildings must be wheel accessible - chair ramps; automatic doors); the Clean Air Act (complying with pollution standards; implementing green energy technology); The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (testing)

What am I? The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Block grant
Categorical grant  project or formula Mandate EXPLANATION – equity of opportunity for all students to receive a proper education; gives grants to meet that goal Signed by Obama in December of 2015 (reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) goal of ensuring our education system prepares every child to graduate from high school ready to thrive in college and careers “The new grant program in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) focuses on safe and healthy students, and how technology can be integrated into schools to improve teaching and learning in addition to emphasizing access to a well-rounded education that includes a wide variety of disciplines – such as music, the arts, social studies, environmental education, computer science and civics.” WHAT AM I?  block grant

What am I? Head Start Block grant
Categorical grant  project or formula Mandate The Head Start program is designed to increase access to early childhood education and improve school readiness for low-income children. Rigorous evidence shows that Head Start meets short-term school readiness goals, but there is room to improve its capacity to decrease school readiness gaps. In order to understand Head Start’s effectiveness and the program improvements needed to reduce inequities in school readiness, the diversitydatakids.org policy equity assessment considers Head Start’s logic, capacity and research evidence within the program’s historical and present context. Head Start is a federally-funded early childhood education program for low-income children under the age of mandatory school attendance (usually five years old). Head Start programs serve children from age three to mandatory school age (usually five). Early Head Start programs serve pregnant women and children ages zero to two. WHAT AM I? Categorical (project based) Federal funding process: ( Head Start is a categorical grant program in which federal funding is allocated directly to local agencies administering Head Start programs in each state based on strict formulas. In order to receive funding, Head Start agencies must navigate two funding cycles. The first is a five-year grant period awarded to grantees on a competitive basis and contingent upon past program performance. Within this period, to receive annually authorized funding, grantees must submit non-competitive refunding applications that resemble progress reports on a yearly basis. For existing Head Start grantees, the majority of their funding is allocated through set base grants, which typically vary little from year to year. A small portion of funding is needs-based and distributed according to state-specific characteristics such as the child poverty population. For more details, see the timeline of changes in the Head Start funding formula, Head Start Funding Cycles and a discussion of the overall trends in the funding formula over time. Head Start federal appropriations are also allocated to activities that are not directly service-related. For example, Head Start allocates funds to research and evaluation activities, and awards collaboration grants to states in a push to improve collaboration and coordination among the many early childhood education (ECE) agencies and centers within each state.[31]

What am I? Clean Air Act Block grant
Categorical grant  project or formula Mandate BACKGROUND - The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants. First act passed in 1963 – has been amended several times. One of the goals of the Act was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975 in order to address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants. The setting of these pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards. The Act was amended in 1977 and 1990 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines. The Clean Air Act was the first major environmental law in the United States to include a provision for citizen suits. In the United States, a citizen suit is a lawsuit by a private citizen to enforce a statute.[1] Citizen suits are particularly common in the field of environmental law.[2] WHAT AM I? Mandate Although the 1990 Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country, the states do much of the work to carry out the Act. The EPA has allowed the individual states to elect responsibility for compliance with and regulation of the CAA within their own borders in exchange for funding. For example, a state air pollution agency holds a hearing on a permit application by a power or chemical plant or fines a company for violating air pollution limits. However, election is not mandatory and in some cases states have chosen to not accept responsibility for enforcement of the act and force the EPA to assume those duties. In order to take over compliance with the CAA the states must write and submit a state implementation plan (SIP) to the EPA for approval. A state implementation plan is a collection of the regulations a state will use to clean up polluted areas. The states are obligated to notify the public of these plans, through hearings that offer opportunities to comment, in the development of each state implementation plan. The SIP becomes the state's legal guide for local enforcement of the CAA. For example, Rhode Island law requires compliance with the Federal CAA through the SIP.[51] The SIP delegates permitting and enforcement responsibility to the state Department of Environmental Management (RI-DEM). The federal law recognizes that states should lead in carrying out the Clean Air Act, because pollution control problems often require special understanding of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. However, states are not allowed to have weaker pollution controls than the national minimum criteria set by EPA. EPA must approve each SIP, and if a SIP isn't acceptable, EPA can take over CAA enforcement in that state. The United States government, through the EPA, assists the states by providing scientific research, expert studies, engineering designs, and money to support clean air programs. Metropolitan planning organizations must approve all federally funded transportation projects in a given urban area. If the MPO's plans do not, Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration have the authority to withhold funds if the plans do not conform with federal requirements, including air quality standards.[52] In 2010, the EPA directly fined the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District $29 million for failure to meet ozone standards, resulting in fees for county drivers and businesses. This was the results of a federal appeals court case that required the EPA to continue enforce older, stronger standards,[53] and spurred debate in Congress over amending the Act.[54]

