1. Chapter Three Section 3 Federalism

2. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 2 Sovereign Immunity Chisolm v. Georgia (1793) NO sovereign immunity in Constitution 11 th Amendment (1794)

3. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 3 11 th Amendment The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

4. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 4 Sovereign Immunity Hans v. Louisiana (1890) federal courts may stop state officials from violating federal law Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) citizens may sue their own state for anything entitled to under federal law.

5. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 5 Sovereign Immunity Supreme Court has recently strengthened the Eleventh Amendment Alden v. Maine (1999), compliance with federal fair labor laws Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority (2002), states did not agree to become mere appendages of national government and the Federal government cannot force the consent of the states to be sued in equity

6. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 6 Municipalities Cities, towns, counties, and districts have no Constitutional protections. They exist at the pleasure of the state government. –Municipal Corporations Dillon’s Rule: Express, Implied, or Essential –General Act Charter –Special Act Charter Home-Rule Charter

7. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 7 Grants Began as Land Grants for schools, roads, other infrastructure In 1808, direct money given to states to pay militia A way around strict interpretation: Congress could not spend money on anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution Expanded such that now 20% of state money comes directly from the Federal Government

8. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 8 Grants in Aid Grants were attractive to state officials for various reasons –Federal government was wealthier –Federal government could print money, sell bonds –Federal money was ‘free’ money

9. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 9 Meeting National Needs 1960s shift –state and local governments had become dependent on federal funds (20% of funding) –Federal legislators moved funds from what states demanded to what they considered important as national needs

10. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 10 Figure 3.2: The Changing Purpose of Federal Grants to State and Local Governments Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2005, table 12.2.

11. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 11 Figure 3.3: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, 1984-2004 Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Historical Tables, table 6.1, and Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2005, table 12.1.

12. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 12 Federal Aid and Federal Control Categorical grants Mandates Block Grants Revenue Sharing

13. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 13 Federal Aid and Federal Control Categorical grants for specific purposes defined by federal law; often require local matching funds (90/10) –Conditions of aid: tell state governments what they must do if they wish to receive grant money

14. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 14 Federal Aid and Federal Control Mandates: federal rules that states or localities must obey, generally have little or nothing to do with federal aid –Environmental –Civil Rights (Voting Rights Act, ADA) Race, religion, gender, origin, disability –Educational? (NCLB) Legislative or Judicial Recent court cases have limited mandates

15. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 15 Grants in Aid Required broad congressional coalitions with wide dispersion of funds, because every state had incentive to seek grant money Leads to –Special Interest Effect –Intergovernmental Lobbying –Pork barrel spending earmarks –Log rolling

16. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 16 Intergovernmental Lobbying State and local officials lobby in DC: The Big 7 –U.S. Conference of Mayors –National Governors Association –National Association of Counties –National League of Cities –Council of State Governments –International City/County Management Association –National Conference of State Legislatures Purpose: to get more federal money with fewer strings

17. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 17 Richard Nixon 1968-1974 “Impounding Funds” – used by Jefferson Unconstitutional –Train v. City of New York, 1975 –Equivalent to Line Item Veto violates Article I, section 7 and 8

18. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 18 Ronald Reagan 1980-1988 The New Federalism Deregulation Devolution Block Grants Revenue Sharing

19. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 19 Devolution Devolution initiatives returned program management to the states, with some federal guidelines, but there is no guarantee of federal support Devolution proponents harbor a deep-seated ideological mistrust of federal government and believe that state governments are more responsive to the people Deficit politics encouraged devolution Devolution is supported by public opinion, but the strength of that support is uncertain

20. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 20 Block Grants and Revenue Sharing Block grants (sometimes called special revenue sharing or broad-based aid) devoted to general purposes with few restrictions—states preferred block to categorical grants –Operational, Capital, and Entitlement –Cities (CDBG), Law Enforcement (LEAA), Social Programs (CETA): Unemployment and Welfare (AFDC) Revenue sharing (GRS) requires no matching funds and can be spent on almost any governmental purpose. –Determined by statistical formula

21. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 21 Bill Clinton 1992-2000 Gradual elimination of Revenue Sharing Freeze on Block Grants Increase in Categorical Grants Line Item Veto (failed)

22. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 22 George W. Bush 2000-2008 Attempt to increase Block Grants Substantial increase in earmarks –55,000 worth $100 billion –But make up less up less than 1% of the federal budget

23. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.3 | 23 Congress and Federalism Members of Congress represent conflicting constituencies The erosion of parties increases political competition Americans differ in the extent to which we like federal versus local decisions