What am I? Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Block grant
Categorical grant  project or formula Mandate 1990 – George HW Bush Prevents discrimination against any person with a disability for jobs, school or transportation. WHAT AM I? Mandates (Google Video) (news story) (former Senator Tom Harkin)

What am I? School Breakfast Program (1966 version) Block grant
Categorical grant  project or formula Mandate Pilot version of the program Gives breakfast to children in need at school and child care facilities. Categorical Grant – (Formula) – “In cases of extreme need, the Secretary of Agriculture could approve reimbursement rates equivalent to 80 percent of the operating costs of such a program including costs of obtaining, preparing, and serving food. Schools were required to justify the need for the assistance. The breakfasts were required to meet the nutritional standards established by the Secretary of Agriculture, on the basis of tested nutritional research. Schools were required to serve the meal free of charge or at reduced charge to children who were unable to pay the full charge, and, as in the case of the school lunch program, there could be no segregation of, or discrimination against, any child because of inability to pay.”

What am I? Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block grant
Categorical grant  project or formula Mandate WHAT AM I? block grant “The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help needy families achieve self-sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program.”

Grants-in-aid Federal money given to the states
Allows the federal government to aid & influence states Federal perspective – the federal govt gains power by being able to influence areas that the federal govt does not have the constitutional authority to deal with State perspective PROS: states enjoy receiving federal money; can tax their own citizens less because of that federal money CONS: lose power because they have to comply with federal rules to receive the money

ENUMERATED/EXCLUSIVE/DELEGATED
CONCURRENT RESERVED Levy tariffs and taxes Regulate trade (interstate & foreign) Coin money Admit new states Set standard weights & measures Conduct foreign policy/relations Maintain armed forces Declare war Establish post offices Establish courts Maintain law and order Levy taxes Borrow money Charter banks Take land for public use (eminent domain) Provide for public welfare Define crimes and set punishments Establish local governments Establish and maintain schools Regulate business within the state Punish criminals Protect public health and safety Conduct elections License requirements for professionals Regulate alcoholic beverages Make marriage laws Assume other powers not delegated to the national government or prohibited to the states.

police powers powers to create and enforce laws on health, safety, & morals

Federalism in American History (& Cake Metaphors)
The relationship between the national governments and the state governments has changed over time

Early 1800s Most significant disputes
differing interpretations of implied powers under the necessary and proper clause commerce Supreme Court settles these disputes McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Disputes over the boundaries of national versus state powers have characterized our nation from the beginning. Supreme Court was led by Chief Justice John Marshall from He was a Federalist who advocated for a strong national govt. Court cases that are considered milestones on the movement toward national government supremacy: McCulloch v. Maryland – the govt. of Maryland imposed a tax on the Second Bank of the United States (a national bank) in Baltimore in an attempt to put that branch out of business. The bank’s cashier (McCulloch) refused to pay the tax. When Maryland took him to court (at the state level), Maryland won. The national government appealed the case to the SC. Constitutional question: Does the national government have the implied power under the necessary and proper clause to charter a bank and contribute capital to it? The court held that if establishing a national bank aided the national government in the exercise of its designated powers, then the authority to set up such a bank could be implied. Constitutional question: If the bank was constitutional, could a state tax it (made invalid under the supremacy clause)? No state could use its taxing power to tax an arm of the national government. If it could, “the declaration that the Constitution Shall be the supreme law of the land is an empty and unmeaning statement.” (Marshall) THIS CASE ESTABLISHED NATIONAL GOVT SUPREMACY

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Chief Justice Background Ruling
Constitutional issue & significance Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston – secured a monopoly on steam navigation on the waters in New York state from the NY legislature in 1803. They made a contract with Aaron Ogden to operate a steam-powered ferry between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons decided to compete with Ogden and was given a license from the U.S. government, but he did so without permission from New York. Ogden sued Gibbons and the NY state courts granted an injunction prohibiting Gibbons from operating in NY waters. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. Constitutional Question: How does the constitution define the term commerce? Marshall defined commerce as all commercial intercourse (all business dealings) including navigation and the transportation of people Should the national government’s power to regulate interstate commerce extend to commerce within a state (intrastate commerce) OR was it limited strictly to commerce among the states (interstate commerce)? Marshall held that the commerce power of the federal govt could be exercised in state jurisdictions, even though it cannot reach solely intrastate commerce. Is the power to regulate interstate commerce a concurrent power or an exclusive national power? Marshall emphasized that the power to regulate interstate commerce was an exclusive national power Marshall’s expansive interpretation of the commerce clause allowed the national government to exercise increasing authority over all areas of economic affairs throughout the land. A New York state law gave Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a 20-year monopoly over navigation on waters within state jurisdiction. Aaron Ogden and other competitors tried to forestall the monopoly, but Livingston and Fulton largely succeeded in selling franchise or buying competitors’ boats. Thomas Gibbons -- a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license – formed a partnership with Ogden, which fell apart after three years when Gibbons operated another steamboat on a New York route belonging to Ogden. Ogden filed suit against Gibbons in New York state court, and received a permanent injunction The New York state court rejected Gibbons’ argument asserting that U.S. Congress controlled interstate commerce.

The Civil War Jacksonian Era (1829-1837) Evolution of Federalism
shift back towards states’ rights nullification crisis Evolution of Federalism Dual Federalism Cooperative Federalism New Federalism At the heart of the controversy that led to the Civil War, was the issue of national government supremacy versus the rights of individual states. Jacksonian era A shift back to states’ rights began Nullification crisis – Congress passed a tariff in 1828, the state of South Carolina attempted to nullify the tariff, claiming that in cases of conflict between a state and national government, the state should have the ultimate authority over its citizens. Ironically, the Civil War which was brought about in large part because of the South’s desire for increased states’ rights, resulted in the opposite – an increase in the political power of the national government. The debate over the division of powers in our federal system can be viewed as progressing through at least three stages since the civil war

Dual Federalism A system in which both the states and the national government remain supreme within their own spheres, each responsible for some policies Like a layer cake Narrowly interpreted powers of federal government Ended in the 1930s with FDR Kelsey Falkowski No overlap; Each level of government did their own thing – did not meddle in one another’s affairs. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT EXERCISING ITS POWER INDEPENDENTLY FROM STATE GOVERNMENTS A doctrine that emphasizes a distinction between federal and state spheres of government authority. Commonly depicted as a layer cake, because the state governments and the national government are viewed as separate entities like the separate layers in a cake. During this time, the Courts tended to support states’ rights to exercise their police powers and concurrent powers in regard to the regulation of intrastate activities.

Cooperative Federalism
A system of government in which powers and policy assignments are shared between states and the national government Like a marble cake Shared costs & administration – national and state agencies work together States follow federal guidelines Ideological alignment Dual federalism (more conservative) Cooperative federalism (more liberal) The Great Depression saw the doctrine of dual federalism recede. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECOMES MORE INTRUSIVE IN WHAT HAD BEEN TYPICALLY THE DOMAIN OF STATE GOVERNMENTS Public works programs brought the federal government into cities. Public policy became more of a sharing between the federal and state levels of government. The national government would provide the money, state governments would administer the programs. The states and the national government cooperate in solving complex common problems. New metaphor – marble cake. Marshall’s broad interpretation of the commerce clause  the commerce clause has been used to justify national regulation of virtually any activity, even what would appear to be a purely local activity. The commerce clause has also been used to validate congressional legislation in what would seem to be social and moral matters – concerns traditionally regulated by states.

New Federalism President Nixon (1969-1974)
transferring responsibility for policies from the federal government to state and local governments devolution – the transfer of power to political subunits Reaganomics reducing the size of the bureaucracy he believed there was too much federal control Kelsey Falkowski Nixon video - no guarantee of financial support  What does this mean?

Since 1992 . . . President Clinton focused on deficit reduction
The Rhenquist Court Affirmed the ability of the nat’l govt to pass along programs to the states In areas such as abortion and carrying out the death penalty, states can and should act on their own Contract with America Republicans pushed for devolution Bush 2 & Obama Republicans – tend to support downsizing the government and returning powers to the states George W. Bush Proponent of devolution Size of the federal government grew during his two terms Federal budget grew; record deficits; recession Barack Obama Proposals to end the recession came into conflict with devolution Favored massive government spending and a return to increased government regulation of the banking and housing industries Mid-term – Republicans gained a majority in the House; the Tea Party gains support  urged Obama to reduce federal spending

Welcome back! Weekend HW – Today’s Agenda Next week
essay ”Is the U.S. too big to govern?” and reflection questions (be prepared to discuss on Tuesday) Federalism test Monday 10/22 review textbook chapter 3 & all handouts and notes Today’s Agenda U.S. v. Lopez Education policy Immigration policy Next week Federalism scavenger hunt (first half of block period) Gun control Supreme Court Essay (AP Exam Prep)

United States v. Lopez (1995)
Chief Justice Background Ruling Constitutional issue & significance The Supreme Court held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the commerce clause when it passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. 5-4 decision – law prohibiting the possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school was unconstitutional based on a misuse of federal authority This marked the first time in 60 years that the Supreme Court had placed a limit on the national government’s authority under the commerce clause.

Revenue Sharing Federal money given to states with no strings attached
States could use the money for ANYTHING that they wanted No longer used today – instead we have categorical and block grants In 1972, the Nixon Administration initiated a practice called revenue sharing, in which the federal government gave money to the states with no restrictions attached whatsoever. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter relied less on revenue sharing, which disappeared completely in the 1980s during the Reagan Administration. The federal government uses a number of tactics to compel states to follow its policies and guidelines. Congress can order states to comply but usually applies pressure more subtly by threatening to withhold funds from disobedient states.

Horizontal Federalism
the ways state governments relate to one another states compete or cooperate on various issues Horizontal Federalism refers to the ways state governments relate to one another. States often compete or cooperate on many different issues, from environmental policy to economic development. One state, for example, may lower its tax rate in order to attract businesses away from other states. States have a great deal of leeway in how they behave toward one another.

preemption all laws passed by the national government take priority over state and local laws the national government can override state laws if it can demonstrate a compelling national interest Because of the supremacy clause, all laws passed by the national government take priority over state and local laws. The national government, then, can override state laws if it can demonstrate a compelling national interest; this practice is called Preemption.

South Dakota v. Dole In 1984, Congress enacted legislation ordering the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law. Question for the Court Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the Twenty-first Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age? In 1984, Congress enacted legislation ordering the Secretary of Transportation to withhold five percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law. Did Congress exceed its spending powers, or violate the Twenty-first Amendment, by passing legislation conditioning the award of federal highway funds on the states' adoption of a uniform minimum drinking age? No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states' drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the Twenty-first Amendment's limitations on spending power were not prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly. The five percent loss of highway funds was not unduly coercive.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
2002 law signed by George W. Bush grant program Mandated testing of elementary and secondary school students to assess their proficiency in math and reading set 2014 as the deadline for 100% of students to achieve math and reading proficiency

State governments were responsible for creating and paying for standardized proficiency tests States and school districts were responsible for creating, paying for, and implementing educational programs that would foster proficiency School districts that failed to meet the national standards lost some federal grant money

As the 2014 deadline approached, states and school districts claimed the standards set forth by NCLB were unrealistic. They requested and received waivers.

waivers exemptions from particular conditions normally attached to grants Map – NCLB waivers

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
2015 law signed by Barack Obama mandatory proficiency testing continues Devolution of policy responsibilities states and school districts establish their own performance standards Prohibits national government from imposing academic requirements threatening the loss of national grant money for poorly performing schools

Immigration Policy immigration has traditionally been viewed as the responsibility of the national government state and local governments have taken action in recent years 2015 Paris terrorist attacks – concerns about refugees governors of at least 30 states requested that the national govt. stop accepting Syrian refugees – because at least one of the terrorists had entered France posing as a Syrian refugee 8 states said that they would not allow Syrian refugees to move into their states Texas sued the national government Mike Pence (gov. of Indiana) was sued by the ACLU – national government has exclusive power over immigration The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Indiana, on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, filed suit against Governor Mike Pence and the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to stop attempts to suspend resettlement of Syrian refugees, claiming the governor’s actions violate the United States Constitution and federal law. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of Exodus RefugeeImmigration, Inc., seeks an injunction to stop the governor from taking any actions to suspend,block or withhold aid from refugees or fromExodus. Exodus is a nonprofit corporation that receives federal money through the state’s Office of Refugee Programs, located within the Family and Social Services Administration, to assist in resettlement of federally approved and screened refugees. The funds are used to assist with employment training, English language education and other services. On February 29, 2016 a federal court denied Indiana's effort to prevent resettlement of Syrian refugee families. Exodus has settled 892 refugees, including some from Syria, in the past fiscal year, and is projected to settle approximately that number next year, including 19 Syrians approved for refugee status by the federal government that have been placed with Exodus and who are expected to arrive in Indiana in the next few weeks or months. UPDATE October 3, 2016: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling that blocked Indiana's effort to prevent resettlement of Syrian refugee families. The ruling is here:

AP Government Ms. Ozzimo

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "AP Government Ms. Ozzimo"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

AP Government Ms. Ozzimo

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "AP Government Ms. Ozzimo"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback